UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: European Union

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the College of Europe in Bruges

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the College of Europe in Bruges

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 4 December 2022.

    Dear students of the Sassoli promotion,

    Dear young diplomats,

    Dear Federica,

    Thank you so much for inviting me. And let me thank you also for what you are doing here in Bruges. When we first met – you were the High Representative, I was the German Defence Minister – there was something that struck me about you. Besides the day-to-day crisis management, you always tried to focus on long-term, strategic thinking. You always thought that Europe needed a common strategic culture, and that is why you came up with the idea of a global strategy. It was a process to help a European strategic thinking emerge and it led to very practical steps towards a common European defence. Now you are doing the same here in Bruges, with young men and women from across Europe and with young diplomats from all Member States and beyond. And I want to start by congratulating you, and all participants in this pilot of the European Diplomatic Academy. You are the future of European foreign policy.

    And we need that strategic thinking more than ever. Because difficult times lead to difficult questions. What is Europe’s strategic goal? What should our economy look like in the 2030s, and beyond? What is our growth strategy? What are the challenges to address in the short, mid and long term? The one common feature in answering all of those questions is without any doubt climate change. Its consequences will come in all shapes and forms. It is the most existential issue we all face. This is why Europe has a clear roadmap for this challenge. It is called the European Green Deal – and it is our growth strategy. And when we set off, we knew that the road would not always be smooth. That as the global setting around us constantly changed, we would have to constantly adapt to stay the course. But we did not know just how bumpy it would be. We had a pandemic with after-shocks that are still being felt around the world. Russia has unleashed an unprovoked, unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. The spill-over effects are global – from energy security to redrawing global diplomacy. And in parallel, we are now confronted with an intensifying global clean tech race. In tackling all these new challenges, we always have to keep in mind the direction of our travel. It is towards a thriving, clean and competitive European economy. This is what I would like to talk about today.

    And to do that I would first like to zoom out for a moment, and bring you back in time by a few years. Exactly three years ago, we launched the European Green Deal. It was the very beginning of my mandate as President of the European Commission. And we decided that our first priority would be to decarbonise and digitalise the European economy. I called it our ‘man on the Moon’ moment. And it really was a moon-shot. We were the first global power to set a path toward net-zero emissions and to make it legally binding. We had in the US an administration in place that did not believe that humans caused climate change and announced to pull out of the Paris agreement. China was investing heavily in coal. And Europe emerged as a global front-runner. We said: Let us not wait to do what is right. Let us invest today in the clean technologies of tomorrow. Because eventually, all advanced and emerging economies will embark on the same journey.

    And we have stayed the course ever since. This has given certainty to industry and investors on the direction of travel. We have cast our goals into our first ever Climate Law. When the pandemic hit, we created NextGenerationEU not only to power the recovery but also, to accelerate digitalisation and the European Green Deal. Almost half of NextGenerationEU contributes to our wider climate objectives. We developed the legal framework to cut emissions by at least 55% by 2030. And in parallel, we have worked with industry in strategic fields, from joint European projects on batteries or hydrogen, to the European Chips Act. Europe has become the global hub of investment for clean tech and decarbonisation.

    If you fast forward to today, there is some positive news. Europe is no longer alone in the fight against climate change. When President Biden came into office, one of his first decisions was to re-join the Paris agreement. Now the US has taken the next step and passed the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The IRA – as it is called – is an investment plan of roughly USD 369 billion to build up a new industrial ecosystem in strategic clean energy sectors. There is a striking symmetry between the Inflation Reduction Act and the European Green Deal. Both of them are simultaneously a climate strategy, and a strategy for investment and growth. Both of them include funding for a just transition, and both include regulatory standards. The two biggest and most advanced economies in the world are now moving in the same direction. The US relies on investment and regulatory standards – while the EU relies on a combination of investment and regulatory standards – and carbon pricing. Two continent-sized powers are modernising their economies by investing close to EUR 1 trillion and addressing together the biggest challenge of our times. And this is so important. It is not only a positive signal for the planet, but also for global investors.

    Yet, the Inflation Reduction Act is also raising concerns here in Europe, against a very particular backdrop for our industry and economy. First, COVID-19 has exacerbated bottlenecks in many critical supply chains. The European industry has been carefully trying to fix the weak links of these chains, and make them more resilient, but this has come at a cost. Second, global energy supply is tight because of Russia’s war of aggression. Russia has cut 80% of its pipeline-gas supply to Europe in only eight months. But we have been able to compensate. Something that is truly remarkable, and that many deemed impossible. There have not only been no blackouts in Europe, but we also managed to fill our gas storages by roughly 96%. We are safe for the winter. But this comes at the cost of higher energy prices. And all of this affects the competitiveness of many European industries – especially energy intensive sectors of our economy.

    It is against this backdrop that the Inflation Reduction Act has received so much additional scrutiny in Europe, but also in the rest of the world. There is a risk that the IRA can lead to unfair competition, could close markets, and fragment the very same critical supply chains that have already been tested by COVID-19. We need to look at these issues closely – and at the same time learn what we could also do better. And in doing so, we need to look at three aspects that are particularly challenging: First, the ‘Buy American’ logic that underpins part of the IRA. Second, tax breaks that could lead to discrimination. And third, production subsidies that could lead to a subsidies race. It sounds technical, but it is easier to understand with an example. If you are a consumer in the United States, you get a tax break when you buy electric vehicles, EVs, if they were manufactured in North America. And if you are a battery producer for those same electric vehicles, you get a tax break if you produce in the US. This means that a car manufacturer gets a double benefit for producing in North America and buying parts in the US. What is more, this could also attract critical components and raw materials towards the US, and away from transatlantic supply chains. This creates of course an attractive investment environment on clean tech in the US. But we already see how this could also affect Europe’s own clean tech base by redirecting investment flows. We have all heard the stories of producers that are considering to relocate future investment from Europe to the US.

    Now, let me be clear: competition is good. It drives innovation, enhances efficiency and ensures progress. And in doing so it brings down prices for clean technologies. Competition between Europe and the United States can push both our industries to excel, to innovate, and to transform faster. This is why I believe in the need to invest into two clean energy industrial bases on both sides of the Atlantic. Not only will we create the well-paid jobs of the future both in Europe and in the US, we will also drive down costs for clean energy technologies globally. Together, we can make clean energy more affordable worldwide. And by doing so, we will also help decarbonise other economies, and drive a just transition. But: this competition must respect a level-playing field. That is why it is so critical, that the technology competition between the EU and the US is a race to the top for our industries on both sides of the Atlantic. And I am confident that Europe is in a strong position, to compete on global markets and develop the clean technologies of tomorrow.

    But will this be enough to keep up in the clean tech race? And to strengthen our industrial base do we need to do more to accelerate the transition? Yes, if we are competing on a level playing field. But we must also take action to rebalance the playing field where the IRA or other measures create distortions. In other words: We need to do our homework in Europe and at the same time work with the US to mitigate competitive disadvantages. I see three main ways to do so. First, we have to adjust our own rules to facilitate public investments into the transition. Second, we have to re-assess the need for further European funding of the transition. Third, we have to work with the United States to address some of the most concerning aspects of the law.

