Category: Foreign Affairs

  • Jim Shannon – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    Jim Shannon – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on setting the scene. His passion and interest in this subject is renowned. In my short time in the House, I cannot remember a time when he did not lead or sponsor such debates. It seems that for various reasons, others who wished to speak have not been able to. It is unfortunate that the input of others has been curtailed, but that does not lessen the importance of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. When it comes to Iran, we in this place have spoken up on many occasions; indeed, we did so yesterday in the free Iran group with Maryam Rajavi. The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) was at that meeting, and led and chaired it for a short period of time.

    This is a big issue—a massive issue. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, speaking up for those of Christian faith, those of other faiths and those of no faith. It is clear to me that that is not just about people’s right to express themselves religiously and the beliefs that they have, but about standing up for human rights. The issue of freedom and democracy in Iran, especially the freedom of religion or belief, continues to escalate—depressingly so. That is why this debate is so important. Violations of freedom of religion or belief happen frequently in Iran, and continue to escalate. The hon. Member for Harrow East is right to highlight the danger that Iran poses to peace in the middle east: it supplies the Houthis with aid and finance, supplies Hezbollah in Lebanon with finance and weapons, supplies Hamas in Gaza with aid, arms and finance, and supplies many terrorist groups in Syria in the same way. Of course, Iran also supplies drones to Russia to use against Ukraine, so it is an instigator of war and an opposer of peace in the middle east.

    As persecution and violations of religious freedom increase in frequency and impact, I and other members of the APPG have submitted several written questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place, because he is always helpful in his responses. We have written to the FCDO with a large number of questions over a period of time, but unfortunately, responses have not been forthcoming. I ask the Minister to introduce some speed into the process, if possible, to secure an answer within the prescribed time: the FCDO said it would respond to our questions, and is duty bound to do so, but has not responded yet. The incidents we have highlighted and the FCDO’s response to them must be brought to Parliament’s attention, as well as the importance of developing better policies and sanctions against Iran for those actions and for its denial of freedoms and democracy.

    The one thing that has always bothered me when it comes to Iran is its violations against women and children. They have been attacked, brutalised, and scarred by acid attacks, they have no access to jobs, education or ownership of property, they do not have the right to marriage, and many other opportunities in society are denied them. Over Christmas, several Christians were arrested in Iran, with no response yet from the FCDO—again, we are waiting for a response. Iran finally released on temporary bail two journalists who covered the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, which led to the mass protests in 2022. We asked the FCDO whether the Minister would make an assessment of the implications of those releases for its policies, but as yet, there has been no response.

    Recently, the Iranian Government displaced Baha’i farmers by seizing farmland that they had been tending for several generations. The FCDO responded to my question on that topic by stating:

    “At the 78th UN General Assembly, we co-sponsored the Iran Human Rights Resolution, calling for Iran to eliminate, in law and in practice, all forms of discrimination on the basis of thought, conscience, religion or belief. We are committed to promoting religious freedom and will continue to work with partners to advocate for the rights of the Baha’i community in Iran.”

    Such action is commendable and appreciated. What actions have been taken to help implement that resolution?

    Again, I ask these questions because I know the Minister will respond; I also look forward to the response of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and of the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day). The UK recently enacted new sanctions against Iranian individuals for human rights violations, including flogging as a punishment for exercising freedom of religion or belief. Roya Heshmati was flogged by police for not wearing a hijab in a picture posted on her social media— I have also posed a question to the FCDO on that topic. What sanctions have been imposed on those who inflict such persecution?

    Most importantly, potential violence and armed conflict with other countries may impact the rights of democracy and freedom, especially for religious minorities in Iran, so we must decide what policies are going to be enacted. Iranian-backed groups have attacked a US base in Jordan, and this brings about the increase of tensions between the west and Iran, despite Iran’s denial of its involvement in the attack—it got its proxies to carry out it out. As armed conflict and violence increase, the oppression of religious minorities increases tenfold. For someone to be a Shi’a, a Baha’i, a Christian or a member of an ethnic minority in Iran decreases their life expectancy.

    We must be ever mindful of the situation of religious minorities in Iran, but also of what the potential effect may be of UK actions against Iran through sanctions and changes in diplomatic relations. The hon. Member for Harrow East made a point about what we need to do and to do more of, and it is quite clear that the sanctions the Government are imposing are not effective. Because of that, we have to look at other methods, such as stronger sanctions or other ideas. Again, I would like to hear from the Minister, if possible, what thoughts he has about how we can hit Iran harder.

    Iran is continuing to arbitrarily detain human rights defender and 2023 Nobel peace prize recipient Narges Mohammadi, subjecting her to torture and other ill treatment by deliberately denying or severely delaying her access to adequate healthcare to coerce her into adhering to Iran’s abusive and degrading compulsory veiling laws. This places Narges Mohammadi’s health at great risk, particularly as she has serious heart and lung conditions. Jail is never good for someone’s health, and if they are in bad health, it is even worse.

    If Iran is willing to imprison and mistreat such an individual, what is to prevent it from doing so with ordinary individuals in Iran who have religious identities or beliefs different from those of the majority? Although we may not be able to force Iran to change its laws, we can place further requirements on their doing trade with the UK. When we look at trade last year, we see that the UK exported nearly £224 million of trade to Iran, and in return Iran sold back some £190 million. What regulations and policies are companies required to adhere to for such trade to occur? Are there any human rights and religious freedom requirements in place, or inspections of companies in Iran to ensure that they adhere to human rights working conditions and do not discriminate against religious minorities in hiring or in the workplace? These are the things I would like to see.

    I conclude with this: the need for Iran to raise its treatment of religious minorities and to provide citizens with democracy is becoming more and more necessary. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s debate today is so important, and we hope—we look to everyone for this, but ultimately to the Minister—that the response will be one that gives us heart. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak today on behalf of my brothers and sisters in the faith in Iran, who do not have the opportunity to worship their God as I do. It is for that reason that I thought I had to be here to speak for them.

  • Bob Blackman – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    Bob Blackman – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    The speech made by Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP for Harrow East, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I beg to move,

    That this House condemns unreservedly the actions of the government of Iran and the violent conduct of the police in suppressing protests in that country; is deeply concerned over Tehran’s growing use of terrorism, espionage, cyber attacks and hostage-taking diplomacy to restrict and eliminate the Iranian democratic opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), targeting in particular members of the organised opposition, PMOI (MEK), in Ashraf 3, Albania and NCRI gatherings since 2018; notes that the resistance is struggling for the establishment of a secular democratic republic; calls on European governments, especially the government of Albania, to counter Tehran’s illegal activities and uphold the rights of members of the Iranian opposition PMOI (MEK) at Ashraf-3 in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, the European Convention of Human Rights and international law; is further concerned by reports of threats made to Iranian dissidents in the UK; urges the Government to include Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations; and further calls upon the Government to work with international counterparts to ensure that further sanctions are placed on Iran without delay and Iran is held to account for its illegal activities at home and abroad.

    I thank the Speakers-collect and the Backbench Business Committee for the various arrangements that had to be made because of this afternoon’s emergency business.

    I am truly horrified by the current situation in Iran, which was sparked by the brutal murder of a young girl by the authorities while she was in police custody. Her crime—if we could call it a crime—was merely wearing her hijab in a manner that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps determined to be too loose. I thank Mr Speaker in particular for allowing me on a number of occasions to debate this issue in the House. However, I wish this debate had taken place under different circumstances and that by now our Government had taken decisive action to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety.

    The urgency for this charge is now more relevant than ever. Not only does the human rights situation in Iran remain dire, but the uncertainty around the middle east, which is spreading further afield at a rapid rate, is predominantly driven by the funding and support from this exceptionally threatening, conniving and deceitful regime.

    Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Iranian people are locked in a vital struggle for justice, democracy and particularly equality, and that that struggle must go on until the oppression of women in Iran and the use of sexual violence as a means of doing so stop?

