Tag: Theresa May

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at the British Academy in London on 9 September 2016.

When I stood in Downing Street as Prime Minister for the first time this summer, I set out my mission to build a country that works for everyone. Today I want to talk a little more about what that means and lay out my vision for a truly meritocratic Britain that puts the interests of ordinary, working class people first.

We are facing a moment of great change as a nation. As we leave the European Union, we must define an ambitious new role for ourselves in the world. That involves asking ourselves what kind of country we want to be: a confident, global trading nation that continues to play its full part on the world stage.

But at the same time, I believe we have a precious opportunity to step back and ask some searching questions about what kind of country we want to be here at home too.

In fact, it’s not just an opportunity, but a duty. Because one thing is clear. When the British people voted in the referendum, they did not just choose to leave the European Union. They were also expressing a far more profound sense of frustration about aspects of life in Britain and the way in which politics and politicians have failed to respond to their concerns.

Some voted for the first time in more than 30 years. Some for the first time ever. And they were inspired to do so because they saw a chance to reject the politics of ‘business as usual’ and to demand real, profound change.

Fed up with being ignored or told that their priorities were somehow invalid, based on ignorance and misunderstanding, or even on occasion that they were simply wrong to voice the concerns that they did, they took their opportunity to send a very clear message: they will not be ignored anymore.

They want to take back control of the things that matter in their lives. They want a government that listens, understands and is on their side. They want change. And this government is going to deliver it.

Everything we do will be driven, not by the interests of the privileged few. Not by those with the loudest voices, the special interests, the greatest wealth or the access to influence. This government’s priorities are those of ordinary, working class people. People for whom life sometimes can be a struggle, but who get on with things without complaint.

They get on with their jobs – sometimes 2 or even 3 of them – because they have families to feed and support, bills to pay and because to work for a fair reward is the right thing to do.

They get on with their lives quietly, going about their business, going out to work, raising families, helping neighbours, making their communities what they are.

They don’t ask for much, but they want to know that the people that make the big decisions are on their side, working for them. They want to believe that everyone plays by the same rules and things are fair.

And above all they want to believe that if they uphold their end of the deal – they do the right thing, they work hard, they pay their taxes – then tomorrow will be better than today and their children will have a fair chance in life, the chance to go as far as their talents will take them.

These are not outrageous demands or ridiculous desires, but for too many of these people today life does not seem fair. They are the people who made real sacrifices after the financial crash in 2008, though they were in no way responsible.

They wonder if others – some of whom really do bear responsibility for the crash – did the same.

More than anything else, they worry – truly worry – that the changing world around them means that their children and grandchildren won’t have the same opportunities they have enjoyed in life.

They deserve a better deal.

And to give them that, we should take this opportunity to step back and pose a fundamental question: what kind of country – what kind of society – do we want to be?

I am clear about the answer.

I want Britain to be the world’s great meritocracy – a country where everyone has a fair chance to go as far as their talent and their hard work will allow.

I want us to be a country where everyone plays by the same rules; where ordinary, working class people have more control over their lives and the chance to share fairly in the prosperity of the nation.

And I want Britain to be a place where advantage is based on merit not privilege; where it’s your talent and hard work that matter, not where you were born, who your parents are or what your accent sounds like.

Let us not underestimate what it will take to create that great meritocracy. It means taking on some big challenges, tackling some vested interests. Overcoming barriers that have been constructed over many years.

It means not being afraid to think differently about what disadvantage means, who we want to help and how we can help them. Because where once we reached for simple ways of labelling people disadvantaged and were quick to pose simple – and often fairly blunt – solutions, in these modern times disadvantage is much more complex.

It’s often hidden and less easy to identify. It’s caused by factors that are more indirect and tougher to tackle than ever before.

But tackle it we must if we are to give ordinary, working class people the better deal they deserve.

It means marking a significant shift in the way that government works in Britain too. Because government and politicians have for years talked the language of social justice – where we help the very poorest – and social mobility – where we help the brightest among the poor.

But to make Britain a great meritocracy, we must move beyond this agenda and deliver real social reform across every layer of society so that those whom the system would currently miss – those just above the threshold for help today yet those who are by no means rich or well off – are given the help they need.

It means putting government firmly on the side of not only the poorest in our society, important though that is and will remain, but also of those in Britain who are working hard but just about managing. It means helping to make their lives a little easier; giving them greater control over the issues they care about the most.

This is the change we need. It will mean changing some of the philosophy underpinning how government thinks and acts. It will mean recalibrating how we approach policy development to ensure that everything we do as government helps to give a fair chance to those who are just getting by – while still helping those who are even more disadvantaged.

I don’t pretend this change will be easy – change rarely is – but this is the change we need if we are to make Britain the great meritocracy I want it to be.

Over the coming weeks and months the government will set out an ambitious programme of economic and social reform that will help us make this change and build a true meritocracy in our country.

But there is no more important place to start than education. Because if the central concern ordinary working class people have is that their children will not enjoy the same opportunities they have had in life, we need to ensure that there is a good school place for every child, and education provision that caters to the individual needs and abilities of every pupil.

Schools that work for everyone

We start from a position of strength. This government has a proud record of school reform. We have opened up the system, introducing a real diversity of provision. We have schools where teachers and headteachers are free to make the decisions that are best for them.

And through successful policies such as a renewed focus on learning the basics of reading in primary schools, and initiatives to help young people pursue a strong academic core of subjects at secondary level, we are ensuring that every child has the opportunity to develop the core knowledge that underpins everything else.

We have put control in the hands of parents and headteachers, and encouraged people from all walks of life who are passionate about education to bring their best ideas and innovations to our school system.

The Academies and Free Schools movement overseen by pioneers such as Andrew Adonis and Michael Gove has been a huge success and begun to build an education system fit for the future.

As a result, there are more good or outstanding schools today than ever before in our country. And there are now more than 1.4 million more pupils in schools rated good or outstanding than in 2010.

Our curriculum reforms mean that the proportion of pupils taking core academic subjects at GCSE is up by almost 4-fifths. We are driving up school standards to match the best international comparisons, with a record number of pupils securing a place at one of our world-class universities this summer. We can be proud of these achievements but there is still a long way to go.

Because for too many children, a good school remains out of reach. There are still 1.25 million attending primary and secondary schools in England which are rated by Ofsted as requiring improvement or inadequate. If schools across the north and Midlands had the same average standards as those in the south, nearly 200,000 more children would be attending good schools.

Let’s be honest about what these statistics mean.

They mean that for far too many children in Britain, the chance they have in life is determined by where they live or how much money their parents have.

And they mean that for far too many ordinary working class people, no matter how hard they work, how many hours they put in or how many sacrifices they make, they cannot be confident that their children will get the chances they deserve.

For when you are working 2 jobs and struggling to make ends meet, it is no good being told that you can choose a better school for your children if you move to a different area or pay to go private. Those aren’t choices that you can make. And they are not choices that you should have to make.

So we need to go further, building on and extending our reforms so that we can truly say that there will be a good school place for every child, and one that caters to their individual needs.

But as we do it, we also need to change our philosophy and approach, because at the moment the school system works if you’re well off and can buy your way into the school you want, and it provides extra help and support if you’re from a disadvantaged family.

If you’re eligible for free school meals, and your parents earn less than £16,000 a year, then there is extra help on offer. That is good and right – and as long as I am Prime Minister, the pupil premium for the poorest children will remain.

But the free school meals measure only captures a relatively small number of pupils, whose parents are on income-related benefits.

If we are going to make the change we need and build a great meritocracy in Britain, we need to broaden our perspective and do more for the hidden disadvantaged: children whose parents are on modest incomes, who do not qualify for such benefits but who are, nevertheless, still only just getting by.

If you’re earning 19, 20, 21 thousand pounds a year, you’re not rich. You’re not well off. And you should know you have our support too.

At the moment there is no way to differentiate between the school experience of children from these families and those from the wealthiest 10%.

Policy has been skewed by the focus only on those in receipt of free school meals, when the reality is that there are thousands of children from ordinary working class families who are being let down by the lack of available good school places.

Putting this right means finding a way to identify these children and measuring their attainment and progress within the school system. That work is underway and is central to my vision of a school system that truly works for everyone.

But we must also deliver a radical increase in the capacity of the school system so that these families can be sure of their children getting good school places.

And this is really important. Because I don’t just want to see more school places but more good school places. And I don’t just want to see more new schools, but more good new schools that each in their way contribute to a diversity of provision that caters to the needs and abilities of each individual child, whoever they are and wherever they are from.

Every child should be given the opportunity to develop the crucial academic core. And thanks to our reforms that is increasingly the case. But people understand that every child is different too, with different talents, different interests, different dreams. To help them realise their potential and achieve those dreams we need a school system with the capacity and capability to respond to what they need.

School capacity

So as we radically expand the number of good school places available to all families – not just those who can afford to buy an expensive house, pay for an expensive private school, or fund the extra tuition their child needs to succeed – I want to encourage more people, schools and institutions with something to offer to come forward and help.

In the last 6 years, we have seen individuals and communities put staggering amounts of time and effort into setting up good new schools. Some of the best state schools, charities, universities, private schools, and businesses have stepped forward to get involved.

And, increasingly, the best state schools are sponsoring the least good. This has been a revolution in our schools system.

But with 1.25 million children still attending schools that are struggling, we need to do much more to increase the capacity of the system so every child can get the education they deserve.

So let’s now build on the success of school reform, let’s encourage others to play their part, and let’s remove the barriers they face so we can do more.

Let’s sweep away those barriers and encourage more people to join us in the task of delivering a good school place for every child.

Let’s build a truly dynamic school system where schools and institutions learn from one another, support one another and help one another.

Let’s offer a diverse range of good schools that ensure the individual talents and abilities of every child are catered for.

That is my ambition.

And there are 4 specific proposals I want to talk about today that I believe will help.

Universities

Firstly, I want to build on the success we have already experienced when some of our great universities have stepped in to help by sponsoring or supporting a local school.