    To my first point. We have to adjust our own rules to make it easier for public investments to power the transition. State aid is a tried and tested tool here in Europe to incentivise business activities for the public interest. Last summer, for instance, we approved EUR 5.4 billion in state aid for the hydrogen value chain, under one of our IPCEIs. These public investments will benefit 35 companies from 15 Member States, from Portugal to Denmark, from Finland to Italy. They will help bring new technologies from the laboratory to the factory, for hydrogen production, for storage and for hydrogen-powered trucks, trains and ships. It is one of many examples of our state aid policy at the service of clean tech.

    Yet, the Inflation Reduction Act should make us reflect on how we can improve our state aid frameworks, and adapt them to a new global environment. First, we must look at how we can make our frameworks more predictable and simple. Europe has built a very sophisticated system. But businesses today want simple and predictable rules. We have built a very precise system. But businesses today want state aid rules to be predictable, above all. We are very careful to avoid distortions in our Single Market. But we must also be responsive to the increasing global competition on clean tech. If you look at the IRA, it invests right along the value chain in some strategic sectors. But this is not always the case for our state aid. Our Important Projects of Common European, IPCEIs, for instance, aim to bring breakthrough technologies from the laboratory to their first industrial deployment. But we will also take a fresh look at how we support the whole value chain, down to the mass production of the most strategic green-tech solutions and clean end-products, including through public investment. Our state aid frameworks exist to preserve our precious Single Market. But if investments in strategic sectors leak away from Europe, this would only undermine the Single Market. And that is why we are now reflecting on how to simplify and adapt our state aid rules.

    My second point has to do with complementary European funding. While it is critical that Member States have the flexibility to invest their budgets in strategic sectors, this approach cannot be self-standing. As such it would favour deep-pocket states and lead to distortions that would eventually undermine the Single Market. Thus, we also need a common European answer to the challenge – both in the short and the mid term. In the short term, we have to bridge the difficult time of transition for our SMEs and industries towards cheaper and renewable energy all across the EU. REPowerEU is our tool for that. REPowerEU invests in energy efficiency, in renewable energy and in infrastructure to integrate the Energy Union. And REPowerEU will massively speed up the permitting process for renewable energy projects. We are now working on boosting REPowerEU. REPowerEU also needs greater firepower to accelerate the clean transition. However, we also need to think beyond ad hoc solutions. The new assertive industrial policy of our competitors requires a structural answer. In my State of the Union address, I introduced the idea of establishing a sovereignty fund. The logic behind is simple: a common European industrial policy requires common European funding. The goal of our European industrial policy is for European industry to be the leaders in the clean transition. This means over the mid term beefing up the resources available for upstream research, innovation and strategic projects at the EU level. This means on one hand new and additional funding at the EU level. And on the other hand, higher level of policy coordination, like hydrogen, semiconductors, quantum computing, AI and biotechnology.

    On my final point: cooperation instead of confrontation. We are working closely with the Biden administration on how to jointly strengthen our clean energy industrial bases. Let me go back to the example I gave you earlier: electrical vehicles or EVs. In Europe, we have just agreed to phase out the combustion engine by 2035. This means, new vehicles sold after 2035 will be exclusively electric. Similar regulatory commitments exist in the United States. And at the same time, China is subsidising massively this sector. So we, the US and the EU, have a vast common interest to preserve our industrial leadership. This will require fundamental changes in the automobile industry. It will require significant private and public investments in innovation, infrastructure, supply chains and raw materials on both sides of the Atlantic. But it is not just about investment – it is also about setting standards and joining forces where it makes sense. Take for example the charging infrastructure for EVs: if Europe and the United States agree on common standards, we will shape global standards and not leave it to others. Or take critical raw materials for clean tech: Today, the production and processing of some of these critical raw materials are controlled by one single country, China. Europe and the US can build an alternative to this monopoly by establishing a critical raw materials club. The idea behind it is simple: Cooperation with partners and allies on sourcing, on production and on the processing gives us the ability to overcome the monopoly. These two examples of standards and raw materials give you an idea on what we are working on with the White House for the here and now.

    Finally, all this should be seen in a wider context. So let us zoom out again and focus on the bigger picture. An aggressive Russia is threatening our democracies and blackmailing us with our dependency on fossil fuel energy. An increasingly assertive China is cultivating dependencies in all continents, to project power for its own interests. But by contrast, look at what the US and Europe can achieve if we join forces. Take Ukraine. Think about the immense impact of our sanctions. Think how much support we have mobilised, from our countries and the world, to help Ukraine in the last nine months. Look at us joining forces to dry out Russia’s war chest by introducing an oil price cap. Since the end of the Cold War, never has transatlantic cooperation been closer than in those last two years. We have ended long-standing disputes, on steel tariffs, on Airbus-Boeing, on securing data flows. We have created a Tech and Trade Council to cooperate on tech and trade matters. We have set up a Task Force on European Energy Security that led to additional deliveries of 15 bcm of LNG this year. In the first half of 2022, the US supplied more than three-quarters of the EU’s additional needs. And on climate, we have brought together over 100 countries to sign the Global Methane Pledge – a commitment to cut global methane emissions by 30% in this decade. This is the power of transatlantic partnership.

    Dear students, Ladies and Gentlemen,

    This is my message to you as you embark on this journey at the European Diplomatic Academy. There will always be times where new challenges emerge and old tensions rise back to the surface. This can be the case with rivals and competitors or even with our oldest and closest partners. But as you will learn in this next year, Europe always looks for solutions – crafted by cooperation, designed by diplomacy. Of course, Europe will always do what is right for Europe. So yes, the EU will respond in an adequate and well calibrated manner to the IRA. But does this mean that we will engage in a costly trade war with the United States in the middle of an actual war? This is not in our interest. Nor in the interest of the Americans. And it would harm global innovation, too. That is why we have to work so hard in Europe and the US now to address the distortions. The last two years, the EU and the US have shown that we are stronger individually when we stand together collectively. When we focus on what binds us – our values and friendship, our belief in fair competition and open markets and our commitment to the rules-based order. For friends like us, competition and cooperation can be two faces of the same coin. Let us strengthen clean investment on both sides of the Atlantic. Let us do it for our people, for our industries, for affordable clean energy worldwide, and for the sake of our planet.

    Long live Europe.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement on Russian Accountability and the Use of Russian Frozen Assets

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement on Russian Accountability and the Use of Russian Frozen Assets

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 30 November 2022.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought death, devastation and unspeakable suffering.

    We all remember the horrors of Bucha.

    First, Russia must pay for its horrific crimes, including for its crime of aggression against a sovereign state.

    This is why, while continuing to support the International Criminal Court, we are proposing to set up a specialised court, backed by the United Nations, to investigate and prosecute Russia’s crime of aggression.