    Bob Blackman

    I thank my hon. Friend—she must have looked at the next section of my speech. The IRGC literally runs and rules Iran, disregarding democracy, freedom of expression and basic human rights. The majority of people live in fear of speaking out or engaging in political matters in any form, with vigorous covert intelligence deployed to all parts of the country, seeking to sift out any potential opposition that might pose a threat to the regime.

    The authorities censor all media, jamming satellite TV channels and filtering and blocking social media platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. Further, the authorities shut off or disrupt the internet and mobile phone networks, particularly during protests, in order to suppress mobilisation and hide from civilians the sheer scale of the violations and privacy breaches committed by the security forces. In attempting to justify the infringements, the IRGC is even trying to push an internet user protection Bill through the Parliament in Iran. That legislation would further erode online freedoms and people’s access to the global internet.

    All opposition in Iran, whether it is independent political parties, trade unions, striking workers, protesters, civil society organisations or simply truth-sharing journalists, is brutally suppressed. There has never been a clearer example of an undemocratic self-claimed democracy. Political opposition frequently receives the harshest treatment from the regime, and Iran is the country responsible for the second highest number of executions each year, behind only China. Whatever people’s views on capital punishment, it cannot be acceptable that that position persists.

    The House will no doubt recall the uprising that took place in September 2022, sparking nationwide protests that continue even today. I take this opportunity to honour the bravery of those people. It cannot be easy for anyone to stand up and speak for basic rights when there is a high likelihood that they or their family will be brutally targeted as a result. Following the riots, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, Javaid Rehman, raised the alarm about the concerning trend of arbitrary arrests, detentions and executions targeting individuals for merely exercising their freedom of expression.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech. The dead hand of Iran is, unfortunately, everywhere; its influence and impact is incredible, and I would suggest that it is even in this place. There is an all-party parliamentary group whose secretariat is BIRD—the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy. That is led by a man, Sayed Al-Wadaei, who was outed as a front leader for the promotion of Iranian foreign policy. In 2012, a man called Saeed Al-Shehabi was exposed by the London Evening Standard as part of a terrorist group with links to Iran. That organisation and those people are part of a secretariat to an APPG here, and that needs to be exposed and Members need to take action.

    Bob Blackman

    I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. That is now clearly on the record, and the House authorities will need to look at that particular issue.

    Recently released figures, which I am sure will have been generously tainted by the regime, show that 870 executions took place in 2023 alone. That is a 30% increase on the previous year, and many of those people were women and children. Tens of thousands of political prisoners, the overwhelming majority being peaceful, have been arrested in Iran—arrested for merely holding a sign or removing a headscarf. Once arrested, their treatment is utterly unfathomable. Amnesty International has recently reported that the atrocities such prisoners are subjected to include being beaten, raped, gang raped and psychologically abused; the list of horrors goes on. It is truly despicable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) said.

    The plight of women remains intensely troubling. Women remain second-class citizens in Iran: they continue to receive intensified opposition from the regime; they face entrenched discrimination in both law and practice; and they are subject to domestic violence, child marriage, unequal divorce and custody rights, mandatory dress code, restricted nationality and travel rights, and unfair inheritance laws—to name but a few examples. Women in Iran have been jailed for merely singing in public or publishing their work on social media.

    Perhaps even more troublingly, Iran celebrates the greatest number of female executions, beating even China on that particular front. Armita Geravand was a 16-year-old schoolgirl, who was tragically killed through the brutality of the so-called Iranian morality police. Like Mahsa Amini, her only crime was refusing to wear her hijab. Sadly, such stories are not isolated in Iran, and I am sad to say that they will continue without significant intervention from international communities and the Iranian people.

    I am proud that in this House alone, we have an abundance of great women representing us; their contribution is vital and championed by us all. It is shocking that, in 2024, this is far from the case across many other parts of the globe.

    Anna Firth

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He is making an absolutely brilliant, first-class speech, and shining a light on the despicable, brutal regime in Iran. Does he agree that that brutal regime is literally on an execution spree at the moment, having executed more than 350 protesters and dissidents since the conflict in Gaza began? That is a rate of execution of not far off 100 protesters per month. Does he agree that it is long overdue that the UK and our partners demand that the UN Human Rights Council dispatch an international fact-finding mission to Iran to visit the regime’s prisoners—to meet political prisoners and detained protesters—so that, globally, we can finally shine a light on what is happening in Iran? And, of course, he is right that the IRGC should be proscribed.

    Bob Blackman

    I thank my hon. Friend—that was almost a speech rather than an intervention!

    I have had the privilege on a number of occasions to visit Ashraf 3, which is home to some 2,700 Iranian refugees. The museum on the site exceptionally depicts the long struggle that people have endured, with brutal attacks and massacres occurring all too frequently. In Albania, the regime’s claws continue to menace the people. The IRGC has repeatedly targeted the Albanian Government through cyber-attacks, disinformation and terror attacks. I am saddened that, on occasion—most notably in June last year—the camp has been raided by the Albanian police forces. There have been reports of unjustified force and copious amounts of pepper spray being used. Unfortunately, one man died from the injuries that he suffered. I am almost certain that that attack was founded on false claims generated by the IRGC.

    The regime holds a power over Albania. Its continued attacks on cyber-systems are used as so-called warnings to the Government, blackmailing them with threats of continued attacks if they do not suppress the rights of camp members. I urge the Albanian Government to stand up to those threats. No country should infringe its morals for fear of such a corrupt and wicked enemy. This is a time for western allies to stick together and stand up to malicious terror acts. I am glad that our Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation will be going to Albania shortly, and I hope that they will raise this issue.

    The Albanian Prime Minister has said publicly that residents of Ashraf 3 should not engage in any political activity—even peaceful conversation. That is tantamount to denying the right to freedom of expression. I am saddened that that announcement came after a show of support for the camp by Albanian parliamentarians, showing that the dramatic shift in opinion must be down to the negotiations with the IRGC. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he will offer support to our Albanian counterparts, encouraging them to stand up to the regime and protect the rights of those in that camp, who have already experienced too much brutality.

    This debate comes at a time when the world has never been so unsafe. We have a war raging in Europe, attacks by the Houthis in the Red sea, an illegal war in Gaza by the Hamas terror group, Hezbollah in Lebanon and war in Syria, as well as other dangerous militant groups. The one thing that links all those examples is the IRGC, which stands as the head of the snake, funding, training and supplying weaponry to all those organisations. Its outreach and capabilities are frankly frightening.

    The IRGC has been found to have supplied drones and weapons to Russia as Moscow and Tehran deepen their co-operation in a partnership that is likely to continue and intensify as they commonly seek to weaken the west. Furthermore, the IRGC provided significant direct funding and training to Hamas in the lead-up to the dreadful 7 October attacks. Most recently, the Houthis in Yemen have targeted shipping lanes in the Red sea. The Houthi militant group was set up by Iran and remains under its influence. Linked to those attacks, Iran announced that it had subsequently launched into low-earth orbit three satellites that the US believes can be used to more accurately target intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    The regime in Iran ignites a threat not only to the international community, but, perhaps most concerningly, to the domestic security of the UK. Individuals with Iranian links, or who have spoken out against the IRGC in this country, have frequently been targeted. Furthermore, MI5 announced last year that it had intercepted a significant number of Iran-backed terror attacks.

    Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)

    The hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. He is quite right: last year, we heard from the director general of MI5 and the head of counter-terrorism policing that they had intervened to disrupt up to 15 kidnapping and assassination attempts in the UK coming from Iran. That is why the argument for proscription is such a powerful one. It would not be merely symbolic; it would be about granting the security services and police forces in the UK additional powers to truly dismantle any foothold that the IRGC has in the UK that allows it to facilitate those assassination attempts, which we must close down. Does he agree that that is why proscription is so important?