Universities have a huge amount to offer England’s schools. They have been part of the fabric of our education system since the 13th century and have had a profound impact on our schools over generations.

Recently we have seen The University of Cambridge establish The University of Cambridge Primary School and The University of Birmingham open an impressive new free school for secondary school pupils and sixth formers.

The new specialist Sixth Form, King’s College London Mathematics School, is already performing impressively and the University of Brighton is involved in sponsoring more than a dozen different primary and secondary schools.

These are the kinds of innovation I want to encourage. This kind of active engagement in building the capacity of our school system is in my view far more effective than spending huge sums on bursaries and other financial support that tackle the symptoms but not the cause.

The right for a university to charge the higher level of tuition fee has always been dependent on their ability to fulfil specified access requirements. And this year, in fulfilling these requirements, they are expected to spend over £400 million on bursaries and other forms of financial support for students.

Yet the evidence is clear: it is the attainment of pupils at school that is the over-riding factor in predicting access to university.

I am not saying there is no place for bursaries. But overall, I do think the balance has tilted too far. We need to go to the root of the problem, which is that there are not enough students from disadvantaged backgrounds and from ordinary families fulfilling their potential with the grades to get into the best universities.

So I want our universities to do more to help us to improve the quality of schools so that more students of all backgrounds have the grades, the subjects, and the confidence, to apply to top universities and to be successful in their exams in the first place.

So the government will reform university fair access requirements and say that universities should actively strengthen state school attainment – by sponsoring a state school or setting up a new free school. And over time we will extend this to the sponsorship or establishment of more than one school, so that in the future we see our universities sponsoring thriving school chains in every town and city in the country.

Faith schools

Second, I want to remove the obstacles that stop more good faith schools from opening.

Britain has a long history of faith schools delivering outstanding education. They already account for around a third of all mainstream schools in England. They are popular with parents and significantly more likely than other schools to be rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding.

I believe we should confidently promote them and the role they play in a diverse school system.

Yet for Catholic schools in particular there are barriers in their way. When a faith-designated free school is oversubscribed, it must limit the number of pupils it selects on the basis of faith to 50%.

The intention is to improve the diversity of the school’s intake but in practice it has little impact on many Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu schools because they tend not to appeal to parents of other faiths.

So despite the best intentions, the rule is failing in its objective to promote integration. But it does prevent new Catholic schools opening, because the Catholic Church believes it contravenes its own rules for a Catholic bishop not to prioritise the admission of Catholic pupils.

This is especially frustrating because existing Catholic schools are more ethnically diverse than other faith schools, more likely to be located in deprived communities, more likely to be rated good or outstanding by Ofsted, and there is growing demand for them.

So we will remove this 50% rule to allow the growth in capacity that Catholic schools can offer. Instead we will consult on a new set of much more effective requirements to ensure that faith schools are properly inclusive and make sure their pupils mix with children of other faiths and backgrounds.

Of course, there must be strict and properly enforced rules to ensure that every new faith school operates in a way that supports British values. And we should explore new ways of using the school system to promote greater integration within our society generally.

We will encourage the grouping together of mono-racial and mono-religious schools within wider multi-racial and multi-religious trusts. This will make it easier for children from different backgrounds in more divided communities to mix between schools, while respecting religious differences.

We will explore ways in which schools can enter into twinning arrangements with other schools not of their faith, through sharing lessons or joint extra-curricular activities to bring young people from different schools together.

And we will consult on the idea of placing an independent member or director who is of a different faith or no faith at all on the governing body of new faith schools.

We will also explore new requirements for new faith schools to prove that parents of other faiths would be happy to send their children to the school through a proper process of consultation.

But fundamentally I believe it is wrong to deny families the opportunity to send their children to a school that reflects their religious values if that’s what they choose. And it’s right to encourage faith communities – especially those with a proven record of success, like the Catholics – to play their full part in building the capacity of our schools.

Independent schools

Third, I want to encourage some of our biggest independent schools to bring their knowledge, expertise and resources to bear to help improve the quality and capacity of schools for those who cannot afford to pay.

This is entirely in keeping with the ethos that lies at the heart of many of these institutions. Most of the major public schools started out as the route by which poor boys could reach the professions. The nature of their intake may have changed today – indeed these schools have become more and more divorced from normal life.

Between 2010 and 2015 their fees rose 4 times faster than average earnings growth, while the percentage of their pupils who come from overseas has gone up by 33% since 2008. But I know that their commitment to giving something back to the wider community remains.

These are great schools with a lot to offer and I certainly don’t believe you solve the divide between the rich and the rest by abolishing or demolishing them. You do it by extending their reach and asking them to do more as a condition of their privileged position to help all children.

Through their charitable status, private schools collectively reduce their tax bills by millions every year. And I want to consult on how we can amend Charity Commission guidance for independent schools to enact a tougher test on the amount of public benefit required to maintain charitable status.

It’s important to state that this will be proportionate to the size and scale of the school in question. Not every school is an Eton or a Harrow. Many public schools are nowhere near that size.

Smaller independent schools who do not have the capacity to take on full sponsorship of a local state school will be asked to provide more limited help such as direct school-to-school support where appropriate. This could include supporting teaching in minority subjects such as further maths or classics, which state schools often struggle to make viable. It could include ensuring their senior leaders become directors of multi-academy trusts; providing greater access to their facilities and providing sixth-form scholarships to a proportion of pupils in year 11 at each local school.

But for those with the capacity and capability, we will ask them to go further and actually sponsor or set up a new government-funded school in the state sector and take responsibility for running it and ensuring its success.

Alternatively, we will ask them to fund a number of places at their own school themselves for those from modest backgrounds who cannot afford to pay the fees.

We know this can work. For example, Westminster School is the key partner in sponsoring Harris Westminster Sixth Form, where students at the free school share the facilities and teaching expertise of Westminster School.

In my own constituency, Eton College sponsors Holyport College, offering Holyport pupils access to its sports facilities and the chance to join its educational activities.

And before it became a state-funded academy, Belvedere School in Liverpool worked with the Sutton Trust to create an Open Access Scheme where places were awarded purely on the basis of academic merit, and parents were then asked to pay on a sliding scale of fees fairly tailored according to their means.

I want all independent schools with the appropriate capacity and capability to take these kinds of steps.

I want them to play a major role in creating more good school places for children from ordinary working families; because this government is about a Britain that works for everyone – not just a privileged few.

Selective schools

There is one final area where we have placed obstacles in the way of good new schools – obstacles that I believe we need to take away.

The debate over selective schools has raged for years. But the only place it has got us to is a place where selection exists if you’re wealthy – if you can afford to go private – but doesn’t exist if you’re not. We are effectively saying to poorer and some of the most disadvantaged children in our country that they can’t have the kind of education their richer counterparts can enjoy.

What is ‘just’ about that? Where is the meritocracy in a system that advantages the privileged few over the many? How can a meritocratic Britain let this situation stand?

Politicians – many of whom benefited from the very kind of education they now seek to deny to others – have for years put their own dogma and ideology before the interests and concerns of ordinary people. For we know that grammar schools are hugely popular with parents. We know they are good for the pupils that attend them. Indeed, the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils is reduced to almost zero for children in selective schools. And we know that they want to expand.

They provide a stretching education for the most academically able, regardless of their background, and they deliver outstanding results.

In fact, 99% of existing selective schools are rated good or outstanding – and 80% are outstanding, compared with just 20% of state schools overall.

So we help no one – not least those who can’t afford to move house or pay for a private education – by saying to parents who want a selective education for their child that we won’t let them have it.

There is nothing meritocratic about standing in the way of giving our most academically gifted children the specialist and tailored support that can enable them to fulfil their potential. In a true meritocracy, we should not be apologetic about stretching the most academically able to the very highest standards of excellence.

We already have selection to help achieve this in specialist disciplines like music and sport, giving exceptionally talented young people access to the facilities and training that can help them become world class. I think we should have more of this. But we should also take the same approach to support the most academically gifted too.

Frankly, it is completely illogical to make it illegal to open good new schools. So I want to relax the restrictions that stop selective schools from expanding, that deny parents the right to have a new selective school opened where they want one, and that stop existing non-selective schools to become selective in the right circumstances and where there is demand.

In return, we will ensure that these schools contribute meaningfully to raising outcomes for all pupils in every part of the system.

In practice this could mean taking a proportion of pupils from lower income households, so that selective education is not reserved for those with the means to move into a catchment area or pay for tuition to pass the test.

They could, as a condition of opening a new selective school, be asked to establish a good, new non-selective school. Others may be asked to establish a primary feeder school in an area with a high density of lower income households to widen access. They might even partner with an existing non-selective school within a multi-academy trust or sponsor a currently underperforming non-selective academy.

But the principle is clear: selective schools have a part to play in helping to expand the capacity of our school system and they have the ability to cater to the individual needs of every child. So the government will make up to £50 million a year available to support the expansion of good or outstanding existing grammars.

Now I know this will be the source of much debate in the consultation over the coming months, so I want to address very directly some of the key arguments made by those who oppose the expansion of grammar schools.

First, there are those who fear this could lead to the return of a binary system, as we had in the past with secondary moderns. But this fear is unfounded: there will be no return to secondary moderns.

As I have set out today, far from a binary system we are supporting the most diverse school system we have ever had in our country.

From free schools sponsored by universities and independent schools, to faith schools and selective schools, the diversity of high quality school provision means we will be able to cater properly for the different needs of all pupils and give parents real control over the kind of school they want for their children.

We do not want to see whole new parts of the country where the choice of schools is binary. So we will use the approvals process to prevent that from happening.

Second, there are those who argue that selective schools tend to recruit children from more affluent backgrounds. The problem here is not selective schools per se but rather the way that wealthier families can already dominate access to the schools of their choice through selection by house price. I want to stop that and new grammars can help.

We are going to ask new grammars to demonstrate that they will attract pupils from different backgrounds, for example as I said, by taking a proportion of children from lower income households. And existing grammars will be expected to do more too – by working with local primary schools to help children from more disadvantaged backgrounds to apply.