    We are ready to start working with the international community to get the broadest international support possible for this specialised court.

    Secondly, Russia must also pay financially for the devastation that it caused. The damage suffered by Ukraine is estimated at 600 billion euros. Russia and its oligarchs have to compensate Ukraine for the damage and cover the costs for rebuilding the country.

    And we have the means to make Russia pay. We have blocked 300 billion euros of the Russian Central Bank reserves and we have frozen 19 billion euros of Russian oligarchs’ money.

    In the short term, we could create, with our partners, a structure to manage these funds and invest them. We would then use the proceeds for Ukraine.

    And once the sanctions are lifted, these funds should be used so that Russia pays full compensation for the damages caused to Ukraine.

    We will work on an international agreement with our partners to make this possible. And together, we can find legal ways to get to it.

    Russia’s horrific crimes will not go unpunished.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the “Grain from Ukraine” Summit

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the “Grain from Ukraine” Summit

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 26 November 2022.

    Thank you, dear Volodymyr, for convening us on this very important day.

    This meeting falls on the Holodomor memorial day – when 90 years ago, hunger was used as a weapon by the Soviet Union against the Ukrainian people.

    Today, Russia is again using food as a weapon.

    As part of its brutal aggression against Ukraine, Russia has destroyed your agricultural production, targeted your grain silos, and blockaded your ports.

    Thus Russia is depriving of vital access to food the most vulnerable countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

    And then it uses disinformation to blame others for its despicable actions.

    We must continue to fight back against this.

    Your initiative “Grain from Ukraine”, which has my full support, is crucial to our efforts.

    You are showing unwavering commitment to global food security, international responsibility and solidarity with those most in need.

    And we stand by your side.

    In Bali, G20 leaders called for global solidarity to fight hunger caused by Russia’s war of aggression.

    We will not falter in our responsibilities and will continue to do everything we can on this front.

    The Solidarity Lanes established by the Commission and bordering Member States are a major success.

    Since May, they have enabled the export of more than 17 million tonnes of Ukrainian grain and food products.

    And they are the only option for the export of all other, non-agricultural Ukrainian goods to the rest of the world.

    The Solidarity Lanes have become a lifeline for Ukraine’s economy, bringing more than 19 billion euros of much-needed income to Ukrainian farmers and businesses.

    The European Commission, together with Financial Institutions such as the EIB, the EBRD, and the World Bank, have now mobilised 1 billion euros of additional funding to boost the capacity of these Solidarity Lanes.

    And we welcome the extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative for 120 days.

    Taken together, the EU Solidarity Lanes and the Black Sea Grain Initiative have allowed the export of more than 28 million tonnes of agricultural products to the world market, especially to the countries most in need.

    It is very important to signal to the world today that we will not let our most vulnerable partners down.

    This is why I am very pleased to announce the support of the European Commission to load two ships with grain.

    We will pay to transport 40,000 tons of grain which is the remainder of the grain that you have made available. Whatever the costs are.

    90 years after the Holodomor, we honour the memory of Ukraine’s victims.

    They died in silence, starving to death, and, at that time, the world did not rise to help them. We will not let this happen again.

    As we come together with Ukraine today to help avert hunger around the world, we also stand with Ukraine as it mourns the innocent victims of the Holodomor.

    And we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

    Slava Ukraini!

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the End of COP27

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement at the End of COP27

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 20 November 2022.

    COP27 marks a small step towards climate justice but much more is needed for the planet.

    We have treated some of the symptoms but not cured the patient from its fever.

    I am pleased that COP27 has opened a new chapter on financing loss and damage, and laid the foundations for a new method for solidarity between those in need and those in a position to help. We are rebuilding trust. This is crucial moving forward because there can be no lasting action against climate change without climate justice. The European Union is already the world’s leading contributor of international climate finance, and I am satisfied that we confirmed our commitment to support the most vulnerable on our planet through a first contribution on loss and damage.

    COP27 has kept alive the goal of 1.5C. Unfortunately however, it has not delivered on a commitment by the world’s major emitters to phase down fossil fuels, nor new commitments on climate mitigation. But the EU will stay the course, notably through the European Green Deal and REPowerEU, because it is essential to keep the ambition of the Paris Agreement within reach.

    I extend my heartfelt thanks to the EU’s negotiating team in Sharm El Sheikh for their determination and hard work throughout the conference.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies Manama Dialogue

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies Manama Dialogue

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 18 November 2022.

    Thank you Dr Chipman, dear John

    Your Royal Highness,

    Your Highnesses,

    Excellencies,

    Distinguished guests,

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Allow me to thank the IISS for its continued leadership in convening a regional dialogue. It is a pleasure to be back at the Manama Dialogue. And it is so good to see that Bahrain continues to be a driving force for dialogue between countries and cultures. Since my last visit four years ago, Bahrain’s achievements have been remarkable. In difficult times for the world, you have been a voice of wisdom and a voice for engagement.

    I have come to Bahrain, I have come to the Gulf, directly from the G20 Summit in Bali. This was the first G20 Summit since Russia invaded Ukraine. And of course, the Summit was dominated by the spillover effects of this atrocious war. Take food security, the Russian blockade of Ukraine’s ports, the deliberate bombing of grain silos and the disruption of Ukraine’s agriculture is having a devastating effect on global food security. Therefore, we welcome yesterday’s prolongation of the Black Sea grain deal for 120 days. However, given the uncertainties, we have to boost even more our alternative routes. That is why Europe just invested an additional billion euros into linking Ukraine’s granaries to our ports by rail, road and rivers. These solidarity lanes have – since the start of the war – taken more than 60% of Ukrainian food exports to the rest of the world. That is more than 17 million tonnes altogether.

    The second big topic was energy security. In energy, no one knows better than you in the Gulf that it is all about trust and reliability. For many years, you have supplied energy to the world to support its economic and social development. This has been transformative for many lives and livelihoods. We are in the middle of a difficult and turbulent period in history. Tectonic shifts in the energy landscape are happening right now. Before the war started, Europe was Russia’s biggest energy customer. Today, not even nine months later, this has changed fundamentally. Russia has unilaterally and deliberately cut 80% of its pipeline gas to Europe. But Europe has managed to replace most of it with gas from reliable suppliers. Our storages are full at 95% – and we are safe for this winter. Our challenge will be next year’s winter. At the same time, for emerging and developing countries, the energy crunch is happening right now. They are facing skyrocketing energy expenditures, soaring inflation, and the energy crisis is rapidly leading into an unsustainable debt crisis. Therefore, the world is looking to the key energy suppliers to ensure that these countries that rely on imported fuels and are vulnerable are substituted at reasonable prices.