    Bob Blackman

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The position here is that the Iranian Government are funding professional gangs to inflict attacks and violence on individuals in this country. They have neither mercy nor morals in how far they will go. A Spanish politician and vocal opponent of the Iranian regime was shot outside his home by a criminal gang employed by the IRGC. We must not allow such despicable attacks to occur on domestic soil. It is completely unacceptable that people in this country are being followed home or having to suppress their freedom of expression for fear of being targeted. I urge the Government to tackle this issue with urgency.

    The Iranian authorities have been targeting BBC Persian staff, who are predominantly based in the UK, and their families since 2009 in an attempt to intimidate them into stopping their work as journalists. The intimidation escalated in 2017 and has been at an unprecedented level since September 2022. BBC Persian staff frequently receive credible death threats, threats of horrific violence, thousands of abusive comments and increased threats to their personal safety on online platforms.

    With several colleagues, I was a target of the Iranian regime when we attended the annual gathering of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, with delegations from almost every major democracy, back in 2016. An Iranian diplomat tried to bomb the conference. He had the audacity to smuggle the bomb through security in diplomatic bags. Thankfully, the Belgian and French authorities apprehended the terrorist and no one was harmed. Had he succeeded, there would have been a world war.

    The Iranians assumed responsibility, and they forced the Belgian authorities to hand over this despicable so-called diplomat after they kidnapped two Belgian journalists and held them as hostages. If this does not highlight to the Government that we cannot engage in dialogue with the Iranian regime, I do not know what will. The key point is that the current policy on Iran is not working. Its influence is stretching across the middle east and further. It is time to look for an alternative solution, and I urge the Government to proscribe this merciless regime with utmost priority.

    I am aware that we have already sanctioned individuals, but we must go further. Until we start cracking down on the IRGC, it will continue to extort and suppress innocent people. Its military capacity is growing and, even if it does not already possess a nuclear capability—I have my doubts—its nuclear capability will also grow.

    The international community must wake up and protect countries such as Israel by killing the initial piece of the chain. Without funding and support from Iran, terrorists like Hamas will not be able to carry out their dreadful attacks. Iran will feel the pinch only if there is full proscription, and I reiterate my plea for the Government to do so. Hezbollah is already proscribed, and it is the birthchild of the IRGC. The IRGC must therefore be proscribed, too.

    I have heard the rumours that the Government are holding off such action in order to continue a line of dialogue, but there is no honest or trustworthy dialogue to be had with this terrorist regime. Instead, we must show Iran that such action is not and will not be tolerated. Fifty per cent. of the IRGC’s training efforts are on indoctrination, creating more ruthless, more radical and more committed generations. The dangers are only increasing, so we must act before it is too late.

    It is high time that we work together to banish this unlawful regime, to protect innocent protestors and to champion free democratic rights across the world—we often take those rights for granted. To oppose the Iranian regime is no longer a political calculation but a simple humanitarian choice. We must support the Iranian people and acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iranian opposition if we are ever to see a free and democratic Iran.

    I look forward to hearing from colleagues on both sides of the House. I know that several Members who wanted to take part in this debate have unfortunately had to leave, but I hope we will have excellent replies from my hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, the shadow Minister.

  • Robin Millar – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    Robin Millar – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    The speech made by Robin Millar, the Conservative MP for Aberconwy, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    It is a privilege to speak in the debate and to follow the many hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken with great wisdom, knowledge and personal experience on these matters.

    It is informative to apply to article 6 of the Acts of Union the four tests for impact that were developed by Justice Colton—specifically, Northern Ireland’s compliance with certain EU standards; the bureaucracy and associated costs of complying with customs documentation and checks; the payment of tariffs for goods at risk; and the unfettered access enjoyed by Northern Ireland businesses to the EU single market. I question the representation of the Supreme Court judgment as set out in paragraph 14 of annex A to the Command Paper, but those were matters for the last debate, and there is not time to make my point.

    The Windsor framework removed many EU standards for GB-produced consumer goods destined for Northern Ireland. That does not change under the SI before us. The second test—on bureaucracy and compliance costs associated with customs—should concern us, as the protocol saw the diversion of £1.2 billion-worth of goods in supply chains from GB to the Republic. Indeed, logistics businesses testified to the Lords Windsor Framework Sub-Committee on the complexity of managing mixed loads, with two large haulage firms stating that groupage had been “forgotten” in the framework.

    Expert analysis has also suggested that 75% of output in non-exempted manufacturing sectors, including electronics, engineering and chemicals, comes from firms with turnover above £2 million, which will see their GB supply chains stuck in the red lane or diverted abroad. The Command Paper published yesterday contains a pledge—a UK internal market guarantee—that no more than 20% of goods will flow through the red lane. In practice, that creates a monitoring panel to report on any failures to hit the target and make recommendations to which the Government must respond. That is admirable but does not represent a material change to existing customs requirements under the protocol. It is also worth noting that, worryingly, that could be achieved simply by diverting supply chains away from GB towards the EU, as affected GB businesses cut Northern Ireland out of their distribution chains.

    The regulations before us create important easements for Northern Ireland to GB trade, including a guarantee that future divergence will not impact the ability of Northern Ireland traders to freely access GB markets. That is welcome, but the bulk of distribution has always pertained to GB-to-NI trade, not the reverse. As is also noted in the Command Paper, although technology may ease compliance costs in the medium to long-term, those costs will still exist. Shipping from London to Belfast will continue to require significantly more bureaucracy than shipping to York or Edinburgh. The third test, on tariffs, is not covered and does not apply.

    Finally, let me turn to Northern Ireland’s preferential access to the EU single market. I must emphasise that the clear trade-off that we have chosen to give Northern Ireland unregulated access to EU supply chains comes at the cost of complicating access to GB ones, despite the fact that Northern Ireland imports from GB are two and a half times those from the EU and six times those from Ireland. Whatever easements we offer, that has created a customs, judicial and legislative border across the kingdom, and it is hurting our businesses. The fact that Northern Ireland continues to have preferential access to the EU single market is unarguable, but it should not be misunderstood. Again, I find that final test informative.

    Nothing I say today is intended to diminish the achievement of the deal when it comes to material gain for Northern Ireland. Although I welcome the elements within the new deal, which undoubtedly offer increased safeguards for the Union, it does not change the fact of EU law’s application to Northern Ireland, additional bureaucracy for GB businesses attempting to access Northern Ireland, the existence of tariffs, or Northern Ireland’s de facto placement within the EU single market. Once again, the qualities and effectiveness of this deal will emerge over the months and years ahead, I am sure, and through the scrutiny that must come from this place. I will continue to offer my support in those months and years ahead.

  • Theresa Villiers – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    Theresa Villiers – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    The speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    The important statutory instruments that we are discussing today are the latest in the process of implementing the result of the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union. They may not have attracted the same volume, attention or emotion as those endless meaningful votes in 2018 and 2019, but they are no less important. This has been a long and difficult process that has divided the nation, but the end goal of restoring our status as an independent, self-governing democracy has been a prize worth fighting for.

    For centuries, Members of this Parliament strived to ensure that we would be governed only by the laws made by our own elected representatives, and that is what Brexit seeks to deliver, but we all know that the job is not yet finished when it comes to Northern Ireland, so I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the Minister and the DUP for their work and determination to tackle the problems with the Windsor framework and secure Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. I very much welcome the advances being made towards the restoration of power sharing and devolved government, and I accept that the statutory instruments are an important part of enabling that to happen because of the significant changes they contain.

    Of course, I completely understand the DUP’s concerns regarding the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. We must do all we can to minimise trade frictions between Britain and Northern Ireland. The agreement on the Windsor framework started that process—for example, by making the movement of medicines, food and items for retail sale much less problematic. I believe that further improvements will be delivered by the deal that we are looking at today, which will further reduce checks and inspections. My concern is that the central problem remains that Northern Ireland is subject to single market rules without having a vote on them. The instruments we are considering do not change that, although I welcome the important further clarity and safeguards offered on the Stormont brake.