Third, there are those who argue that grammars don’t actually select on ability because wealthy families can pay tutors to help their children get through the tests. This might have been the case in the past with the old 11-plus. But it does not have to be the case today.

While there is no such thing as a tutor-proof test, many selective schools are already employing much smarter tests that assess the true potential of every child. So new grammars will be able to select in a fair and meritocratic way, not on the ability of parents to pay.

Fourth, there are those who worry about the cliff-edge of selection at 11. Some fear it is too early, some fear it is too late. The truth is that it doesn’t have to be a cliff-edge at all. This is back in the old mindset of the grammar schools of the past. A modern, meritocratic education system needs to be much more flexible and agile to respond to the needs of every child. So we will demand that new grammars make the most of their freedom to be flexible over how students move between schools, encouraging this to happen at different ages such as 14 and 16 as well as 11.

This means that children who are at a non-selective school sponsored by a grammar might join the grammar for specific subjects or specialisms where they themselves are outstanding – or they might move to the grammar full-time later than aged 11, based on their performance at their current school.

Finally, people get lost in the argument about whether the grammars schools of the 1950s and 60s improved social mobility or not. But I want to focus on the new grammars of the future: those that will be just one element of a truly diverse system which taken as a whole can give every child the support they need to go as far as their talents can take them. And give every parent access to a good school place for their child.

This is the true test of schools that work for everyone. And the true test of a meritocratic society.

The great meritocracy

There has been a lot of speculation in the last few weeks, but as you now know this is not a proposal to go back to a binary model of grammars and secondary moderns but to build on our increasingly diverse schools system. It is not a proposal to go back to the 1950s but to look to the future, and that future I believe is an exciting one.

It is a future in which every child should have access to a good school place. And a future in which Britain’s education system shifts decisively to support ordinary working class families.

These families are not asking for the world. They just want to know that their children and grandchildren will enjoy the opportunities they have enjoyed and be given the chance to go as far as their talents will take them. Unhindered by background or circumstance. And by the artificial barriers some want to put in their way.

In a country that works for everyone it doesn’t matter where you were born, or how much your parents earn. If you work hard and do the right thing, you will be able to go as far as you can.

I want this country to be a great meritocracy. I want to see more houses built, better productivity so we can have more well-paid jobs, more economic growth not just in the south-east of England but across the whole country to help more people get on.

But more than anything else, I want to see children from ordinary, working class families given the chances their richer contemporaries take for granted. That means we need more great schools.

This is the plan to deliver them and to set Britain on the path to being the great meritocracy of the world.

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Bratislava, Slovakia, on 28 July 2016.

Thank you, Prime Minister, for welcoming me to Bratislava today. This is my first visit to your country.

As a close partner and current holder of the Presidency of the European Union, I wanted to come to Slovakia early on so that we could discuss how we make a success of Brexit and ensure an orderly departure.

It’s important to underline that while the UK is leaving the EU, we are not leaving Europe or withdrawing from the world. Britain will remain an outward-looking nation – a strong voice for liberal, free market principles and democratic values.

While we remain in the EU, we will continue to fully respect the rights and obligations of membership. And we will continue to be an active player, particularly on your Presidency’s priorities to advance the single market, and on security and foreign policy issues.

Once we have left the EU, we will continue to work with our partners across Europe, indeed Brexit is an opportunity to intensify those relations.

And just as we want Britain to succeed outside the EU, we want the EU to be strong and successful after we depart.

Today, we have talked about the bilateral relationship, our economic and security co-operation, and a range of international issues.

The trade and investment between our 2 countries is flourishing. UK exports to Slovakia rose 37% last year and companies like Jaguar Land Rover and Tesco are all investing here.

So, it matters to both of us that we maintain the closest possible economic relationship once the UK has left the European Union.

Of course, it will take time to define the nature of that relationship, which is why I have said that we will not trigger Article 50 before the end of the year.

We need to find a solution that addresses the concerns of the British people about free movement, while getting the best possible deal on trade in goods and services. We should be driven by what is in the best interests of the UK and what is going to work for the European Union, not by the models that already exist.

We also want to strengthen our security and defence co-operation.

Our armed forces have served alongside one another in Cyprus and Afghanistan and we will remain strong partners in NATO.

And the UK will continue to stand up for our eastern allies. Earlier this month, we agreed to deploy UK troops as part of an increase in the number of NATO troops present along our eastern flank.

And we will continue to send thousands of troops to train with Slovakia and our other NATO partners on a regular basis.

We’ve also discussed how we can work together with our European partners to respond to the migration crisis.

The EU’s collective approach in the Eastern Mediterranean has delivered a significant reduction in the numbers arriving on that route. It shows that returning illegal economic migrants to where they come from does have a deterrent effect and helps to break the business model of the people smugglers and traffickers.

But we both believe that the long term answer to this problem means doing more to tackle the root causes of migration, by working upstream in source and transit countries.

As part of the EU’s response, we’ve worked closely with Turkey. Their co-operation has been crucial, as indeed it is on counter-terrorism. And it is vital that this practical work continues.

Today, we have discussed the recent events there. The UK has condemned the attempted coup and called on everyone to respect and uphold Turkey’s democratic institutions. We continue to call for calm, for due process to be followed and for human rights to be respected.

In conclusion, this has been a valuable meeting.

It has underlined the importance of the UK’s relationships with member states from across the EU – whether large or small, new or old, east and west.

Our common interests and shared values will outlive the UK’s membership of the European Union. And together we must work to advance them, across Europe and around the world.

Robert Fico’s statement

Madam Prime Minister, welcome to Slovakia. I do hope that you will have lasting good memories from your short visit here to our country. Ladies and gentlemen, we just had a discussion which, quite obviously, dealt mainly with the issue of Brexit. Madam Prime Minister, I highly appreciate and value the fact that you took the trip to our small country on the occasion of holding the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union and that, on the same day, you will visit Poland, which is holding the presidency of the Visegrad Group of countries.

I would like to assure you firmly that we fully respect the decision that British voters have taken during the Brexit referendum. We take note of the decision, and we also understand that we have to face this decision and not turn our back against it. I think this is an opportunity; an opportunity for both sides to reimagine and redesign a new project of mutual relations, a project that will be equally attractive both to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the European Union.

As the country holding the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union, we take note of the fact that the United Kingdom will not launch Article 50 before the end of the year, and we understand that this procedure takes a certain time. We also take good note, and we positively respond to the decision of the United Kingdom to continue with its active involvement in EU affairs, and to continue to be an active member of the EU, until the last day of its membership in the community. I do hope that both the United Kingdom and the European Union will make the best use of the remaining time before triggering Article 50. We hope and we see that the United Kingdom will use this time before triggering Article 50 for redefining and also formulating a vision of its relations with the European Union.

On the other hand, as the country holding the rotating presidency, we hope to make the best use of the time before triggering Article 50 to redefine the vision for Europe, for the future for the remaining 27 member states, and also to offer a vision to our citizens. We simply have to offer a new vision to our people, otherwise we will see a further fragmentation and destabilisation of European political systems.

I tried to make the best use of the personal meeting we had today and I informed Madam Prime Minister about our intentions for the upcoming Bratislava summit in September. Namely, that we would like to focus especially on the issues of migration and safety, new forms and methods of communication between the European institutions and the general public. We also have to seriously reconsider how the European Union is acting as a global player. And also, we have to offer new projects and new schemes in the economic and social sphere. I’ve always said, and I would like to repeat it again, that the European Union seems to be falling in love with itself. We wanted to be the best in the world, but it seems that many regions in the world are far ahead of us. Let’s use Brexit as a good occasion for revaluating this development.

I’ve also had a chance to discuss with Madam Prime Minister the main topics of interest, the main strategic areas that Britain would like to discuss within its negotiations with the European Union. Quite clearly it’s going to be the issue of migration, although the perception British voters have is slightly different than how we perceive migration on the continent. So, then, the issue of migration is especially the issue of migrant workers from the EU in the United Kingdom. I’ve asked Madam Prime Minister to dedicate a special level of attention to Slovak nationals and citizens who work currently in the United Kingdom. The second area for discussions is obviously the access to the single market and the third area for discussion is the area of safety and security. The EU and the UK have to work together in the future in this field.

To conclude, I’d like to say that the meeting today only reconfirmed my opinion. There is a joint interest to create such a vision of the new relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union that will be attractive for both sides, for the United Kingdom and for the European Union. I’d like to thank Madam Prime Minister for this endeavour and also for this vision.

Question

On our armed forces. Only last week you have discussed at a possible nuclear deterrent in the Lower House of your Parliament. Are you ready to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the threat from Russia?

Prime Minister Theresa May

We have indeed, as you say, discussed the issues of our defence co-operation. I think that is very important and as I indicated, we want to continue with that co-operation. We have indeed had a significant vote recently in the House of Commons in our UK Parliament, to continue to renew our nuclear deterrent. I was asked in that debate whether I was prepared to use the nuclear deterrent, and my answer was yes.

Question

There are an estimated 90,000 Slovaks living and working in Britain and obviously free movement is one of the most crucial aspects of this country’s membership of the EU. Yet you said on several occasions that the British people have made their voice absolutely clear on free movement via the Brexit vote. It seems like this is a red line for both sides. Do you see any area for compromise?

Prime Minister Theresa May

Well, I think you’ve raised 2 issues there. First of all, yes, you’re correct. There are several tens of thousands Slovakian citizens living and working in the United Kingdom and I’ve been clear that I expect to be able to guarantee and protect the rights of Slovakian citizens and other EU citizens living in the UK, and would intend to be able to protect those rights. The only circumstances in which that wouldn’t be possible, would be if the rights of British citizens living and working in other parts of the European Union were not protected. I’m grateful we had a discussion over lunch and that concept of reciprocity, I think, is recognised.