    So much for the immediate crisis. But the tectonic shifts are running deeper. It is climate change that is the pacemaker. Desertification is rapidly swallowing fertile land, devastating floods covered one-third of Pakistan this summer, forest fires raged across Europe, even in Belgium and the UK. There is a reason why the largest economies in the world – the G20 – reaffirmed the Paris climate goals. The clean energy transformation will take place. And the winners will be those who invest now and massively in clean tech and infrastructure. Europe is massively investing into home-grown renewable energy. This is the European Green Deal – our fundamental growth strategy. But in addition, we will also continue to rely on energy imports. Many of the countries in this region have the natural resources for clean energy in abundance – wind, sun, etcetera – and have the know-how on existing and emerging technologies, such as carbon capture and storage. This change is creating opportunities for today’s major exporters to provide the fuels and energy services of tomorrow; to diversify into low-emission fuels such as hydrogen; to show leadership in areas such as CCUS; and as a result of these changes, to diversify also their broader economies and to provide a sustainable basis for long-term growth.

    Of course, what is behind these crises in food security and energy security is Russia’s war. Let me give you a European perspective on what is happening on European soil and the global implications. Almost nine months ago, Russian tanks rolled across an internationally recognised border with the declared objective to bring down a legitimate government and establish rule from Moscow. But Russia’s efforts have backfired spectacularly. It has proven to be a colossal strategic mistake.

    First of all, the people of Ukraine have fought bravely, with grit and determination, to defend their own freedom; to reaffirm their independence and their right to determine their own future. If Putin was aiming to wipe Ukraine off the map, he achieved the exact opposite: The Nation of Ukraine stands today stronger than ever. Second, if Putin wanted to divide Europe and its partners and allies, he failed yet again. Sweden and Finland will join NATO. Denmark has removed its defence opt-out. And Ukraine is now a candidate to join the European Union. Thirdly, this war is weakening Russia’s economic perspective for decades to come. Our technology sanctions are crippling Russia’s economy for the future. And its industry is in tatters.

    From an energy point of view, Russia has lost its biggest customer. Europe is ending its dependency on Russian fossil fuels – for good. From a military point of view, the Russian army has shown its weaknesses and appears overstretched. Its military industrial complex is lacking chips and spare parts to fix their hardware. The equipment Russia is throwing at the frontline is getting older and older. The conscripts, who arrive with it, are barely trained and younger and younger. And from a diplomatic point of view, Russia’s illegal annexation of four Ukrainian regions has been roundly rejected as a sham around the world. It was condemned by 143 countries in the UN General Assembly, including by the overwhelming majority of the Gulf, the Middle East and North Africa. In sum, Putin has achieved a weaker Russia domestically and abroad.

    The European Union is united and steadfast in its support to Ukraine. From the very beginning, we have provided a strategic answer. With massive and tailored sanctions; with broad humanitarian aid; with substantial financial support of over EUR 20 billion; and, for the first time ever, the European Union directly financed military assistance of over EUR 3.1 billion.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    My last point is about the international order and how to defend it. There is one recent development that I find very telling. Last January, exactly one month before Russia attacked Ukraine, civilians in Abu Dhabi came under fire of Iran-made Shahed-136 UAVs launched from Yemen. Just a few days ago, the oil tanker ‘Pacific Zircon’ was attacked off the coast of Oman by the very same Iranian drones. And now in Europe too, Russia has launched these very same Iranian drones, time and again, against civilian targets in Ukraine’s cities. These are blatant breaches of humanitarian law and qualify as war crimes. Several Gulf countries have been warning for years about the risk that Iran feeds rogue nations around the world with drones. It took us too long to understand a very simple fact that while we work to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, we must also focus on other forms of weapons proliferation, from drones to ballistic missiles. It is a security risk, not just for the Middle East but for us all.

    This is why the European Union has already sanctioned Iranian individuals and entities linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – that are responsible for providing drones to Russia. And we are coordinating with partners and allies to take further sanctions against Iran responding to the proliferation of Iranian drones. By teaming up, Iran and Russia are undermining the basic rules and principles of our global order. And where does this end, if left unchallenged? History shows that this is a recipe for perpetual war. It is a recipe for arms races and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is a recipe for constant foreign interference, for never-ending violence and instability. And we simply cannot accept this. And we will not accept this.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The world needs a stronger security architecture, against the spread of chaos. We know this in Europe and it matters also here in the Gulf. Europe is willing to do its part. We want to strengthen our engagement with the region – both economically but also in terms of security. We want closer cooperation on maritime security – for instance to ensure safe shipping lanes. And I am also convinced that we should work on a coordinated approach to Iran – with a broader focus than nuclear. Gulf security matters to Europe, as Europe’s security matters to the Gulf. Therefore, we will appoint a Special Representative to the Gulf. Let us join forces for our collective security.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I believe we face a historic opportunity to build new ties between our regions. For our mutual benefit. For today and for the long run. Thank you very much for hosting me, and I look forward to our discussion.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the G20 Summit Session on Food and Energy Security

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the G20 Summit Session on Food and Energy Security

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 15 November 2022.

    Dear President Widodo, colleagues, the G20 is a critical forum to address global issues.

    We must end this war.

    Russia’s war is not only unjustified, unprovoked and illegal, it is causing immense suffering in Ukraine and damage to the global economy.

    Like many around this table, the EU condemns this war.

    And the G20 must now work together to address the severe global consequences of the war.

    Let me address two points:

    First, the food crisis.

    The EU is doing its utmost to alleviate the situation:

    Just to set the record again straight. There are no sanctions on agri food products and fertilisers.

    We support full-heartedly the Black Sea Grain Initiative brokered by the Secretary General Guterres and President Erdoğan. It needs to be extended.

    In addition, in the European Union, we set up alternative transport routes to bring agri-food products out of Ukraine, which we call Solidarity Lanes. Since May, more than 15 million tonnes have been exported through these routes and we are further increasing their capacity.

    And we are stepping up our global food security aid by another 210 million euros, thus we are mobilising up to 8 billion euros over the next 3 years for food assistance and to increase local food production.

    On fertilisers, that of course include ammonia, we facilitate access and movement of fertilisers and we provide financial support. In addition, we are working with the African-Caribbean Pacific countries on innovation to develop the next generation of fertilisers.

    Second, the energy crisis.

    With regard to energy, Russia’s war was an eye-opener to the European Union. We see literally, that Russia – instead of selling gas – prefers to flare gas.

    This tightens the global energy market and leads to skyrocketing prices.

    We therefore support the introduction of an oil price cap. This will also strongly benefit the low- and middle- income countries

    Our best response to this is to speed up the green transition towards clean energy. Clean energy is the only answer to both the energy crisis and the climate crises.

    And there are huge global opportunities in this, too. In the next five alone Europe will invest at least 4 billion euros in renewable energy, like hydrogen, through our Global Gateway investment strategy. And this will unleash massive private investment as well.

    This all shows how relevant the G20 is in addressing these global issues.

    We are of course grateful to the Indonesian leaderships and I am looking forward to the upcoming Presidency of India.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Summit

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Summit

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 15 November 2022.