    Dialogue with the EU has to continue so that ultimately we can move to a situation in which only items destined for export to the south are subject to EU rules and regulations in Northern Ireland. With pragmatism and advancing border technology, that should be possible. It is important that we continue to strive to bring that about, so that we can restore democratic control over making our laws in every part of our United Kingdom and Brexit is fully delivered for Northern Ireland, as it is for Great Britain.

    We also need assurances from Ministers that nothing in regulation 3 of the Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations will prevent regulatory divergence between Britain and the EU. Of course, any responsible Minister must consider the impact of his or her decisions on the unity of the UK and its single market, but new screening obligations must not be allowed to create a chilling effect, which would stop us charting our own course with regard to how we regulate our economy. Taking back control of making our own laws was a key reason that people voted to leave the EU. We have yet to fully deliver that for Northern Ireland and, as I have said, we must go further on it in the future.

    Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

    I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the conversations we have had on this specific point. She is right to highlight her concerns and to seek assurances from the Government, but she does accept that it is right to get assessments; that it is right that Governments should always be going through the process of assessing the impact of their decisions on every part of this United Kingdom; and that there is nothing wrong with transparency, with knowing any possible consequence, nor—if that potential consequence is negative—with all of us determinedly trying to ensure that it does not arise.

    Theresa Villiers

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; the dialogue that he and I have had over recent days has done a lot to reassure me that this package is about transparency, not a block on divergence. I hope the Minister will confirm that in his closing remarks, because divergence is important. The regulatory reform made possible by exit is, I think, crucial for our future economic success. By making us more competitive, modernising regulation is a key means to boost growth, raise living standards and reduce taxes.

    In conclusion, it took courage and determination from Northern Ireland’s elected leaders to secure peace after three horrific decades of terrorist violence. Asking very different parties to sit in a permanent mandatory coalition was never going to be easy, not least because some of the divisions between them date back decades, or even centuries. That devolved government has worked for so much of the past quarter of a century is a testament to Northern Ireland’s leaders and their determination to make the ’98 settlement work—to make Northern Ireland work. I pay particular tribute to the DUP in that regard: for so often it is they who have found ways to fix problems and keep devolved government going, while always safeguarding Unionist principles.

    We in this House must recognise the significant problems caused by the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework—including, of course, what the courts have described as a “subjugation” of article 6 of the Act of Union of 1801—but, as we have heard today, we are making real progress on tackling these issues by setting out in the statutory instruments stronger legal protections for access to the GB market. I also think that the historical perspective, as set out in annexe A of the Command Paper, is something that everyone should read. We are making progress on remedying these problems.

    It was a privilege for me, as Secretary of State for just under four years, to play a part in Northern Ireland’s inspiring story, and I truly hope that a way can now be found for its devolved institutions to resume their work of taking Northern Ireland forward to further success and an even brighter future.

  • Hilary Benn – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    Hilary Benn – 2024 Speech on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    The speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I begin by agreeing with the Minister that businesses in Northern Ireland want to make the current and future arrangements work, that they want them to work well and that there is huge potential for the people of Northern Ireland in the economic benefits that its current and future circumstances provide it.

    I have some specific points about the regulations— I see the Minister clearly relishes responding to those. Paragraph 81 of the Command Paper states:

    “We are now changing arrangements…to ensure…that checks are eliminated save for those conducted by UK authorities needed for the protection of the UK’s internal market on a risk and intelligence basis.

    Will the Minister clarify which checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be got rid of? Is he referring to identity checks, checks on paperwork or something else? At the moment, about 10% of goods using what is called the green lane—which will become the UK internal market lane—are subject to some checks on paperwork. Will he clarify what will happen to them?

    I welcome the amendments to the UK Internal Market Act 2020 provided for in regulation 2. Proposed new section 45A would reaffirm Northern Ireland’s unfettered access to the rest of the internal market and ensure that no new NI-GB checks can be introduced. The regulation also makes provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to Departments on how they should carry out their duties under section 46 of the 2020 Act—namely, ensuring that they have special regard to, among other things, Northern Ireland’s status in the UK internal market when they formulate policy. Will the Minister confirm that guidance will soon be forthcoming and share any further details he can at this stage about what that will contain?

    I note the changes to the Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 made by regulation 3, which are intended to prevent Northern Ireland from being used as a back door for EU goods moving into GB and to protect Northern Ireland’s agricultural sector. Ensuring that NI-registered agrifood operators fully benefit from unfettered access is a very positive step and I welcome it. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government envisage any further changes to the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods? I also note the Government’s confirmation in the Command Paper that

    “there will be no Border Control Post at Cairnryan.”

    That is greatly to be welcomed, but can the Minister say anything further about how checks and formalities on non-qualifying goods that enter GB from Northern Ireland through Cairnryan will work in practice?

    Let me turn to some of the other commitments set out in the Command Paper. Will the Minister confirm when he expects the new body announced to promote trade within the UK, InterTrade UK, to become operational, and how it will be overseen?

    I welcome the Government’s determination, which has been brought up by a number of Members, to ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland beyond the end of 2025, when the current grace period expires. We all hope that an agreement can be reached with our European partners as soon as possible. I share the view expressed by others in the debate that we had the same problem with human medicines and, in the end, the EU recognised that something had to be done about that. I hope very much that the EU will show the same spirit in approaching this question. The Command Paper, however, says:

    “we will if necessary deploy all available flexibilities to safeguard and sustain the supply of veterinary medicines”.

    Will the Minister tell the House what those flexibilities are and how they will be applied if we get to that point?

    In approving the regulations—which I hope we will do unanimously as we just did with the constitutional set—we will be taking another step closer, in this really important week, to the restoration of power sharing. The people of Northern Ireland, who have been without a Government for so long, may not, in all fairness, be studying the regulations in the way that we are doing today, but they very clearly understand why they are essential to getting their Government back. Once we have done our bit today, it will be over to the politicians of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that every single Member of the House wishes them the very best in the task that lies ahead of them.

  • Steve Baker – 2024 Statement on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    Steve Baker – 2024 Statement on the United Kingdom Internal Market

    The statement made by Steve Baker, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I beg to move,

    That the draft Windsor Framework (UK Internal Market and Unfettered Access) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.

    It is the view of the Government and, I believe, of the overwhelming number of right hon. and hon. Members across the House that the Union ought not be reduced to matters of the law or the constitution alone. Ours is a thriving economic, cultural and political Union whose health is insured, in no small part, by the free flow of trade across it. Enhancing that economic aspect of the Union is the purpose of this second set of regulations before the House today.

    The views of businesses and traders on the progress that we have made are also important in the context of today’s debate. I am pleased to confirm that the early reaction from business has been promising. The view of a collaboration of 14 key Northern Ireland industry bodies was clear yesterday in saying that they welcomed the agreement.

    The Government are clear that the old protocol created unacceptable barriers within our internal market, and I invite anyone to consider the full implementation of the old protocol against what we have achieved in the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework takes major steps forward, and I acknowledge that this is first and foremost an achievement of the Democratic Unionist party and also a great achievement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    The framework restored the functioning of the UK internal market by ensuring the smooth flow of trade within the UK, and disapplied a range of EU laws, including ensuring that Northern Ireland benefits from the same VAT and alcohol taxes as the rest of the UK. Members of the House can also be encouraged by the smooth functioning of the framework since October 2023, when the first phase of arrangements came on stream, supporting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I should just say that colleagues did ask me how it was going. I said, “Have you seen any news on it?” Of course, no one has; it has been going very well, and I want to thank and congratulate all those officials here and in Northern Ireland who have made that possible.