On the question of free movement, there was a very clear message from the British people in the Brexit vote that they did not want free movement to continue as it had done previously. They do want some control in the movement of others coming from the European Union into the UK, and we will be obviously looking to deliver that as part of our negotiations as well as looking for the best possible deal in trade and goods and services. And I think it’s in the interest of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we’re able to see a smooth and orderly process of negotiation, leading to a smooth and orderly exit for the UK. And that we do see that we get maximum benefit in economic terms when the UK has left the European Union.

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in London on 26 July 2016.

Let me start by offering my condolences to the French people following the sickening attack in Northern France this morning. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected.

I am delighted to welcome the Taoiseach here today.

It is testament to the importance of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland that Enda is amongst the first leaders that I have met since I took office. In recent years the relationship between both our countries has gone from strength to strength, building on the success of Her Majesty the Queen’s historic visit to Ireland in 2011.

Now, as we contemplate the nature of our bilateral co-operation once the United Kingdom has left the European Union, I want to underline my personal commitment to nurturing this relationship.

We must make a success of Brexit and together ensure that we maximise the opportunities for both our countries. That’s why our discussions today have focused on Brexit; the particular impact on the Republic of Ireland and what this means for our economic relationship, travel between our countries and the peace process.

And let me say a few words on each.

Economic relationship

First, the economic relationship. Trade between the United Kingdom and Ireland is worth almost £1 billion each week, supporting 400,000 jobs across our islands.

These economic benefits matter to people across both countries. That’s why we have agreed today that we both want to maintain the closest possible economic relationship in the future.

Of course this means there will be a number of complex issues to address. We should take time now to study the options and to strive for practical solutions.

And I have reiterated to the Taoiseach my commitment to involving the Northern Ireland Executive fully in those preparations.

Common travel area

I recognise that one of the biggest concerns for people is the common travel area. As I said yesterday, we benefitted from a common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland for many years before either country was a member of the EU.

There is a strong will on both sides to preserve it and so we must now focus on securing a deal that is in the interest of both of us.

And alongside this, we should continue our efforts to strengthen the external borders of the common travel area, for example through a common approach to the use of passenger data.

Peace process

Finally, we talked about the peace process. It is in all our interests to work together to safeguard our national security and the outcome of the referendum will not undermine it.

We are both fully committed to working together in support of the Northern Ireland Executive to build a better, stronger, safer future for the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is vital that that we keep up the momentum on tackling paramilitary groups and building a shared future.

And today we have reaffirmed our commitment to establishing a new Independent Reporting Commission by the end of this year, which will support these efforts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, these have been constructive discussions.

We have agreed we will continue to hold annual bilateral summits to strengthen our co-operation.

And it is precisely because the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland is so deep and so important that there are many issues to resolve as the UK leaves the European Union. But I firmly believe that we can make a success of Brexit and take our relationship forwards not backwards.

And I look forward to working closely together in the weeks and months ahead to make the most of the opportunities ahead.

Enda Kenny

First of all, may I concur with the words of the Prime Minister in saying that our hearts are once again with the French people. For centuries a church has always been a place of sanctuary, and it’s particularly brutal that terror and murder have been visited upon innocent people at a time when they’ve been so physically vulnerable and so spiritually hopeful. I concur with your words, Prime Minister.

And may I say that I extend my congratulations to Prime Minister Theresa on her recent appointment. It is of course a great personal achievement for her and comes at a time of great challenge for all the people of Europe and indeed for the people of the world. Can I say that we had a very good meeting today. And I am delighted that we have agreed to work together on continuing to build on the strength and the closeness of the UK–Ireland relationship. And I look forward very much indeed to working with the Prime Minister on the many issues where we share a mutual interest.

Now we had a good discussion today on the progress that the two governments have made in recent years following on from the Joint Statement of 2012 on British–Irish Relations: the Next Decade. I’m delighted that the Prime Minister has affirmed again the UK government’s commitment to this comprehensive programme of engagement between the two governments and officials. This will allow us to continue to work together on a range of issues that are of benefit to the British people and the Irish people, like jobs and trade and tourism and energy and so on, as part of our joint Irish–UK work programme.

Today’s meeting also gave us the opportunity to discuss developments in Northern Ireland to which the Prime Minister has referred. And we did repeat and reiterate the importance of the partnership between our two governments as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, and in supporting the peace process, and in contributing to stability and continued progress in Northern Ireland. We are both very much committed to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the successive agreements of St Andrews and Fresh Start, and we will continue to work for a prosperous and peaceful Northern Ireland in the time ahead.

We also discussed the many issues that arise in the context of the outcome of the EU referendum on EU membership. It’s not an outcome that we wanted in Ireland, but we respect the decision of the UK electorate, and we now must work out the consequences of that. So we intend to work with the Prime Minister, and all our partners in the EU and in the Northern Ireland Executive, to make sure that we can achieve the best outcome in the forthcoming negotiations.

So we have agreed, as the Prime Minister has reiterated, that we would work together to ensure that the benefits of the peace process are preserved in any new arrangements which might emerge regarding the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. In particular, we both recognised that Ireland is the only EU member state that shares a land border with the United Kingdom. We are in full agreement that we do not wish to see any return to the borders of the past on the island of Ireland.

So today’s meeting also gave us the opportunity to have a broader discussion on the common issues of concern in the context of the referendum result, such as our close trading relationship and the benefits of the common travel area already referred to by the Prime Minister.

For our part, we’ve already made very clear our view that Ireland is very much committed to staying a member of the European Union, and we want the upcoming negotiations and the process of those to end with a prosperous and outward looking United Kingdom which retains a close relationship with the European Union. That is very much in all our interests.

Neither I nor Prime Minister May are in any doubt about the range and the many complexities of the negotiations that lie ahead of us all, nor do we underestimate the importance of the issues involved for all our citizens in the UK, Northern Ireland, Ireland and the European Union. But we face the future together, in the knowledge that relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom have never been better, and that the spirit of partnership and friendship will guide all of our actions and our work together in the time ahead.

Thank you, Prime Minister Theresa, for the early opportunity to come and have this first of many meetings with you. I’ve commended the Prime Minister for her speech outside Downing Street, in terms of the opportunities that present themselves to deal with the many issues of inequality and social disadvantage that abound. I’ve also invited the Prime Minister, when the time is opportune and appropriate, when she’s settled into her job, to come over to Dublin and have an engagement, as all of her predecessors for many years have done. Thank you very much indeed.

Question

Taoiseach, Prime Minister, how concerned are you by the wave of IS inspired violence that we’ve seen across Europe in recent days? How concerning is it?

And secondly, Taoiseach, the prospect, with a Brexit, of a potentially united Ireland seems more likely. Is that a prospect you agree with, and one that you’d welcome?

Prime Minister

First of all, on the terror threat that we face, we all face a terror threat. If you look at the national threat level here in the United Kingdom, it is at severe. That means that a terrorist attack is highly likely. I think what is necessary is for us all to work together: we stand shoulder to shoulder with France, we offer them every support we can in dealing with this issue and this threat that they and the rest of us are facing.

But of one thing I think we are all absolutely clear, and that is the terrorists will not prevail. They are trying to destroy our way of life, they are trying to destroy our values; we have shared values, and those values will win through, and the terrorists will not win.

Enda Kenny

We’ve been working with former Prime Minister Cameron and now with Prime Minister May in respect of security issues, information in respect of passengers, European Arrest Warrant and other communications data which might include information in respect of terrorist activities.

Obviously on Brexit, the decision has been made to leave. It’s a decision I didn’t like, but obviously I have full respect for the decision made by the UK electorate. So our job now is to work through this process in as practical and as imaginative and as creative a manner as is possible, to ensure, as I said, that the UK remains prosperous and outward looking; that Ireland retains its interests that I’ve already outlined in terms of trade, common travel, border, Good Friday Agreement; and that we bring to the table the close relationship in discussing these negotiations, both for the future relationship of the European Union with the UK, and what that actually means in the time ahead.

So there are many obstacles that lie upfront, but I do believe that the basis of our friendship and connections between the 2 countries are a great basis upon which to move forward.

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Rome, Italy on 27 July 2016.

Thank you very much Matteo and thank you for such a warm welcome in every sense of the term.

It reflects the close friendship between both our countries. I wanted to come to Rome today to underline Britain’s commitment to this relationship.

As we make a success of Brexit, it is crucial that we work with important member states like Italy to strive for a solution which respects the decision of British voters, recognising that while the UK is leaving the European Union, it is still very much part of Europe.

This means we will continue to work together on a range of things.

And that’s why here today, we have talked not just about a successful Brexit but also about how we work together as you have said to respond to the complex global challenges we face, Italy and the UK, such as terrorism and migration.

I’d like to say a few words on each.

First, Brexit.

We have agreed on the importance of maintaining the closest possible economic ties once the UK leaves the EU.

Italy is the UK’s eighth largest export market and trade in goods alone was worth £24 billion last year. We want that trade to continue, but of course it will take time to work out the nature of our relationship.

And that’s why we should take time to prepare for these negotiations, so that both sides can identify their objectives.

We have already begun that work in the UK and yesterday I chaired the first meeting of the Cabinet Committee on exiting the European Union to prepare and plan for an orderly departure.

Of course, as long as we remain in the EU we will respect the rights and obligations of EU membership, and I have assured the Prime Minister today that the UK will continue to be a strong voice for international free trade.

Prime Minister Renzi and I have also discussed our joint efforts to fight terrorism.

Yesterday’s attack in Northern France on an innocent Catholic priest in a place of sanctuary and peace was yet another brutal reminder of the threat that we all face. Following on from the atrocities in Nice and Germany, it reinforces the need for action both in Europe and on the wider global stage.

In Europe, we must increase further our intelligence co-operation and share vital information swiftly and effectively, enabling us to better protect ourselves from these terrorists who seek to destabilise us.

In Iraq and Syria, the UK and Italy are already leading players in the coalition to counter Daesh.

And I think we agree on the importance of reinvigorating the political process in Syria, securing a genuine ceasefire and unlocking humanitarian access.