    Thank you very much President Biden, President Widodo,

    Throughout this day, we have discussed that we live in a truly volatile global economy with obviously a changing climate. And in addition, we see that Russia’s war is rubbing salt in the wound of economic recovery from COVID-19. So this mixture made us completely re-evaluate our energy, our trade and our security relationships. What is the situation for the European Union? We have decided to completely diversify away from the Russian fossil fuels. We have understood and learnt our lesson that it was an unhealthy and unsustainable dependency and we want reliable and forward-looking connections. This is why we launched the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment – PGII. We are joining forces to give our partners a powerful and a positive offer. Dear Joe, you have said that the world needs a positive investment boost. This is what it is all about. To help build the global infrastructure that we all need for sustainable growth. So invest in renewable energy, in transport corridors, in digital connections that people can trust. On the European side, the contribution is the so-called Global Gateway. It is our EUR-300-billion investment programme for abroad for the next five years combined with the wish to harness the power and the knowledge of the private sector. And we are deeply convinced that this will be a game changer for two reasons.

    First of all, Global Gateway or PGII are not just investing massively in state-of-the-art infrastructure but they are also investing in the local capacities of our partners. This is crucial. We want to strengthen our shared resilience. In the last session, we have been discussing the vaccine manufacturing example. What is special about it? If we take the example from the European Union, there is a European-American company that is sharing its mRNA technology and training local professionals. So it is about skills. Then we have African and European financial institutions that are providing the investment. And we have our regulatory medicines agencies that are sharing their know-how. No single actor in this combination could have done this alone. But together, we are really able to deliver on the ground.

    And my second point is that the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment is working because it is demand-driven. We see an enormously rising demand for renewable energy, and this is a good example. As I said, Europe has decided to completely diversify away from the Russian fossil fuels and we want to leapfrog to clean energy. We need this clean energy. Not only to have it home-grown but also to import it. Our partners in the Global South have an abundance of clean energy potential and resources. So Europe could turn into the world’s largest market for their energy exports. What is necessary is investment and infrastructure. That is where we have to team up. So here are some example: At COP27, we have signed hydrogen partnerships with Namibia, Egypt and Kazakhstan. With Namibia, we are building transport corridors from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic port of Walvis Bay.

    And there is much more to be done. I am very happy that today we launched the Just Energy Transition Partnership with Indonesia – a big step forward. The European Union will contribute over EUR 1 billion. It is the roadmap for the country’s low-carbon future. And we are investing in developing geothermal energy. Or we are engaged in talks with India on renewable hydrogen; with Chile on critical raw materials. Or we are launching a digital alliance in Latin America to build fibre-optic cables and satellite connectivity. Many of these examples show exactly the direction of travel and the shared interest that we do have. So we are ready to contribute. If we align our investment strategies and crowd in the private sector –that is crucial –, I think we can maximise our joint impact. Let us bundle our forces and make a positive difference in investment globally.

    I now have the pleasure to invite Heads of State to deliver their remarks. And I hand over the floor to Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida. Fumio, you have the floor.

  • Michael Heseltine – 2022 Speech at Heseltine Institute’s Inaugural Lecture

    Michael Heseltine – 2022 Speech at Heseltine Institute’s Inaugural Lecture

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the former Deputy Prime Minister, in Liverpool on 15 November 2022.

    A short time ago I argued that: ‘If Boris goes Brexit goes’. Johnson was not alone in souring our relationship with Europe. The Atlanticist prejudices of Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black using a power over our media that would never be granted to foreigners in other countries, the populism of Nigel Farage and Paul Dacre’s nationalistic editorship of the Daily Mail all contributed to the propagandist exploitation of the consequences that followed from the implementation of the EU single market.

    The harmonisation of the rules and regulations that governed the European economies was one of Margaret Thatcher’s greatest achievements. To introduce one European regulation in place of 28 involved a constant flow of forms. The blame game began. Boris Johnson led the charge to Get Brexit Done.

    Well, not quite. Brexit was never going to get done. Brexit was based on an undeliverable set of promises:

    Get our country back

    New trade deals

    Bonfire of controls

    End of wealth destroying regulations

    Immigration controls

    No border in Ireland

    That was 2016.

    Four Prime Ministers, four Trade Secretaries, five Foreign Secretaries, six Chancellors, six Chief Brexit negotiators and an oven-ready Brexit later, we can see the worthlessness of those promises. I must be fair. The impact of Covid and Ukraine has seriously prejudiced our living standards and those of the Western World. We hope that the worst of Covid is behind us.

    The vaccine developed under the regulatory discipline of the European Medicines Agency was the first to achieve clinical approval. The agency which provided hundreds of jobs in London has now been transferred to Amsterdam because of Brexit Ukraine enjoys the support of the Western World, and to its credit we all appear ready to pay a high price for it.

    However damaging to us now, the effect of covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine may be relatively short term. Brexit is not. It represents a permanent fracture of our relationship with our closest neighbours and our largest market.

    It has led to queues in the hospitals and G.P.s waiting rooms, disruption to supply lines, increased prices and interest rates. It reduces our attraction as a gateway to one of the world’s largest markets and diminishes our ability to influence European decisions over great global challenges.

    I followed every Conservative Prime Minister from Winston Churchill up to and including Theresa May in their support for our membership of Europe. You would expect me to be critical of Brexit but I am not alone. Recently the Daily Telegraph put the past six years into context. Under the headline “After six wasted years”.

    Alistair Heath summarised the situation as follows:-

    “It has been clear for years that our putrefying economy is in desperate need of shock therapy. Yet instead of addressing its many horrific pathologies, our ruling class, well served by the status quo, has stubbornly blocked radical surgery. The result has been catastrophic: Poland and Slovenia are catching up with us in terms of middle-class lifestyles, and our desperate young can’t afford to buy a home.

    I quoted the first four words of the headline. Let me quote the whole headline. After six wasted years Truss is about to deliver a Brexit that actually works. The consequence of Liz Truss’ seven weeks in office has an eloquence
    beyond the finest oratory. Let me set out the reality of Brexit.

    One pound sterling was worth 1.48 US dollars on 23 June 2016, the day of the referendum. The following day that value plummeted to 1.36 dollars. Yesterday a pound was buying 1.18 dollars. That amounts to a loss of over 20% of the pound’s value against the dollar since 2016. The pound has also lost over 12% of its value against the euro, falling from an exchange rate of over 1.30 before the referendum to 1.14 yesterday.

    The London School of Economics has estimated that Brexit alone – before the effects of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine are accounted for – is responsible for a 6% rise in food prices. Put starkly, Brexit means that more people are unable to pay their mortgage or rent, are having to turn to food banks, or are unable to heat their homes.

    The Resolution Foundation estimates that average real pay per UK worker will, by the end of the decade, be £470 lower each year – that’s a thousand pounds for an average couple. Normally, lower exchange rates have an important silver lining in that they make UK exports more affordable and increase their volume. But the signs are that – due to Brexit-induced trade barriers and red tape – this did not happen. Post-Brexit.