    These regulations go further in that aim to strengthen our UK internal market now and in the long term. Following the agreement of the Windsor framework, the border target operating model sets out that we will begin phasing in checks and controls for Irish goods and non-qualifying goods moving from the island of Ireland to Great Britain from 31 January—indeed from yesterday. This is a powerful demonstration of Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market, and it rebuts incorrect claims that it is instead a member of the EU single market. The reality is that third country members of the EU single market will now have full third country processes applied, while Northern Ireland’s businesses will have full unfettered access to their most important market in Great Britain.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)

    The Minister is absolutely right. Perhaps the most powerful illustration of the change that we have secured is to consider what will happen now on the ferry route between Dublin and Holyhead as a result of these new arrangements. A Northern Ireland haulier using that service will board the ferry, travel to Holyhead, leave the ferry and travel straight out of the port and on to their destination, with no customs procedures and with full unfettered access. In contrast, a southern Irish haulier arriving at Holyhead will be subjected to full UK customs procedures at the port before they can proceed. Does he join me in welcoming Northern Ireland’s restoration fully within the UK internal market?

    Mr Baker

    Yes. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he has just set out, and I do join him in that. It is a proud day for me, as it is for him, and I join other Members in congratulating him on his courage in bringing all of us this far.

    As a result of these regulations, we now have guarantees for Northern Ireland goods moving to the rest of the UK, via Dublin. This unfettered access is future-proofed, regardless of how rules evolve in either Northern Ireland or Great Britain. These regulations will more squarely focus the benefits of unfettered access on Northern Ireland traders. The regulations tackle avoidance of the rules and ensure that, for agri-food goods to benefit from unfettered access in avoiding sanitary and phytosanitary processes, they must be dispatched from registered Northern Ireland food and feed operators. We will also expressly affirm through these regulations that export procedures will not be applied to goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the UK’s internal market.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    It has been said that maybe 80% of goods moving from GB to NI will be able to use the internal market lane. Why will 20% not be able to do so, and why would the UK Government, who I was told were in charge, not want to ensure that practically all goods use the internal market lane?

    Mr Baker

    With great respect to my right hon. Friend, with whom I have gone a very long way in this cause, he might like to revisit the text. The point is that the 80% of goods going on that route are staying in Northern Ireland; they are UK goods. The other 20% are goods that are going on to the European Union. That is the point: 80% is UK internal market trade, and 20% is trade going on to the European Union.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson rose—

    Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Mr Baker

    I will. I cannot say that I am astonished; this is the important moment.

    Sammy Wilson

    Does the Minister accept that all the statistics show that it is not true that 20% of the trade that goes through Northern Ireland goes to the Irish Republic? In fact, it is about 0.1% to 0.4%. Much of that trade, which will go through the red lane, consists of goods going into Northern Ireland, either to warehouses or to manufacturers in Northern Ireland. They might never go near the Irish Republic. They might stay in Northern Ireland, go back to GB, or go to the rest of the world, yet such products will still be subject to checks going into Northern Ireland.

    Mr Baker

    I would not accept that. I am not in a position to set out the statistics, and I do not doubt that the statistics need some work applied to them. It pains me to say this, as I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a great friend—he and I have walked a long way together on this and I have always regarded him as an ideological bedfellow, both on the Union and on Brexit—but as his group leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), said earlier, we voted for, and fervently supported, the protocol Bill. We said that we were willing to have a red lane in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of our friends and partners—and family members, as the Irish ambassador Martin Fraser said. This was always a family dispute, and we were always going to get through it.

    Our friends in Ireland, and indeed in the EU, have legitimate interests, which we should have the humility to respect. Even if we had acted unilaterally as a single united Parliament, ridden roughshod over any international negotiation and just done what suited ourselves with the protocol Bill, we would have implemented the red lane. I am afraid that I will part company now with anyone who says otherwise. We would rightly have implemented the red lane, even acting unilaterally, out of respect for the legitimate interests of our friends and trading partners.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson

    Will the Minister join me in welcoming the announcement on Tuesday of agreement on a joint legal text that will significantly change the status of goods coming from the rest of the world into Great Britain and travelling on to Northern Ireland? The effect of that change, which is part of the arrangements and the published Command Paper, will be that some 4 million goods movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will now be moving out of the red lane and into the UK internal market system. That is this party delivering, and securing real change that ensures that more goods flow freely between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, save for those going into the EU or that are at risk of doing so because they are part of a manufacturing process for goods being sold to the EU.

    Mr Baker

    I strongly welcome that intervention. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to mention the draft joint agreement on tariff rate quotas. For a while I was concerned that TRQs needed to be applied to Northern Ireland so that Northern Ireland could share fully in the benefits of free trade agreements with the rest of the world.

    I hope to return to this later, but in case I do not have the opportunity to do so, I want to say what an extraordinary situation Northern Ireland is now in. Northern Ireland is not in the single market. I draw everyone’s attention to page 4 of the Command Paper, which sets out checkmarks comparing Northern Ireland with Ireland, as a member of the EU, and with Norway, which is a member of the single market through the European economic area but is not in the customs union or the European Union. Northern Ireland really has the minimum of EU law compatible with unfettered—or privileged, perhaps—goods access to the EU market, and consistent with having an open, infra- structure-free border.

    I wonder at people who thought that we could leave the European Union and establish a hard border, or do absolutely nothing about the border. We were always going to leave the European Union and have special arrangements in relation to Northern Ireland. This is a moment of great feeling for me, because before the referendum vote, I and other colleagues set up a committee of Eurosceptics to consider how we might deal with these issues. I confess that we did not have the SPS and customs expertise to proceed. That then became the great story of this battle.

    If the United Kingdom had united in accepting the result of the referendum, if this Parliament had united in going forward with resolve to further our own interests as an independent nation state outside the EU, but crucially with the humility to respect the legitimate interests of our friends and partners, and if from the beginning we had had united resolve and clarity of vision, I do not doubt that in a spirit of friendship and good will—the kind that exists today between Ireland and us, and between the European Union and us, thanks to the work of the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and others—we would have been, as we are now, in a totally transformed position to make our way forward as friends, respectful of their interests and resolved on ours.

    That is not what happened. The House does not need me to rehearse it. It has taken eight years of drama for us to arrive at this moment, when we have reduced EU law to this extent and put in place a red lane to protect the legitimate interests of Ireland and the EU. That is something that we should all be very proud of, after everything that we have faced and all the risks that could have put us in a far worse position.

    Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)

    I totally understand the need for a red lane to ensure that goods going into the Republic of Ireland are checked, but there is a business in Northern Ireland 98% of whose sales are into Northern Ireland. The stuff all comes to it in one container. Maybe 2% of that load might make its way into the Irish Republic as part of a service agreement with another dealer. I am talking about a major firm in my constituency that has an all-Ireland approach. That means that the red lane applies to every single item, even though 98% of its stuff is used in Northern Ireland, Scotland or England. It is a main distributor, and it will end up having to put all its goods through that. A job of work might need to be done to try to ameliorate its problems.

    Mr Baker

    The hon. Gentleman is right that a job of work will need to be done; I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said that of course it does. I am grateful that we will be doing that further work in a spirit of good will and co-operation through the joint committee with the European Union. If the hon. Gentleman drops an email to my Northern Ireland Office address, I shall be glad to visit the firm with him, bringing officials, and we will see whether we can move further to assist it. I need to find out more about its exact circumstances.

    My goodness, that was a long series of interventions. This legislation ensures that we can avoid any unnecessary gold-plating in the implementation of new arrangements through new statutory guidance on section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, setting out how public authorities should have special regard to Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market and customs territory, and the need to maintain the free flow of goods from NI to GB. We will take a power through the regulations to issue such statutory guidance, and public authorities will be required to have regard to it. Those changes to the law will help to ensure that public authorities take every proper effort to prevent new barriers to intra-UK trade. In doing so, they will maintain and strengthen the health of the UK internal market in the long term.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    One issue that greatly vexes those in my party is that farmers in my constituency, and in others, have said that vets now cost even more, as they have to source medicines and devices from an acceptable source. The Command Paper suggests that the issue has not been resolved but will be worked on. Is that a firm demand on the Government, or is it just another working group that will talk about things? My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has been at the fore on this. We need a person on that committee to push things forward. If we have a solution through the committee, we need a timescale for delivery.