As Italy takes a seat on the United Nations Security Council next year, this is another issue on which we will work together.

We have also discussed the situation in Libya where both Italy and the UK are at the forefront of international efforts to support the new government. And it is in all our interests to help Prime Minister Serraj to restore stability and rebuild the economy.

And that is the best way to prevent Libya becoming a base for Daesh and to tackle the criminal gangs that continue to exploit illegal migrants and traffic innocent men, women and children for profit.

Ninety per cent of migrants crossing the Central Mediterranean set off from Libya, so both our countries have urged our European partners to do more to stem the flow of illegal migration from there.

Together we secured agreement to extend the EU’s naval operation to include capacity building of the Libyan coastguard and we hope that training will get underway in September.

We also agree on the need to do more upstream in the countries where migrants are coming from, particularly in the Horn of Africa and West Africa.

Today has been a useful and constructive meeting here in Rome.

The UK is leaving the EU but we will continue to strengthen ties with our European friends.

Outside of the EU, the UK and Italy will continue to co-operate through NATO, the G20 and the G7; and I look forward to attending next year’s summit in Sicily.

Our common interests in promoting economic growth, fostering stability around the world and tackling social injustice will drive us to work together. That is in the interests of everyone here in Italy, back home in Britain and the rest of the world.

And as we begin this new chapter in our relationship, I look forward to working with you, Prime Minister, to make the most of this partnership.

Matteo Renzi’s statement

I’m really privileged to pay homage to Theresa May, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, here in Rome. I would like to thank her for being here today with us in such a beautiful place and you can see the Vatican St Peter’s at the back, and the sunshine is a bit hot and high in the sky, but we are really happy and privileged to have this opportunity. I would like to extend my warm welcome to the entire delegation and the new ambassador of the United Kingdom who has took office 2 days ago, on Monday. She’s now on her third day.

I’m really privileged and happy for this opportunity after the decision of the British people to leave the EU. Of course, we are sad about this decision, because somehow, it affects 600,000 Italian citizens living in the United Kingdom, in England. However, it is a decision of the British people which we fully respect, as should be the case, and which requires a lot of common sense, clarity and the certainty of a clear-cut path. The Italian government is interested in working together to collaborate [inaudible] and something good might come from it, not only for the United Kingdom, for Italy, but also for European Union institutions.

This meeting gave us the opportunity to discuss these issues and also the importance to continuously collaborate on my policy for Africa, as well as the importance we attribute to migration. We sincerely believe that we should be extremely attentive to human aspects and saving lives. We do need a European policy where rules are complied with, in the respect of the fathers of the European Union, but at the same time, to contribute with aid [inaudible]. We are truly happy to welcome Prime Minister Theresa May and her delegation in the coming multilateral meeting, the G7, which will be held in Taormina, in May 2017, when we will try to focus in particular on aspects about education, culture and identity, defending identity, defending our values as a tool to be credible in this ever-changing world.

We also spoke about bilateral issues among which some are maybe not at the forefront for public opinion. I’m thinking about university aspects, collaboration in this field, and the many other aspects we are aiming to solve jointly in the field of defence, for example, with Finmeccanica today renaming itself Leonardo, and the United Kingdom, is a win-win solution, because we are the same family, but we are now producing engineering defence and many other services. And I also am referring to the many challenges up ahead for the international community, and I believe it will be fundamental to convey a message of solidity and clarity.

[Inaudible] I think it is a crucial moment so we can jointly create a new partnership. The fact that we won’t be members of the same union certainly does not deprive us of the importance and the solidity of this relationship, which is familiar not only to Rome, but to all the Italian cities, because the cultural, political, institutional and humanitarian and value links between Britain and Italy are extremely solid and sound, and which dates back to centuries, and which I believe will continue for the coming months and years. We are truly convinced, and for all these reasons, I would like to thank Theresa for having chosen to be with us today.

Question

Andrea Bonini, Sky TG24. The question is for Prime Minister. There are thousands of Italians living and studying in London, and today, after the Brexit, are scared and concerned. Can you reassure them somehow?

And also, in terms of security, do you believe that Brexit can represent an element of vulnerability and of chaos? I’m thinking about the long lines that we have seen in Dover last week.

Now, as regards the terrorism, President Mattarella has underlined this morning that we certainly cannot give in to fear. But what happened yesterday in France makes this kind of feeling difficult to resist, and often Europe is not very solid. It’s difficult to have a common position, a common stand, also in terms of intelligence co-operation. I’m thinking about the coming elections in Germany and France, and the referendum in Italy. Do you believe that they can slow down this kind of division?

Prime Minister

Thank you. On the issue that you raise of Italian and other EU citizens who are living in the UK, I want to be able to guarantee their rights in the UK. I expect to be able to do that. I intend to be able to do that to guarantee their rights. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible would be if the rights of British citizens living in other EU member states were not guaranteed. But I hope this is an issue that we can address early on.

In relation to the question about security, no, I think that the security relationships that the UK has bilaterally and collectively with the member states of the European Union are very important to all of us. We all face the threat from terrorism that we have seen result in the terrible incidents that we saw only this week in northern France, but also, as I said, previously in France and Germany and, indeed, previously in Belgium.

In addressing that, it is important that we continue to cooperate on security matters. That’s why, as I said in my remarks, I think cooperating on intelligence sharing, ensuring that vital information is shared quickly and effectively is one of the best ways in which we can work together to ensure that we deal with this threat to protect our citizens, but also to ensure that the terrorists do not win. They are trying to attack our values. They are attacking our way of life. They will not prevail.

Matteo Renzi

Allow me as well to share – to fully share the consideration and the remarks of Prime Minister. I am perfectly aligned that we should continue to work jointly. There is no change and we will continue to work with the same resolve in our fight against terrorism.

I have nothing to add to the very wise and clear words of the President of the Republic this morning, Sergio Mattarella and as the President has said, we should not be afraid. We should not give in to fear. We have to be able to react in a strong, determined way against terrorism, against this feeling of terror. And to be able to react with a lot of determination.

This, first of all, we owe it for those who died, Father Jacques, who lost his life while he was celebrating the Eucharist, and to the many victims in Europe, and also the many victims of our citizens throughout the world. I’m thinking about those British who died in Tunisia just a year ago, and the Italians who died in Dhaka just a few weeks ago.

Terrorism is trying to disintegrate our lives and when they’re enabled to do that, they try to create fear and terror [inaudible]. We have to reaffirm our values, our identity, and we have to continue fighting, aware that our first challenge is not to give in. We have to remain strong and solid, believing in our culture. No democratic change, be it the Brexit or any other change – referring to France, Germany, Italy – will be able to change and to modify these principles. You can change governments. You can change political parties. You can change memberships, as will happen with the Brexit. But you will not change anything in terms of fight against terrorism and values and identity, which our people have always represented.

And I would truly want to thank Prime Minister Theresa May. She has served for many years before becoming Prime Minister, she has been Home Secretary for her country. She has collaborated very effectively with our Home Minister Alfano with great resolve and collaboration.

Question

James Mates from ITV News. On your talks in Europe, are you detecting any flexibility on this issue of restrictions of freedom of movement whilst retaining single market access? And is it still your government’s wish to maintain access to the single market in the light of Liam Fox’s remarks in Washington.

And can I ask you too, Prime Minister Renzi, do you see any grounds at all for compromise on this issue between freedom of movement and single market?

Prime Minister

First of all, James, in relation to obviously the comments that Liam Fox made, he was setting out very clearly what is a technical and legal position in relation to the interaction between customs, unions and free trade agreements. We had a very clear message from the British people in the Brexit vote, that they want us to bring in some control on free movement; they don’t want free movement rules for movement of people from the European Union member states into the UK to operate as they have done in the past. And we will deliver on that.

But on the other side, we do of course need to ensure that we get the best possible deal in relation to trade in goods and services. And I’m looking at this with an open mind. I think we should be developing the model that suits the United Kingdom and the European Union; not at opting necessarily a model that’s on the shelf already, but saying: what is going to work for the UK and what is going to work best for the European Union; in ensuring that we can maintain that economic relationship which has been of benefit to us in the past, and we want to ensure that we can continue and build on in the future.

Matteo Renzi

All the political life is a life of compromise, but I think it is a very delicate point for the reason Theresa explains very well now. So, English leaders – Britain leaders explain very well the point: Brexit is Brexit. Now the priority is work together to give a message of co-operation, friendship and future. But the debate about the results in Britain is a great debate for the history. Brexit is Brexit. We cannot open again the discussion, because if we open again the discussion, we give a message against the idea of democracy. If we vote and then we don’t see the consequences about the points of discussion in the vote this is a problem for credibility in entire leadership. So we will work together very closely with great determination.

For us it’s important to give a message of clear timeline to avoid the risks also because I think the next months, the next year will be a great opportunity also for Europe to discuss about the future of this institution. This institution was a miracle after 60 years of peace and of prosperity. We are really proud for the great results, but now it’s time to build a vision. On terrorism, we will work strongly with the UK government and together, give a message of co-operation respecting the results of the vote and the decision of the Britain people.

Thank you very much also for resisting under this hot sunshine. I apologise for the sun but I believe this is really an opportunity for everybody.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Warsaw, Poland on 28 July 2016.

I am delighted to be here in Warsaw today, in such a momentous week with the visit of Pope Francis and the celebration of World Youth Day.

I wanted to come here early on to tell you, Beata, and the people of Poland that Britain attaches a huge importance to the relationship between our 2 countries.

It is a partnership that goes back a long way, we will never forget the Polish pilots who braved the skies alongside us in World War II to stand up for freedom and democracy across Europe.

And it is a partnership that will endure long after the UK has left the European Union.

Indeed, today we have discussed how we can continue to deepen our co-operation, following on from the agreement late last year to work more closely together.

Let me say a few words on Brexit, the bilateral relationship and our security and defence co-operation.

First, we have discussed how we make a success of Brexit and work together to maximise the opportunities for both our countries.