    UK exports to the EU fell by 14% in 2021. The Centre for European Reform, has estimated that Brexit had, by the end of 2021, reduced trade in goods between the UK and the EU by 13.6% and left UK GDP 5.2% lower than it would have been had the UK stayed in the EU single market. The CER puts the Brexit hit to overall investment in the UK economy at 13.6%.

    The Office for Budget Responsibility concluded that consequent upon the new trading relationship as set out in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement that came into effect on January 1 2021 British imports and exports would eventually be reduced by 15%. They further concluded that new trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact on GDP. Little surprise that the Truss government did not consult them about the consequences of their budget.

    I doubt if the government were consulted about the decision to build a new model of the Land Rover Defender in Slovakia. The queues in the Health service are of alarming proportions. The European doctors and nurses have gone home. The government is left trawling developing countries to replace them.

    No one explained that a consequence of Brexit would be that our country – one of the world’s richest – would have to attract specialists trained by some of the world’s poorest.

    The OECD in June of this year predicted that in 2023 the UK economic growth at nil would be the slowest in the G20 above only Russia. Three months later the dire energy crisis in Germany had a similar effect there. The three major credit rating agencies . crucial to UK’s borrowing costs – Moody’s, Fitch and S&P have this year all downgraded the outlook for the UK from stable to negative.

    These are the judgements of independent organisations and markets and stand in stark contrast to the propaganda of Brexiteers. It was all too easy to promise a bonfire of red tape and demonise Brussels bureaucrats in a cynical exploitation of people’s anxieties and frustrations.

    Only yesterday in the Times, Mark Littlewood, Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs, a pro Brexit think tank, wrote ‘Nowhere has the failure been so stark as in the strange story of the almost complete absence of a so-called Brexit dividend.’

    The simple truth is that six years on, the only significant example of that bonfire has been to allow unlimited bankers’ bonuses. Regulation is the difference between civilisation and the jungle. We can all enthuse at David Attenborough’s brilliant depiction of life red in tooth and claw where the only law is survival of the fittest.

    Regulations are the codes and standards that hold modern societies together. That is why whenever the government has sought to dilute or lower the standards they uphold, civilised bodies like The National Trust, The Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds protest at the legislative processes involved.

    The Brexiteers told us new deals with faster growing markets would more than compensate for lost European trade. Six years’ later all but three of those new deals merely replicate those already negotiated by the EU. A deal with the United States has been scuppered by the government’s attempt to unilaterally override the Northern Ireland protocol.

    India wants us to reverse our immigration controls as the price of a deal. There are new deals with Australia and New Zealand. The consequences for our farmers are so adverse that even a minister who helped negotiate it says the Australian deal is not good for the UK.

    No wonder full implementation is delayed until the late 2030s! I am helped once again by the Sunday Telegraph – Jeremy Warner on October 30th. wrote “Brexit is irreversible, but we must strengthen economic ties with the EU”. I disagree with his irreversible gambit. Public opinion has already moved.

    In October an IPSOS MORI Poll reported that 51% of the people thought that Brexit had damaged the economy whilst only 22% thought the opposite. Listen, however, to what Warner says about Brexit. He refers to Rishi Sunak’s commitment to building an economy that embraces the opportunities of Brexit.

    He needs to get a move on and indeed articulate precisely what those opportunities are – for six years after Britain voted to leave the European Union all we’ve got to show for it so far is political, economic and financial chaos. From an economic perspective there has been zero payback and particularly in the area of international trade and reputation, considerable harm.

    I do not accept that Brexit is irreversible.

    The timescale may be unpredictable. The purpose is not.

    We must start by rebuilding bridges.

    We need a practical compromise over the Irish border that would restore devolved government.

    We need to end the isolation of our scientists and researchers by rejoining the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme.

    We should restore the right for our young people to participate in projects abroad under the EU’s Erasmus Plus programme.

    In place of a Department for Exiting the EU we need a Minister with responsibility for Enhancing Relationships with the EU. That rescue operation could start with a veterinary agreement to reduce checks on food products entering the single market which would contribute to reducing tensions in Northern Ireland.

    We should attack the restrictions on musicians and other UK service providers to work for short periods in the EU Each of the steps I have set out is realistic. Every step draws our self interests closer together.

    The EU is still there, next door, with its market of 450 million people. We thrive only by working closely together. The question remains how to improve the governance of this country. Brexiteers said that Europe would disintegrate into its original nations.

    The Euro was seen as the harbinger of civil war. The question today is whether the UK itself can survive. Sinn Fein is now the largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Scots Nats use identical arguments to break up the United Kingdom that underlie the Brexit case.

    We need radical change in the way we govern this country. Devolution must be based on a meaningful partnership between London and the rest of England. It calls for a practical sharing of power between Edinburgh and Cardiff and the very different parts of Scotland and Wales. I want to set out what I mean. We must end the misrepresentation of the roles of public and private sector.

    They are interrelated and of crucial support to each other. Some essential services such as education and health are provided by both. Some publicly financed programmes, such as Research grants, lead directly to job creation .Many quangos such as the Arts Council, or the Lottery, are critical to the success of our cultural activities and prowess on the sports field.

    We need to recognise the Civil Service for the hard working, dedicated incorruptible machinery of government that it is. The widespread appointment of political advisers has contributed to public cynicism. Special advisers should bring expertise to public life not party politics. My relationship with this City was, without doubt, the most rewarding political experience of my life.

    It taught me that we are overcentralised and that the baronies of Whitehall are specialist in their responsibilities with inadequate coordination. My time here opened my eyes to the local consequences. On the backbenches after 1986 I gained a fuller understanding of other countries’ more effective models.

    In 1968 the Redcliffe-Maud report on the structure of local government in England looked at the 1300 local authorities that had been created when the only means of travel was by foot or horse. His report recommended their replacement by sixty-two Unitary Authorities.

    It was the right judgement except in the eyes of all those with a stake in the status quo. Peter Walker – I was his deputy – steered an uneasy compromise through the Conservative government to reduce it to some 300 authorities.

    The Greater London Authority and City Councils presided over London and Metropolitan boroughs with a two tier structure, based on counties and districts, elsewhere. This was the ground over which, as SoS for the Department of Environment, I led the Conservatives in the municipal elections of 1978. Labour was in trouble in the Winter of Discontent.

    Operation Cleansweep was intended to drive them from power. Only Durham resisted our advance. I am not proud of my decisions about the local government restructuring when I was first responsible after 1979.

    They are defensible only against the background of the divisive climate of the time. I got rid of the Greater London authority and the Metro counties that I had, only ten years earlier,
    helped to create.

    I am however proud of the serendipitous collection of decisions related to Liverpool.

    I agreed to continue the special partnership that my predecessor, Peter Shore, formed with the City.

    I selected the banks of the Mersey for the site for an Urban Development Corporation.

    I awarded Liverpool the first Garden Festival, to reclaim toxic land and turn it into attractive development opportunities.