    Mr Baker

    We understand that point and we are listening to the hon. Gentleman and others. We are resolute that of course Northern Ireland must have proper access to veterinary medicines, and will be glad to work with him and others. He will appreciate what the priorities are and have been, and we will certainly continue to make pursuing veterinary medicines a high priority. I am personally resolute on the issue and look forward to pursuing it.

    The regulations must be seen in the context of the overall package agreed between the Government and the DUP. The passage of these regulations demonstrates the Government’s commitment to taking forward that whole package and to maintaining the participation and trust of the whole community in Northern Ireland’s political processes and the Stormont institutions going forward.

    If I may touch on what the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) said earlier, I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the whole Government are completely committed to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions. As I said to one nationalist politician—about a year ago now, if I recall—it is perfectly possible to be a Unionist and support the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions, just as it is possible to be a nationalist or a republican and support the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions. It is the beauty and the triumph of the agreement that we can all support it and move forward.

    I am trying to say this as gently as possible: I can understand a degree of discomfort from the hon. Gentleman, because this is a big breakthrough for Unionism. A Unionist Conservative Government have agreed to do Unionist things with the Democratic Unionist Party, and that is something I am very proud of. However, that does not in any way diminish our impartiality, or our commitment to governing or seeing to the government of Northern Ireland in a proper manner.

    Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) rose—

    Mr Baker

    Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, may I just say that I think, after the experience of the last eight years—perhaps the last 14—I need defer to no one in my vociferous commitment to democratic self-determination.

    Colum Eastwood

    The Minister says he supports the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. Does he support the bit that says that the Government should be rigorously impartial?

    Mr Baker

    Yes, I—[Interruption.] I do not quite hear the comment from the leader of the DUP.

    Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson

    Not on the Union!

    Mr Baker

    It has long been said that this is the Conservative and Unionist party and we have long been understood to be a Unionist party. This agreement is entirely consistent with both our Unionism and our full respect for all dimensions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. We will continue to govern in a spirit of good will and impartiality.

    Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Mr Baker

    I will, but after I have given way to my right hon. and learned Friend, I will make progress and finish so that other colleagues can have their say.

    Sir Robert Buckland

    I have listened carefully to the interventions from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and the concerns that he and others will have about the scrapping of the legal obligation with regard to the all-island economy. Is the point not that while, as a UK Government, we have to uphold the rules that apply within our United Kingdom and the promotion of our own internal market, that does not detract from the access to the single market that Northern Ireland businesses will continue to enjoy? That is the compromise that has been reached here. Therefore there is not a binary either/or choice; the hon. Gentleman’s concerns can largely be met and continue to be met in a way that is fully in accordance with the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement.

    Mr Baker

    I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, who demonstrates his expertise.

    I look forward as much as anyone to the re-establishment of the Assembly and the Executive, and along with that the re-establishment of the north-south institutions. They are much needed and I look forward to their work. I do not mind admitting that I find myself able to work constructively with politicians of all political parties in Northern Ireland, and I am glad to do so.

    Let me return, in concluding, to what is at stake in this process. I firmly believe that all parties in this House and all parties eligible to form part of an Executive want Northern Ireland to work. I have seen what unites political leaders in Northern Ireland: a real determination to make life better for their constituents—and, my goodness, on a wide range of fronts that is necessary—and to allow Northern Ireland to grasp the opportunities of the future—and what opportunities they are. I elaborated on some of the things Northern Ireland has before it right now. If we combine the institutional arrangements before Northern Ireland with the very substantial financial package to transform public services and deal with the public finances, and if Northern Irish politicians reach out and grasp the opportunity now before them, they can make Northern Ireland a beacon to the world—a beacon of prosperity and, I hope, of reconciliation. These regulations are part of that process and I commend them to everyone in the House.

  • Grant Shapps – 2024 Speech at the World Defense Show

    Grant Shapps – 2024 Speech at the World Defense Show

    The speech made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Defence, in Saudi Arabia on 4 February 2024.

    60 years ago, the skies above Riyadh bore witness to a remarkable demonstration as a supersonic aircraft shot into the atmosphere at twice the speed of sound.

    Just two years later and 40 of those iconic English Electric Lightning jets were heading to Saudi Arabia where they became as revered an icon of the skies over here as they were back in the UK.

    Yet that special flight also seemed to send our own partnership into the stratosphere.

    1964 saw the first British military mission to the Saudi Arabian National Guard, and 14 years after that we brought across a project team which has been supporting you with advice, information and communications service ever since.

    So that one pioneering flight demonstrated ours is a partnership built from the strongest of frames. An understanding of the value of Defence, an appreciation of the merits of innovation, and a desire to keep working together.

    And how fitting then that 60 years on, here at this fantastic World Defense Show, we are once again celebrating a partnership that’s putting on the afterburners.

    Not only can we reflect on a mutual commitment to combat air that’s taken us from Lightning, to Tornado, to Typhoon – with hundreds of UK military personnel now committed to Saudi programmes.

    But we have also stepped up the pace on the ground as well, with our Defence Cooperation Plan catalysing deeper cooperation between our Land Forces.

    However, my purpose in attending this great exhibition is not to reminisce about our past, nor even to reflect on our present, it is to talk about our future.

    Because if the incredible story of the Lightning tells us anything, it’s that when an opportunity arises in our mutual interests, we know how to seize it together.

    And frankly, when I look around me, I see opportunity abounds.

    Yours is a nation buzzing with energy. Creating new cities out of sand, redefining sport by hosting the World Cup in E-sports. Spearheading the charge towards a greener future.

    Yet if there’s one event that seemed to encapsulate your sense of ambition, it was what happened last year, when Saudi fighter pilot and astronaut, Ali Al-Qarni, and his crew member, Rayyanah Barnawi, became the first two Saudi astronauts to visit the International Space Station.

    Proof – if it were needed – that you are nation in fast forward.

    You’ve bottled lightning, and now you’re accelerating towards the future with increasing velocity.

    The UK wants to be on that journey with you. But there’s only one thing that can pull us back down to earth.

    Instability.

    For decades our prosperity and progress has been underpinned by the international rules-based order, yet today we live in a far more dangerous world. Our once reliable order is under threat from the likes of big state aggressors and from rogue states, whose terrorist proxies are hell-bent on destroying our freedom and damaging our wealth.

    So now is the time to tighten our ties.

    How? First by working together – in the words of your conference, to be equipped for tomorrow.

    Once upon a time we showcased a jet in your skies. Today we’ve brought more than 30 of our finest UK firms to your show, including a Wildcat helicopter, delivered by one of our Royal Air Force’s A400M transport aircraft.

    Demonstrating our skills not just in the air, but on land, sea, cyber and space. Our delegation are experts in power and engines, in critical components and complex weapons, in state-of-the-art surveillance and next generation electronic warfare.

    Our people know everything there is to know in mine counter-measures and military suspension and durable materials, 3D sensors, sonars, and uncrewed systems.

    But my second point is that we are looking for much more than a transient transaction.

    We want to build an even deeper industrial partnership.

    Saudi Arabia quite rightly wants to develop its own defence industrial base – and we want to help you get there – developing mutually beneficial capability programmes to support regional security.

    Already we have a deep industrial partnership stretching across air, land, sea and cyber.

    To take just one example, BAE’s workforce here in Saudi Arabia is almost 75 per cent Saudi.

    Which brings me to my third and final point: Both our nations share pressing strategic priorities.