The UK and the EU need to take time to work out our objectives for the negotiations on the UK’s departure and the future relationship.

As Prime Minister, I will seek to address the concerns of the British people about free movement, while recognising the importance of a close economic relationship between the UK and the EU.

Of course, there will be different interests and complex issues to resolve but I firmly believe that if we approach this in a constructive and positive spirit then we can pave the way for a calm and orderly departure.

In that context, I want to be clear that Poles living in the UK continue to be welcome and we value the contribution that they make to our country.

We condemned the shameful and despicable attacks against Polish communities and others in the wake of the referendum result.

Hate crime of any kind, directed against any community, race or religion, has absolutely no place in British society.

I understand that Poles currently living in the UK want to know whether they will retain their rights once the UK leaves the EU.

I want and expect to be able to guarantee their rights in the UK. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible would be if the rights of British citizens living across the EU were not guaranteed.

As I’ve said, the UK’s exit from the EU should not weaken our relationship with Poland, indeed we should strengthen it.

Last year, the UK was Poland’s second largest trading partner, and UK exports to Poland were worth more than £3 billion pounds.

We should keep up our broader co-operation on science, innovation and energy.

And we have agreed today that we will press ahead with annual bilateral summits to drive forward our relationship. And I have offered to host the first of those in the UK.

Co-operation on security and defence is one of the most important areas of our growing strategic relationship.

Britain and Poland are leading players in NATO and we both meet the commitment to spend 2% of our GDP on defence.

The United Kingdom will always stand by its NATO obligations, including ensuring the security and safety of Poland.

Only this month, at the NATO summit here in Warsaw, the UK committed to increasing the number of troops present along NATO’s Eastern flank, with the deployment of an infantry company here to Poland.

We are also working closely together to fight wider threats to global security.

Poland has played a leading role in international efforts to secure peace and stability, from Afghanistan to Ukraine.

And in the face of the ongoing terrorist attacks in Europe, it is vital that countries like the UK and Poland continue to counter Daesh in Iraq and Syria.

Working together is the best way to protect our way of life and our shared values from those who are intent on destroying them.

To conclude, Britain will continue to stand by our European partners and stand tall in the world.

Leaving the EU presents an opportunity to strengthen our relations with countries around the world.

And that is firmly what I intend to do.

I am looking forward to developing the strongest possible relationship with Poland, to working with you to make Brexit a success, and to safeguarding the security of all our people.

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Paris on 21 July 2016.

President Hollande, thank you for inviting me to Paris.

I am delighted to have this opportunity, so soon after taking office, to underline my commitment to the profound friendship between our countries and our peoples; a friendship that I believe has never been more important than it is today.

A week ago, France suffered another horrific terrorist attack and on behalf of all the British people, I offer our heartfelt condolences to all the loved ones of those who were so callously killed and injured in Nice, including a small number of British casualties.

These were innocent victims, murdered by terrorists who want to destroy our democracy and our way of life.

As the President and I have discussed today, we must never let them win.

Last year, in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, we stood together and said to the world that we will not let these extremists divide us.

In November after the devastating attacks in Paris, British fighter pilots joined their French counterparts to attack and destroy Daesh in Syria.

Now, in the aftermath of another attack, it is Britain who will stand with you shoulder to shoulder as your great ally and friend.

The intelligence and security co-operation between our countries is something that will always endure – even after Britain has left the European Union.

As I have said Brexit means Brexit and I firmly believe we will make a success of it, not just for the UK but for our European partners too.

We will continue to work together to keep our people safe and to stand up for our values around the world.

We did so long before the European Union existed and we will continue to do so long after the UK has left.

That means, in addition to our growing co-operation on counter-terrorism, we will strengthen the wider strategic defence partnership between our two countries.

Britain brings a great deal to the table.

We will continue to meet our NATO obligation to spend 2 per cent of our GDP on defence and to keep our promise to spend 0.7 per cent of our national income on aid.

This week, as you have said Mr President, I made it my first act as Prime Minister in Parliament to secure the future of our nuclear deterrent.

Together with France, we are also working on the next generation of military equipment – including a 2 billion euro project to develop the most advanced combat air system anywhere in Europe.

Turning to our discussions on trade and economic co-operation, I have said to President Hollande that I want Britain to continue to work with our European partners to boost trade and economic growth in both our countries.

Last year the value of our bilateral trade reached 50 billion euros.

We are one another’s fifth largest export markets. Today French companies employ 360,000 people across the UK and we are the fourth largest investor in France.

This matters for both of us, so as the UK leaves the EU we will have to determine how to maintain the closest possible economic relationship between our countries.

And it will take time to prepare for those negotiations.

I understand the need for certainty and confidence in the markets and that is why I have already been clear that the UK will not invoke Article 50 until before the end of this year.

I hope that we can all make the most of the next six months to prepare for these discussions in a constructive way so that we maximise the opportunities for both the UK and the EU.

In the meantime, I want to reiterate that Britain remains open for business, that French citizens and their EU counterparts can continue to work in Britain – and they are very welcome in the UK.

To conclude, as I have said before, Britain is leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe and we are not walking away from our friendship with France, or any of our other European partners.

Britain and France are two allies that stand together looking out to the world, fighting for the values we share.

As I said in my first speech as Prime Minister in the British Parliament this week: we share a firm belief in the values of liberté, égalité and fraternité.

And together we will always defend them.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2016.

I beg to move,

That this House supports the Government’s assessment in the 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review that the UK’s independent minimum credible nuclear deterrent, based on a Continuous at Sea Deterrence posture, will remain essential to the UK’s security today as it has for over 60 years, and for as long as the global security situation demands, to deter the most extreme threats to the UK’s national security and way of life and that of the UK’s allies; supports the decision to take the necessary steps required to maintain the current posture by replacing the current Vanguard Class submarines with four Successor submarines; recognises the importance of this programme to the UK’s defence industrial base and in supporting thousands of highly skilled engineering jobs; notes that the Government will continue to provide annual reports to Parliament on the programme; recognises that the UK remains committed to reducing its overall nuclear weapon stockpile by the mid-2020s; and supports the Government’s commitment to continue work towards a safer and more stable world, pressing for key steps towards multilateral disarmament.

Obviously, the Home Secretary has just made a statement about the attack in Nice, and I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those killed and injured in last Thursday’s utterly horrifying attack in Nice—innocent victims brutally murdered by terrorists who resent the freedoms that we treasure and want nothing more than to destroy our way of life.

This latest attack in France, compounding the tragedies of the Paris attacks in January and November last year, is another grave reminder of the growing threats that Britain and all our allies face from terrorism. On Friday I spoke to President Hollande and assured him that we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the French people, as we have done so often in the past. We will never be cowed by terror. Though the battle against terrorism may be long, these terrorists will be defeated, and the values of liberté, égalité and fraternité will prevail.

I should also note the serious events over the weekend in Turkey. We have firmly condemned the attempted coup by certain members of the Turkish military, which began on Friday evening. Britain stands firmly in support of Turkey’s democratically elected Government and institutions. We call for the full observance of Turkey’s constitutional order and stress the importance of the rule of law prevailing in the wake of this failed coup. Everything must be done to avoid further violence, to protect lives and to restore calm. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has worked around the clock to provide help and advice to the many thousands of British nationals on holiday or working in Turkey at this time. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Turkish Foreign Minister, and I expect to speak to President Erdogan shortly.

Before I turn to our nuclear deterrent, I am sure the House will welcome the news that Japan’s SoftBank Group intends to acquire UK tech firm ARM Holdings. I have spoken to SoftBank directly. It has confirmed its commitment to keep the company in Cambridge and to invest further to double the number of UK jobs over five years. This £24 billion investment would be the largest ever Asian investment in the UK. It is a clear demonstration that Britain is open for business—as attractive to international investment as ever.

There is no greater responsibility as Prime Minister than ensuring the safety and security of our people. That is why I have made it my first duty in this House to move today’s motion so that we can get on with the job of renewing an essential part of our national security for generations to come.

For almost half a century, every hour of every day, our Royal Navy nuclear submarines have been patrolling the oceans, unseen and undetected, fully armed and fully ready—our ultimate insurance against nuclear attack. Our submariners endure months away from their families, often without any contact with their loved ones, training relentlessly for a duty they hope never to carry out. I hope that, whatever our views on the deterrent, we can today agree on one thing: that our country owes an enormous debt of gratitude to all our submariners and their families for the sacrifices they make in keeping us safe. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

As a former Home Secretary, I am familiar with the threats facing our country. In my last post, I was responsible for counter-terrorism for over six years. I received daily operational intelligence briefings about the threats to our national security, I chaired a weekly security meeting with representatives of all the country’s security and intelligence agencies, military and police, and I received personal briefings from the director-general of MI5. Over those six years as Home Secretary I focused on the decisions needed to keep our people safe, and that remains my first priority as Prime Minister.

The threats that we face are serious, and it is vital for our national interest that we have the full spectrum of our defences at full strength to meet them. That is why, under my leadership, this Government will continue to meet our NATO obligation to spend 2% of our GDP on defence. We will maintain the most significant security and military capability in Europe, and we will continue to invest in all the capabilities set out in the strategic defence and security review last year. We will meet the growing terrorist threat coming from Daesh in Syria and Iraq, from Boko Haram in Nigeria, from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, from al-Shabaab in east Africa, and from other terrorist groups planning attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan. We will continue to invest in new capabilities to counter threats that do not recognise national borders, including by remaining a world leader in cyber-security.

Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ukraine would have been less likely to have lost a sizeable portion of its territory to Russia had it kept its nuclear weapons, and that there are lessons in that for us?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are lessons. Some people suggest to us that we should actually be removing our nuclear deterrent. This has been a vital part of our national security and defence for nearly half a century now, and it would be quite wrong for us to go down that particular path.

John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)

I offer the Prime Minister many congratulations on her election. Will she be reassured that whatever she is about to hear from our Front Benchers, it remains steadfastly Labour party policy to renew the deterrent while other countries have the capacity to threaten the United Kingdom, and that many of my colleagues will do the right thing for the long-term security of our nation and vote to complete the programme that we ourselves started in government?