    Peter Walker had created a derelict land grant mechanism a decade earlier to eradicate the coal tips and ore extraction blemishes scattered over the countryside. The task largely completed, I used the grant to reclaim toxic urban sites for construction. Significantly I made the grant conditional on private sector partners developing the site.

    Every pound of public money attracted private money.

    The concept of gearing entered the political vocabulary. Human relationships evolved In place of the dialogue of the deaf from opposing mountain tops. Business people and officials became partners, enjoyed a drink together, developed friendships.

    I listed the Albert Dock, an iconic part of Liverpool heritage that was thus saved from demolition. In 1981 several of our inner cities witnessed serious riots. Amongst the worst were here in Toxteth.

    The maintenance of law and order is a fundamental of any Conservative conviction. I backed the police as they restored it. I felt, however, a personal responsibility. The riots happened on my watch. I thought I had begun a serious attempt to bring a new optimism to Liverpool.

    I sought the Prime Minister’s agreement, instantly given, to leave the departmental routine to my very able colleagues Tom King and John Stanley whilst I was here. I held extensive meetings, talked to anyone with something to say, walked the streets, listened, and considered. My relationship with the city lasted until the end of 1982. It can be divided into three distinct phases.

    For three days I listened. People were courteous but sceptical. You only came because of the riot. That was self-evidently true and I chose it as the title for my subsequent report to the Cabinet. There was one other clear impression.

    Everyone had their idea of who was responsible for the riots. It was always someone else. Liverpool The ability to fund and make decisions lay in London and even there, there was no coordination of responsibility. There was no powerful local leadership.

    The mood changed around day four. People began to ask “What are you going to do?” There was only one credible answer to that question however much it made a mockery of the concept of non-intervention associated with Mrs Thatcher’s government.

    I spent the next couple of weeks preparing a list of ideas that, with the right determination, resource, and above all, local support could demonstrate a more optimistic destiny.

    The third phase lasted eighteen months. The list was one thing but who could turn it into action. I am a practical man. Show me a problem. Show me the person in charge. No one was in charge. The answer was to turn a centralist, London based approach on its head.

    I created a task force drawn locally from the public and private sector. Every Thursday the team would report progress. Every Friday I troubleshot the obstacles. We learned how to regenerate places.

    We learnt that there are no short-term fixes. Creating and developing ideas, the processes of planning and consultation, land acquisition and contract negotiation have to happen before boots hit the ground. The joker in the pack, and the Treasury’s strongest card in opposing regeneration, is that it is often impossible to predict and cost its consequences.

    If I had predicted Canary Wharf, Excel, City Airport in London or a major arena and conference centre, and contemporary shopping centre in Liverpool I would have been locked up.

    The Development Corporation on the banks of the Mersey and its equivalent in London were my most important initiative in 1979. To understand why they succeeded it is important to look at their structure. They had a chairman, a chief executive and board-level representative of local stakeholders. They had planning powers, money to restore sites, improve infrastructure and acquire land – all essential characteristics.

    They were thus able to reassure investors considering locating a new office, laboratory or factory that it was not going to be surrounded by sheds and that their staff would be safe and enjoy good communications with their workplace. Such Corporations transformed large parts of inner city Britain over the next fifty years.

    Regeneration is usually led by the public sector. It has the resources to make derelict land competitive with green fields. Partnerships with Quangos, universities, government cultural and sporting programmes have endless potential to work with the private sector to create wealth.

    Levelling up, however, will remain more slogan than policy until the government gives form. resource and structure to its devolution agenda. Examples from my early Liverpool experiences demonstrate the philosophy.

    The preservation of the Albert Dock provided a home for the Tate of the North. The use of Derelict Land Grant persuaded Plessey and British Rail to create Wavertree Industrial Park. The Housing Corporation unlocked the development of the Anglican Cathedral Precinct. The Mersey Basin campaign was a major attack on urban pollution.

    The recent decision by the Metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram to complete the job
    can make Liverpool a world leader in an increasing global priority to raise the quality of urban water with huge environmental, leisure, tourist, sporting and the job creation that will flow.

    In the early 1980’s Cantril Farm was the despair of Knowsley Council. The Abbey National Building Society and Barclays Bank created the now thriving Stockbridge Village Trust. The Tate and Lyle site, abandoned by the company, was transferred to English Estates. The Eldonians campaigned to renovate their area. In 1987 the project, incorporating owner occupied housing, won the Times/RIBA award as the most outstanding example of community enterprise in the UK.

    A Merseyside Special Allocation fund to enable this was spread over three years and deducted from the Housing Corporation budget. Pilkingtons in St.Helens were faced with redundancies. Bill Humphries, set
    up an advisory service to help those losing their jobs.

    Step by step, this initiative led to the present Local Enterprise Partnerships of today. The urban fringe is often characterised by rubbish dumped by uncaring citizens. Groundwork UK was conceived in St Helens using volunteers to clean things up.. Today it is a federation of charities mobilising community action on poverty and the environment across the United Kingdom.

    In 1990 I returned to the Department of the Environment for the third time. Ten years before, I had been preoccupied with the need to reclaim derelict land. The conversion of Cantril Farm into Stockbridge Village Trust gave me the confidence to tackle the human tragedy of urban slums.

    City Challenge invited 30 local authorities to compete for one of only 10 packages of £35 million spread over 5 years to help them transform a slum estate. The idea of competition was highly controversial but right. The losers learnt from the winners in the second round. There were conditions.

    The local Authority had to attract private or other public funds to add to the original offer. The project had to have a chief executive and a project team. Most importantly, the stakeholders, such as headteachers, social workers, the police and the tenants, had to be consulted.

    One of the winning sites was here in Liverpool. I am grateful to Max Steinberg for the opportunity to study the historic documents he kept from his involvement at the time. The area covered 144 hectares within the eastern sector of the City Centre.

    It links the centre with Everton, Granby/Toxteth and Cornwallis, with the campuses of the University, Polytechnic (now Liverpool John Moores University ), City Community
    College and the Oxford Street, Myrtle Street and Catherine Street Hospitals.

    Some 4000 people lived in the area, and there was a working population of 18,000. The project was timed for five years and in 1997 the European Institute of Urban Affairs was asked to report on the outcome. I quote its concluding paragraphs.

    ‘Liverpool City Challenge has exceeded its original output projects in 18 of the 19 areas of activity. There was underperformance in the number of dwellings transferred to owner occupation, due to limited progress in the Canning area.

    However, we achieved:

    23% more jobs were created than anticipated

    282% extra business start-ups

    14% more new or improved business and commercial floorspace

    35% more reclaimed land

    20% more apprenticeships

    29% more Housing Association dwellings

    105% more childcare places

    The report concluded and I quote: “The achievements, whilst evidence of the success of the initiative, may also reflect the fact that targets were cautiously set initially, to make them achievable. Nevertheless, taken as a set of indicators for the performance of Liverpool City Challenge, they certainly demonstrate significant success in delivering the plan.”