    We both seek to calm conflicts. We both desire de-escalation. And even as Saudi Arabia aims for the stars, so its influence on terra firma is increasing too.

    It has a critical role to play in this region as interlocutors, as mediators and as leaders.

    So I see us doing more together to help shore up our international rules-based order. Doing more to ensure adherence to international humanitarian law. Doing more to prevent a breakdown in regional security, so we guarantee the safety and security of all people.

    Sixty years ago, we brought Lightning to this great Kingdom and helped transform our partnership.

    Sixty years on, we’re now looking to elevate our relationship to even greater heights.

    I, for one, am a strong believer that Lightning can strike twice.

  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2024 Speech at Asia House Annual Outlook

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2024 Speech at Asia House Annual Outlook

    The speech made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, at Asia House in London on 23 January 2024.

    It is a real pleasure to be here again for the launch, gosh in a blink of an eye isn’t it, the 2024 Outlook. And it really doesn’t seem like a year since I was standing at this lectern, predicting I think as I was, ‘months of change ahead’. But I wasn’t entirely wrong because it has indeed been a busy year and an awful lot has happened.

    Now we did know even then that we were going to be looking at an unpredictable year, but I’m not sure that any of us would have anticipated the scale of events that has impacted economies over the last year, from the continuing challenges around climate change, to cybersecurity, from the conflicts in Ukraine which continue to create huge strains and of course in Gaza, US-China competition, the really substantial impacts we’re seeing through BRICS expansion and of course the Saudi-Iran deal.

    And not wishing to be a predicter I think 2024 is probably going to be equally unpredictable. As you mentioned we have got elections in 60 countries, over 2 billion people going to the polls. Which is an extraordinary thing when you think about that sort of voice being spoken from citizens across the world. It is actually a global first – from Bangladesh and Taiwan in the last few weeks to India, Indonesia, South Korea, Sri Lanka… our own UK general election at some point, I can give you no insider information, and of course at the end of the year the USA’s Presidential election.

    So I think Lord Green is right to talk about ‘turbulence’ in the coming year. But there will be 2 things that will remain consistent in 2024. One of those is Asian growth, and the other one is the UK’s commitment to be at the heart of that.

    So we’re going to be continuing to seek those deeper partnerships with all these amazing countries across the Indo-Pacific, and with the regional network in partnership with ASEAN, the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), amongst others.

    I had the great pleasure to attend the IORA Ministerial in Colombo in October last year, and indeed the Pacific Islands Forum in the Cook Islands in November. I spend a lot of time on planes these days, some of which work better than others. I think what I’ve heard time and again from my counterparts, in spite of their very diverse interests, was a desire for the kind of stable world order that will support economic growth and genuinely allow sustainable development. Because that stable world order in which we can all win that race for climate security, and of course the health security. And a stable world order that gets that prosperity that every country needs back on track.

    Now the Foreign Secretary has called this an ‘age of insecurity’, and that insecurity can fan out both by land and by sea. And of course the recent situations in the Red Sea are a blunt reminder of what that looks like.

    Something that became particularly stark in 2023 is that Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific security are clearly inseparable. Understanding that, and for that reason, that’s why the UK and so many of our partners want to be part of sustaining a free and open Indo-Pacific. Simply put, it is in our interests for the Indo-Pacific to be secure and stable. And it is in the interests of the region’s people to build a free, fair future, where top quality trade rules are respected, trade routes can stay open, data and energies can flow freely, and countries have free choices.

    So the UK’s deployment of HMS Diamond in support of Operation Prosperity Guardian, an international taskforce to protect commercial shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, is perhaps a clear example of the UK’s intent. On maritime security, I’m looking forward to continuing engagement with the AUKUS partnership this year, as well as working with some key Indo-Pacific partners to assure global waters are safer for everyone.

    The UK knows that security and trade will form a virtuous circle in our relationships throughout Asia. In 2023 we saw a number of notable successes for this approach, as we signed our Accession Protocol to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership – CPTPP – that was in July. Now joining CPTPP is going to give UK businesses an extraordinarily exciting enhanced access to the Malaysian market for the first time, and it puts the UK at the heart of a dynamic group of free trading countries, which are in the right place, and at the right time.

    And we of course have our Free Trade Agreements with Australia and New Zealand came into force last year, with an expectation to increase bilateral trade by 53 and 59% respectively over the long term.

    And in May we announced the expansion of British International Investments (BII as it’s known) to the Indo-Pacific, which is going to invest up to £500 million of climate finance. And we’ve also agreed the UK-Singapore Green Economy Framework MoU.

    These are pillars if you like in the UK’s continuing growth and development of that commitment to the Indo-Pacific. More widely in support of regional security and stability, we’ve agreed a Reciprocal Access Agreement with Japan in January last year. The UK is the first European country to agree an RAA with Japan, which is enabling both countries to undertake longer, larger, more frequent and more complex joint exercising. And we are also sharing our cutting edge technology through the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP for short), to strengthen our deterrence and defence and the signing of the GCAP treaty with Japan and Italy in December was a really important milestone for that.

    We’ve also been strengthening important bilateral relationships, with a new Strategic Partnership with Singapore, and the Downing Street Accord with the Republic of Korea. The Downing Street Accord commits both sides to deeper cooperation on defence and security, on trade and investment, on science and technology and on wider global issues together.

    Now all of these relationships require a degree of trust. Trust that there are certain rules of engagement that the parties agree to follow. 2023 saw an important moment in this regard, as the UK, China and 27 other countries signed the Bletchley Declaration at the AI Safety Summit, to voice our mutual concern at the dangers of unfettered AI development, and to work together on safety research. This work is a cornerstone of the UK’s leadership in digital transformation, as we carve out our role in a new technical world this year.

    2023 also saw publication of the UK Government’s Integrated Review Refresh, which set out the UK’s approach to global threats more widely, as well as our approach to the UK-China relationship. As Permanent Members of the UN Security Council together, each with a powerful global reach, the UK’s relationship with China has enormous potential to overcome some of the greatest global challenges together. So I welcomed China’s attendance at the AI Summit and also the UK-China engagement on climate change at COP28.

    The COVID pandemic taught us that it is prudent to reduce dependencies in our critical supply chains, but we do believe that a positive trade and investment relationship with China is also critically important for both our countries’ interests. So we must maintain open channels to discuss all areas of our relationship, including where we have concerns. That includes the deterioration of freedoms in Hong Kong and the need to preserve peace in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait. These are matters of global interest. And so following Taiwan’s recent elections, I hope that those on both sides of the Strait will renew efforts to resolve differences through constructive dialogue. It is important that engagement between the UK and China continues to grow throughout 2024, and I am very pleased to be joined here today by our esteemed colleague, His Excellency.

    Looking to the opportunities to come, Outlook 2024 rightly notes the importance of digital transformation to support economic growth. We know that AI and other critical technologies have the potential to transform our societies and improve the lives of millions. So we will build on the AI Safety Summit and continue to spur collective international action to navigate both the opportunities and the risks of this new frontier. We seek to ensure public safety, to drive commercial benefits and to promote values in line with our democratic ideals, assisting businesses in the process.

    On trade, we’ve continued negotiations on our UK-India Free Trade Agreement: a deal to boost our current trading relationship, already worth £38 billion, and we are working to upgrade the UK-Korea FTA as announced during the recent State Visit, to enhance our existing £18 billion trade relationship with South Korea.

    And of course, our ambition is to complete the required domestic procedures to join CPTPP as soon as possible, with the aim of completing that in the second half of this year. This is all before we mention the long-term benefits that membership of CPTPP presents for the UK: that stronger voice to shape global standards in areas like digital trade, more resilience and security in our supply chains, and more opportunities for jobs and growth right across the UK.