The Prime Minister

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the words that he has just spoken. He is absolutely right. The national interest is clear. The manifesto on which Labour Members of Parliament stood for the general election last year said that Britain must remain

“committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent.”

I welcome the commitment that he and, I am sure, many of his colleagues will be giving tonight to that nuclear deterrent by joining Government Members of Parliament in voting for this motion.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

I add my congratulations to the right hon. Lady in her new role. If keeping and renewing our nuclear weapons is so vital to our national security and our safety, then does she accept that the logic of that position must be that every single other country must seek to acquire nuclear weapons, and does she really think that the world would be a safer place if it did? Our nuclear weapons are driving proliferation, not the opposite.

The Prime Minister

No, I do not accept that at all. I have to say to the hon. Lady that, sadly, she and some Labour Members seem to be the first to defend the country’s enemies and the last to accept these capabilities when we need them.

None of this means that there will be no threat from nuclear states in the coming decades. As I will set out for the House today, the threats from countries such as Russia and North Korea remain very real. As our strategic defence and security review made clear, there is a continuing risk of further proliferation of nuclear weapons. We must continually convince any potential aggressors that the benefits of an attack on Britain are far outweighed by their consequences; and we cannot afford to relax our guard or rule out further shifts that would put our country in grave danger. We need to be prepared to deter threats to our lives and our livelihoods, and those of generations who are yet to be born.

Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)

Of course, when SNP Members go through the Lobby tonight, 58 of Scotland’s 59 MPs will be voting against this. What message is the Prime Minister sending to the people of Scotland, who are demonstrating, through their elected representatives, that we do not want Trident on our soil?

The Prime Minister

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that means that 58 of the 59 Scottish Members of Parliament will be voting against jobs in Scotland that are supported by the nuclear deterrent.

Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way and congratulate her on her appointment. She mentioned the security threat that the country faces from terrorism. What does she say to those who say that it is a choice between renewing the Trident programme and confronting the terrorist threat?

The Prime Minister

I say that it is not a choice. This country needs to recognise that it faces a variety of threats and ensure that we have the capabilities that are necessary and appropriate to deal with each of them. As the Home Secretary has just made clear in response to questions on her statement, the Government are committed to extra funding and extra resource going to, for example, counter-terrorism policing and the security and intelligence agencies as they face the terrorist threat, but what we are talking about today is the necessity for us to have a nuclear deterrent, which has been an insurance policy for this country for nearly 50 years and I believe that it should remain so.

Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

The Prime Minister

I would like to make a little progress before I take more interventions.

I know that there are a number of serious and very important questions at the heart of this debate, and I want to address them all this afternoon. First, in the light of the evolving nature of the threats that we face, is a nuclear deterrent really still necessary and essential? Secondly, is the cost of our deterrent too great? Thirdly, is building four submarines the right way of maintaining our deterrent? Fourthly, could we not rely on our nuclear-armed allies, such as America and France, to provide our deterrent instead? Fifthly, do we not have a moral duty to lead the world in nuclear disarmament, rather than maintaining our own deterrent? I will take each of those questions in turn.

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on her surefootedness in bringing this motion before the House and at last allowing Parliament to make a decision in this Session? We will proudly stand behind the Government on this issue tonight. I encourage her to tell the Scots Nats that if they do not want those jobs in Scotland, they will be happily taken in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the support that he and his colleagues will show tonight.

Mike Gapes

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on becoming Prime Minister. Will she confirm that, when the Labour Government of Clement Attlee took the decision to have nuclear weapons, they had to do so in a very dangerous world, and that successive Labour Governments kept those nuclear weapons because there was a dangerous world? Is it not the case that now is also a dangerous time?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, the last Labour Government held votes in this House on the retention of the nuclear deterrent. It is a great pity that there are Members on the Labour Front Bench who fail to see the necessity of the nuclear deterrent, given that in the past the Labour party has put the British national interest first when looking at the issue.

I want to set out for the House why our nuclear deterrent remains as necessary and essential today as it was when we first established it. The nuclear threat has not gone away; if anything, it has increased.

First, there is the threat from existing nuclear states such as Russia. We know that President Putin is upgrading his nuclear forces. In the past two years, there has been a disturbing increase in both Russian rhetoric about the use of nuclear weapons and the frequency of snap nuclear exercises. As we have seen with the illegal annexation of Crimea, there is no doubt about President Putin’s willingness to undermine the rules-based international system in order to advance his own interests. He has already threatened to base nuclear forces in Crimea and in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave on the Baltic sea that neighbours Poland and Lithuania.

Secondly, there is the threat from countries that wish to acquire nuclear capabilities illegally. North Korea has stated a clear intent to develop and deploy a nuclear weapon, and it continues to work towards that goal, in flagrant violation of a series of United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) rose—

The Prime Minister

I am going to make some progress. North Korea is the only country in the world to have tested nuclear weapons this century, carrying out its fourth test this year, as well as a space launch that used ballistic missile technology. It also claims to be attempting to develop a submarine-launch capability and to have withdrawn from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Based on the advice I have received, we believe that North Korea could already have enough fissile material to produce more than a dozen nuclear weapons. It also has a long-range ballistic missile, which it claims can reach America, and which is potentially intended for nuclear delivery. There is, of course, the danger that North Korea might share its technology or its weapons with other countries or organisations that wish to do us harm.

Thirdly, there is the question of future nuclear threats that we cannot even anticipate today. Let me be clear why this matters. Once nuclear weapons have been given up, it is almost impossible to get them back, and the process of creating a new deterrent takes many decades. We could not redevelop a deterrent fast enough to respond to a new and unforeseen nuclear threat, so the decision on whether to renew our nuclear deterrent hinges not just on the threats we face today, but on an assessment of what the world will be like over the coming decades.

It is impossible to say for certain that no such extreme threats will emerge in the next 30 or 40 years to threaten our security and way of life, and it would be an act of gross irresponsibility to lose the ability to meet such threats by discarding the ultimate insurance against those risks in the future. With the existing fleet of Vanguard submarines beginning to leave service by the early 2030s, and with the time it takes to build and test new submarines, we need to take the decision to replace them now.

Maintaining our nuclear deterrent is not just essential for our own national security; it is vital for the future security of our NATO allies.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)

Last year, the then Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), said that the cost of the replacement programme was

“being withheld as it relates to the formulation of Government policy and release would prejudice commercial interests.”

Given the scale of the decision that we are being asked to make, will the Prime Minister tell us the answer to that question—the through-life cost?

The Prime Minister

I am happy to do so. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this section of my speech, I will come on to the cost in a minute. Britain is going to leave the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe, and we will not leave our European and NATO allies behind. Being recognised as one of the five nuclear weapons states under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty confers on us unique responsibilities, because many of the nations that signed the treaty in the 1960s did so on the understanding that they were protected by NATO’s nuclear umbrella, including the UK deterrent. Abandoning our deterrent would undermine not only our own future security, but that of our allies. That is not something that I am prepared to do.

Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)

I wonder whether the Prime Minister, with her very busy schedule, caught the interview on Radio 5 Live this morning with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who stated that he was a member of CND as a teenager, but then he grew up. Is not the mature and adult view that in a world in which we have a nuclear North Korea and an expansionist Russia, we must keep our at-sea independent nuclear deterrent?

The Prime Minister

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I think he is right to point out that there are Opposition Members who support that view. Sadly, not many of them seem to be on the Front Bench, but perhaps my speech will change the views of some of the Front Benchers; we will see.

I said to the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) that I would come on to the question of cost, and I want to do that now. Of course, no credible deterrent is cheap, and it is estimated that the four new submarines will cost £31 billion to build, with an additional contingency of £10 billion. With the acquisition costs spread over 35 years, this is effectively an insurance premium of 0.2% of total annual Government spending. That is 20p in every £100 for a capability that will protect our people through to the 2060s and beyond. I am very clear that our national security is worth every penny.

Angus Robertson

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for taking a second intervention. I asked her a simple question the first time around. I think that she has concluded her confirmation of the through-life cost for Trident’s replacement, but she did not say what that number was. Would she be so kind as to say what the total figure is for Trident replacement, including its through-life cost?

The Prime Minister

I have given the figures for the cost of building the submarines. I am also clear that the in-service cost is about 6% of the defence budget, or about 13p in every £100 of Government spending. There is also a significant economic benefit to the renewal of our nuclear deterrent, which might be of interest to members of the Scottish National party.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)

The Prime Minister quite rightly paid tribute to our submariners. Will she also pay tribute to the men and women working in our defence industries who will work on Successor? They are highly skilled individuals who are well paid, but such skills cannot just be turned on and off like a tap when we need them. Does she agree that it is vital for the national interest to keep these people employed?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Our nuclear defence industry makes a major contribution to our defence industrial base. It supports more than 30,000 jobs across the United Kingdom, and benefits hundreds of suppliers across more than 350 constituencies. The skills required in this industry, whether in engineering or design, will keep our nation at the cutting edge for years to come. Along with the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to all those who are working in the industry and, by their contribution, helping to keep us safe.

David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)

I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place as Prime Minister. Does she agree with me that, like the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), I have quite a lot of people in my constituency who are working in the defence industry, the nuclear power industry and the science sector? Will it not be a kick in the teeth for my constituents if we do not agree to this deterrent today?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Some constituencies—obviously, Morecambe and Lunesdale, and Barrow and Furness—are particularly affected by this, but as I have just said, there are jobs across about 350 constituencies in this country that are related to this industry. If we were not going to renew our nuclear deterrent, those people would of course be at risk of losing their jobs as a result.

Several hon. Members rose—

The Prime Minister

I will give way to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and then I will make some progress.

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)

I hope that the Prime Minister will come on to explain how a like-for-like replacement for Trident complies with article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The Prime Minister

I will come on to the whole question of nuclear proliferation a little later, if the right hon. Gentleman will just hold his fire.

Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)

Will the Prime Minister confirm for me and the House that the vast majority of the cost involved will be invested in jobs, skills and businesses in this country over many decades? This is an investment in our own security. It is not about outsourcing, but about keeping things safe at home.

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about jobs here in the United Kingdom, and it is also about the development of skills here in the United Kingdom that will be of benefit to our engineering and design base for many years to come.

The decision will also specifically increase the number of jobs in Scotland. HM Naval Base Clyde is already one of the largest employment sites in Scotland, sustaining around 6,800 military and civilian jobs, as well as having a wider impact on the local economy. As the base becomes home to all Royal Navy submarines, the number of people employed there is set to increase to 8,200 by 2022. If hon. Members vote against today’s motion, they will be voting against those jobs. That is why the Unite union has said that defending and securing the jobs of the tens of thousands of defence workers involved in the Successor submarine programme is its priority.

Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)

On the issue of jobs, there is a lot of steel in Successor submarines, so will the Prime Minister commit to using UK steel for these developments?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman might have noticed that the Government have looked at the Government procurement arrangements in relation to steel. Obviously, where British steel is good value, we would want it to be used. For the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation, I have been in Wales this morning and one of the issues I discussed with the First Minister of Wales was the future of Tata and the work that the Government have done with the Welsh Government on that.

I will now turn to the specific question of whether building four submarines is the right approach, or whether there are cheaper and more effective ways of providing a similar effect to the Trident system. I think the facts are very clear. A review of alternatives to Trident, undertaken in 2013, found that no alternative system is as capable, resilient or cost-effective as a Trident-based deterrent. Submarines are less vulnerable to attack than aircraft, ships or silos, and they can maintain a continuous, round-the-clock cover in a way that aircraft cannot, while alternative delivery systems such as cruise missiles do not have the same reach or capability.

Furthermore, we do not believe that submarines will be rendered obsolete by unmanned underwater vehicles or cyber-techniques, as some have suggested. Indeed, Admiral Lord Boyce, the former First Sea Lord and submarine commander, has said that we are more likely to put a man on Mars within six months than make the seas transparent within 30 years. With submarines operating in isolation when deployed, it is hard to think of a system less susceptible to cyber-attack. Other nations think the same. That is why America, Russia, China and France all continue to spend tens of billions on their own submarine-based weapons.

Delivering Britain’s continuous at-sea deterrence means that we need all four submarines to ensure that one is always on patrol, taking account of the cycle of deployment, training, and routine and unplanned maintenance. Three submarines cannot provide resilience against unplanned refits or breaks in serviceability, and neither can they deliver the cost savings that some suggest they would, since large fixed costs for infrastructure, training and maintenance are not reduced by any attempt to cut from four submarines to three. It is therefore right to replace our current four Vanguard submarines with four Successors. I will not seek false economies with the security of the nation, and I am not prepared to settle for something that does not do the job.

Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)

I was listening carefully to the question from the leader of the Scottish National party about cost. Is it not clear that whatever the cost, he and his party are against our nuclear deterrent? Scottish public opinion is clear that people in Scotland want the nuclear deterrent. When my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary votes to retain the nuclear deterrent tonight, he will be speaking for the people of Scotland, not the SNP.

The Prime Minister

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend; he put that very well indeed.

Let me turn to the issue of whether we could simply rely on other nuclear armed allies such as America and France to provide our deterrent. The first question is how would America and France react if we suddenly announced that we were abandoning our nuclear capabilities but still expected them to put their cities at risk to protect us in a nuclear crisis. That is hardly standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies.

At last month’s NATO summit in Warsaw, our allies made clear that by maintaining our independent nuclear deterrent alongside America and France, we provide NATO with three separate centres of decision making. That complicates the calculations of potential adversaries, and prevents them from threatening the UK or our allies with impunity. Withdrawing from that arrangement would weaken us now and in future, undermine NATO, and embolden our adversaries. It might also allow potential adversaries to gamble that one day the US or France might not put itself at risk to deter an attack on the UK.

Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)

It is all very well looking at the cost of building and running the submarines, but the cost of instability in the world if there is no counterbalance reduces our ability to trade and reduces GDP. This is not just about what it costs; it is about what would happen if we did not have this system and there was more instability in the world.

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point, and this issue must be looked at in the round, not just as one set of figures.

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her appointment. I shall be voting for the motion this evening because I believe that the historical role of the Labour party and Labour Governments has been on the right side of this issue. I love the fact that she is showing strong support for NATO, but there is a niggle: have we the capacity and resources to maintain conventional forces to the level that will match our other forces?

The Prime Minister

The answer to that is yes—we are very clear that we face different threats and need different capabilities to face them. We have now committed to 2% of GDP being spent on defence, and we have increased the defence budget and the money that we spend on more conventional forces.

George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)

I congratulate the Prime Minister on her new role, but let us cut to the chase: is she personally prepared to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?

The Prime Minister

Yes. The whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it, unlike the suggestion that we could have a nuclear deterrent but not actually be willing to use it, which seemed to come from the Labour Front Bench.

Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)

I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that Russia has 10 times the amount of tactical nuclear weapons than the whole of the rest of NATO. On a recent Defence Committee visit to Russia, we were told by senior military leaders that they reserved the right to use nuclear weapons as a first strike. Is that not something that should make us very afraid if we ever thought of giving up our nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I pointed out earlier, Russia is also modernising its nuclear capability. It would be a dereliction of our duty, in terms of our responsibility for the safety and security of the British people, if we were to give up our nuclear deterrent.

We must send an unequivocal message to any adversary that the cost of an attack on our United Kingdom or our allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain through such an attack. Only the retention of our own independent deterrent can do this. This Government will never endanger the security of our people and we will never hide behind the protection provided by others, while claiming the mistaken virtue of unilateral disarmament.

Let me turn to the question of our moral duty to lead nuclear disarmament. Stopping nuclear weapons being used globally is not achieved by giving them up unilaterally. It is achieved by working towards a multilateral process. That process is important and Britain could not be doing more to support this vital work. Britain is committed to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in line with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)

Will the Prime Minister give way?

The Prime Minister

I am going to make some more progress.

We play a leading role on disarmament verification, together with Norway and America. We will continue to press for key steps towards multilateral disarmament, including the entry into force of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and for successful negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Furthermore, we are committed to retaining the minimum amount of destructive power needed to deter any aggressor. We have cut our nuclear stockpiles by over half since their cold war peak in the late 1970s. Last year, we delivered on our commitment to reduce the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40. We will retain no more than 120 operationally available warheads and we will further reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons to no more than 180 warheads by the middle of the next decade.

Britain has approximately 1% of the 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world. For us to disarm unilaterally would not significantly change the calculations of other nuclear states, nor those seeking to acquire such weapons. To disarm unilaterally would not make us safer. Nor would it make the use of nuclear weapons less likely. In fact, it would have the opposite effect, because it would remove the deterrent that for 60 years has helped to stop others using nuclear weapons against us.

Our national interest is clear. Britain’s nuclear deterrent is an insurance policy we simply cannot do without. We cannot compromise on our national security. We cannot outsource the grave responsibility we shoulder for keeping our people safe and we cannot abandon our ultimate safeguard out of misplaced idealism. That would be a reckless gamble: a gamble that would enfeeble our allies and embolden our enemies; a gamble with the safety and security of families in Britain that we must never be prepared to take.

We have waited long enough. It is time to get on with building the next generation of our nuclear deterrent. It is time to take this essential decision to deter the most extreme threats to our society and preserve our way of life for generations to come. I commend this motion to the House.

Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 15 July 2016.

I am shocked and saddened by the horrifying attack in Nice last night. Our hearts go out to the French people and to all those who’ve lost loved ones or been injured.

While the full picture is still emerging, it seems that at least 80 people are feared dead and many others have been injured. These were innocent victims enjoying a national celebration with their friends and families.

We are working urgently to establish whether any British nationals were caught up in the attack. Our ambassador is travelling to Nice today with consular staff and they will be doing all they can to help anyone affected.

I have asked my deputy national security adviser to chair a COBRA meeting of senior officials, to review what we know and what we can do to help, and I will speak to President Hollande today and make clear that the United Kingdom stands shoulder to shoulder with France today, as we have done so often in the past.

If, as we fear, this was a terrorist attack, then we must redouble our efforts to defeat these brutal murderers who want to destroy our way of life. We must work with France and our partners around the world to stand up for our values and for our freedom.

Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Downing Street, London on 13 July 2016.

I have just been to Buckingham Palace, where Her Majesty The Queen has asked me to form a new government, and I accepted.

In David Cameron, I follow in the footsteps of a great, modern Prime Minister. Under David’s leadership, the government stabilised the economy, reduced the budget deficit, and helped more people into work than ever before.

But David’s true legacy is not about the economy but about social justice. From the introduction of same-sex marriage, to taking people on low wages out of income tax altogether; David Cameron has led a one-nation government, and it is in that spirit that I also plan to lead.

Because not everybody knows this, but the full title of my party is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and that word ‘unionist’ is very important to me.

It means we believe in the Union: the precious, precious bond between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it means something else that is just as important; it means we believe in a union not just between the nations of the United Kingdom but between all of our citizens, every one of us, whoever we are and wherever we’re from.

That means fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others.

If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.

If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.

If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.

If you’re a woman, you will earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help to hand.

If you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home.

But the mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone means more than fighting these injustices. If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise. You have a job but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home, but you worry about paying a mortgage. You can just about manage but you worry about the cost of living and getting your kids into a good school.

If you’re one of those families, if you’re just managing, I want to address you directly.

I know you’re working around the clock, I know you’re doing your best, and I know that sometimes life can be a struggle. The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours.

We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few. We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.

We are living through an important moment in our country’s history. Following the referendum, we face a time of great national change.

And I know because we’re Great Britain, that we will rise to the challenge. As we leave the European Union, we will forge a bold new positive role for ourselves in the world, and we will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.

That will be the mission of the government I lead, and together we will build a better Britain.