    In Manchester, another City challenge was awarded. Richard Leese, Leader of the City Council, described Hulme City Challenge as the most important thing that has happened to Manchester over the past forty years. Virtually everything done since was with the skills, knowledge and ideas acquired through the City Challenge process.

    Today it is called Levelling Up. In a sense even that slogan misleads. We are never going to create Mayfair in Middlesbrough. What we can do is to turn the vicious circle of decline, where the young leave, companies close, schools fail, and land lies deserted, into virtuous circles of hope where people stay, companies invest, and the environment attracts.

    We know how to do it. The evidence is irrefutable. What is missing is a government determined to do it. After the 2010 election David Cameron invited me, together with Sir Terry Leahy, one of this City’s most distinguished citizens. to revisit my 1981 report ‘It took a riot’.

    The contrast was stark. Liverpool was full of people with ideas and energy. Our task was to recommend the best and propose a framework within which to turn them into action. Our report – Rebalancing Britain: Policy or Slogan, published in October 2011 set out our recommendations.

    A year later I published another report for the Prime Minister ‘No Stone Unturned in pursuit of Growth’. Uniting both these reports was the theme to give form and substance to devolution by creating powerful Mayors to lead the recovery of our cities.

    George Osborne, as Chancellor, and Greg Clark, as the Minister responsible, began the first serious move in that direction after the Blair Government created a mayoralty in London in 2000. This is not a cry for increased Public Expenditure, although I believe markets would take a more benign view of borrowing if it was for investment and not consumption.

    This is a cry to use existing public capital programmes to attract private expenditure. It is a policy to save public expenditure by replacing over 300 local authorities closer to the 62 designed fifty years ago. Scotland and Wales abolished District Authorities in the 1990s.

    In England unitary counties Wiltshire, Dorset. Shropshire and Buckinghamshire for example, manage perfectly well without the waste, and duplication created by two tiers. We need to extend the local leadership provided by directly elected mayors.

    The government should recreate the central pot of capital expenditure introduced by George Osborne and distribute long term funds, after consultation, to local partnerships depending on the quality of their plans reflecting the opportunities and problems in their very different locations.

    We need to engage the remarkable reservoir of goodwill and cooperation that the Covid crisis revealed to be not far below the surface of our society.

    It was a single honour for me to receive the Freedom of this City in 2012.

    In looking forward then I concluded.

    Liverpool is reasserting its place as a city recognised across a shrinking world as a place of culture, a font of enterprise, proud of itself, ambitious for its future.

    Liverpudlians have done this.

    Liverpudlians will build on this.

    You must be clear.

    Because you did. You can.

    I would not change a word of it.

  • Kevin Hollinrake – 2022 Statement on Product Safety – Transitional Arrangements

    Kevin Hollinrake – 2022 Statement on Product Safety – Transitional Arrangements

    The statement made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 14 November 2022.

    I have today laid before Parliament the draft statutory instrument Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022 and an accompanying draft explanatory memorandum. The instrument will provide businesses with additional time to transition to the post-exit independent UKCA regime, providing businesses with flexibility and choice on how to comply with product regulations.

    We are committed to doing all we can to provide flexibility for industry. These measures intend to reduce immediate burdens and costs for businesses, in light of current cost of living and global supply chain challenges, whilst maintaining high standards of product safety.

    The main purposes of this instrument are to:

    Extend acceptance of certain products meeting EU requirements and markings on the market in Great Britain for a further two years, until 31 December 2024.This intends to provide businesses with flexibility and choice on how to comply with product regulations.

    And, as previously announced on 20 June 2022, but with updated timelines:

    Provide that where manufacturers, or other relevant persons, have acted under EU conformity assessment procedures by 31 December 2024, that action will be treated as having been taken under the UK conformity assessment procedures until the expiry of the certificate, or until 31 December 2027, whichever is sooner. This is intended to reduce immediate costs associated with third-party retesting and recertification and make the transition to UKCA compliance easier for businesses.

    Extend existing labelling provisions for UKCA marking, importer information and responsible persons’ information until 31 December 2027. This is intended to reduce costs and burdens associated with fulfilling labelling requirements.

    There are different rules for medical devices, construction products, cableways, transportable pressure equipment, unmanned aircraft systems, rail products, cosmetics and marine equipment. There are also different rules for Northern Ireland.

    The statutory instrument will be made using powers under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Further details about the changes and their effects are contained in section 7 of the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum. The draft of this instrument and the accompanying draft explanatory memorandum can be found on gov.uk.

    My officials will continue to engage with industry closely to provide businesses with support, and to understand how to take a pragmatic approach to improving regulation to the benefit of businesses and consumers. This will include continuing to review the UK regulatory framework to understand how we could reduce costs and burdens for businesses in the longer term.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement on the Occasion of the Signature of the Memorandum of Understanding with Kazakhstan

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Statement on the Occasion of the Signature of the Memorandum of Understanding with Kazakhstan

    The statement made by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, on 7 November 2022.

    Thank you very much Prime Minister Smailov,

    It is a great pleasure for me to sign with you this important Memorandum of Understanding between Kazakhstan and the European Union. We are basically opening a new chapter in our already deep relationship. The European Union and Kazakhstan have developed strong economic ties over the years. The European Union is by far the largest foreign investor in Kazakhstan, with 60% of the stock of foreign direct investment. The Memorandum of Understanding we have just signed will now further expand this relationship and align it with the shared priorities of both parties.

    Together, we will work to better integrate our strategic value chains related to raw materials, to batteries and to renewable hydrogen. These value chains are very important engines to power the green and the digital transition worldwide. We know for example how important batteries are to electrify our economy, for example for electric vehicles or the storage of renewable energy, so there is a great demand for that. Or if we take hydrogen: As European Union, we are determined to reach climate neutrality by 2050 and we have ambitious plans to move away from fossil fuels. And there, hydrogen will play a major role to be one of the big sources of renewable energy that we will need. We know that all of this requires an appropriate amount of specific raw materials, and in particular minerals of which Kazakhstan is so rich. So raw materials and renewable hydrogen are not only essential building blocks for our sustainable future but also for our shared prosperity.

    Finally, to be successful in the long term, MoUs must be rooted in ambitious, long-term partnerships that align well with the values of both parties. The Memorandum of Understanding that we have just signed is exemplary in this respect. First of all, because it emphasises that our cooperation must help align our high environmental, social and governance standards. Second, because it foresees that Kazakhstan and the European Union will for example cooperate on research and innovation, on the formation of skills, or on capacity building. And finally, because this will also attract private capital to these investments, the value chains we are developing together in Kazakhstan will serve the whole world. Because, of course, it is not exclusively for the European Union but it is open to everybody. And these value chains will be much needed worldwide.

    Let me conclude by emphasising that today is the first step in our common journey. The real work starts now. We will take stock in six months, by which time we aim to have designed an operational roadmap, in partnership with our Member States, with industry and with the stakeholders.

    So Prime Minister, I am very much looking forward to the next steps. And many thanks for being here with us today.