    And as Asia House correctly foresees, this will likely be a turbulent year. Therefore, 2024 also needs to be a year of patient diplomacy, as we continue to put in place these long term frameworks that will build the range of partnerships required to protect UK prosperity and security and to support global efforts to tackle those shared challenges. Whether those frameworks are FTAs, defence and security arrangements or innovative approaches to mitigating the impacts of climate change.

    So it is my great honour, as Minister for the Indo-Pacific, and our superb team of Ambassadors and High Commissioners around the world, to understand our partners’ priorities and to respond to them and work with you. We will encourage and work with our brilliant businesses, our investors, our entrepreneurs and their counterparts across the region to maximise these opportunities, for 2024, and for the long-term. Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2024 Speech at the Holocaust Memorial Day Reception

    David Cameron – 2024 Speech at the Holocaust Memorial Day Reception

    The speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, at King Charles Street in London, on 23 January 2024.

    Introduction

    Your Excellency, distinguished guests, today we honour the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust – humanity’s darkest hour.

    We reflect on subsequent genocides, in Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia and Iraq. And we recommit to rid the world of the prejudice and hatred that persists today.

    Let me begin by thanking those who work so hard to support this work, including the Holocaust Memorial Day and Holocaust Educational Trusts, who both do so much to sustain memories and understanding.

    I would also like to thank Ambassador Hotovely for joining me to host today’s event and for her remarks.

    There are lots of days in your life that you remember. I remember the birth of our first child. I remember the death of our first child.

    But there are 2 other days that I will never forget. One was a winter’s day 9 years ago where I had the privilege of visiting Auschwitz.

    It’s an extraordinary thing to go through. And, of course, you are struck by this massive architecture of murder, these famous archways, the mechanics of deaths, the scale of murder.

    But what really hits you is when you see those displays of the luggage, the suitcases piled high. The children’s toys taken from the children before they were killed. The hair taken from those that went into the gas chamber.

    These are things you never forget when you see them. And it’s so important that children have the opportunity today to see first hand what this architecture of mass murder is all about.

    That’s why it’s important to say, ‘never again’ and to hear this testimony. That’s why the work you do is so important.

    But there is another day that I will never forget, and that was the attacks on 7 October last year.

    Not long after the event, I stood in Kibbutz Be’eri. The first thing that strikes me is what a place of peace it is. Built out of nothing in the desert, inhabited by people who went to make a life and a future for themselves and their families.

    But then you go house to house, and you can see the bullet holes in the walls. The blood on the floors. The cupboards where children hid before they were pulled out and murdered in front of their parents. The appalling death and destruction on what was, let’s remember, the deadliest assault on Jewish people since the holocaust.

    And since then, not only have those people had to live with that tragedy. Not only have they had to live with the fact that there are still 130 more hostages in Gaza whose fate we are so worried about and who we want to see released so badly.

    But there has been this upsurge in antisemitism here in Britain as well as elsewhere.

    So, in my view, it has never been more important to say so clearly that we stand with Jewish people. We stand with the state of Israel, We stand with their right to defend themselves as they go through this terrible ordeal with the legacy of the holocaust. And that’s why it’s so important we are gathered here today.

    Diplomacy and freedom

    We gather today in the Foreign Office, with me standing before you as Foreign Secretary, to recognise that diplomacy is a profession dedicated to building bridges. To strengthening alliances. To promoting peace and freedom.

    The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office and the Holocaust

    And this is a department with its own history. Today we are all telling stories about this period in history, and I want to tell you a quick story about what this department did.

    Many British diplomats saved lives in the face of hatred and tyranny. I want to share with you one example.

    From 1938, a brave team of Foreign Office and church officials in Vienna took huge risks, provided travel documents and baptismal certificates for Jews who were desperate to cross Austria’s borders to safety.

    Reverends Hugh Grimes and Reverend Frederick Collard carried out hundreds of baptisms every day. Officials led by Thomas Kendrick and George Berry worked around the clock to exploit every possible loophole to issue travel permits and passports.

    It was a dangerous business. Two members of this group – Kendrick and Collard – were harshly interrogated by the Nazis. The Jewish-born verger of Christ Church was sent to Auschwitz, where he died.

    But thanks to the courage of some 25 individuals, tens of thousands of lives were saved.

    Until recently, their devoted efforts were unknown. But the FCDO were determined they should not be forgotten. So last March, relatives of survivors joined us, faith groups and Lord Pickles, in unveiling a plaque at the British Embassy, opposite Christ Church.

    Kindertransport

    British officials also played a role in that great rescue operation led by Jewish organisations 85 years ago.

    That operation saved thousands of children from Nazi persecution in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia.

    I’ll never forget meeting one in Number 10 Downing Street when she showed me the little pocketbook that her father had written when she got off her train. It just said, ‘be a good daughter to the country that gives you hope’.

    But while many children found safety here, they paid a high price – the murder of their parents, who were not allowed to accompany them. Freedom, for those children, was indeed fragile, and tinged with what must have been deep and abiding sadness.

    So, we are equally determined this story – in all its complexity – is not forgotten. Last year, during the first State Visit of his reign, His Majesty the King and German President Steinmeier paid tribute at a memorial to the Kindertransport in Hamburg.

    The present day

    I share these stories as we must truly grasp their lessons for today. These are once again dangerous and volatile times. We and our partners must show strength and unity if we are to defend freedom.

    In March, the UK assumes an important mantle, the Presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

    We will use this opportunity to explore the circumstances of the Holocaust, and highlight the nature of societies that allowed mass murder to take place. And crucially we want to emphasise that these things take place in plain sight, and we must shine a spotlight on all those who had a part to play.

    We want all generations to grapple with the legacy of the past, and recognise its relevance in the present. Because with memory of the Holocaust soon to pass from our living history, we must never allow it to slip from our consciousness.

    After the horrors of 7 October, we must renew our vow – never again. That is our solemn duty – today, tomorrow and always.

    Thank you.

  • Grant Shapps – 2024 Speech on Defending Britain from a More Dangerous World

    Grant Shapps – 2024 Speech on Defending Britain from a More Dangerous World

    The speech made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Defence, at Lancaster House in London on 15 January 2024.

    Thirty-five years ago, Margaret Thatcher gave a short speech here in Lancaster House.

    She spoke of her optimism about the changes taking place between East and West. Barely two weeks later the Berlin Wall fell.

    It was the dawn of a new era. Existential threats were banished. And a new global feel good factor spread to Defence.

    This was the age of the peace dividend. The notion that while our defences should be maximised at times of tension they could be minimised in times of peace.

    Conflict didn’t disappear of course. But with no great power menacing the continent, peace gave the impression of being just around the corner.

    Yet, not everyone got the memo. In fact our adversaries were mobilising.

    The belligerent autocratic state was making a comeback – having got away with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Putin launched his brutal invasion of Ukraine eight years later.

    And as Russia continues its illegal campaign in Ukraine, China is assessing whether the West loses its patience.

    Today, Russia and China have been joined by new nuclear, and soon to be nuclear, powers.

    North Korea promising to expand its own nuclear arsenal.

    And then there is Iran, whose enriched uranium is up to 83.7%, a level at which there is no civilian application.

    Back in the days of the Cold War there remained a sense that we were dealing with rational actors.

    But these new powers are far more unstable, and irrational.

    Can we really assume the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction that stopped wars in the past will stop them in future, when applied to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or North Korea?

    I am afraid we cannot.

    Particularly since there is now another new worrying consideration: Our adversaries are now more connected with each other.

    For example, we have seen how Iranian proxies are causing havoc from Israel to the Red Sea.

    That Russia has what the two countries describe as a “no limits partnership” with China – with whom they conduct regular joint exercises.

    Meanwhile, Putin is relying on Iranian drones and North Korean ballistic missiles to fuel his illegal bombardment in Ukraine.

    With friends like these, the world is becoming more dangerous and has done in recent years.

    But the other threats that plagued the start of the 21st century haven’t gone away.

    The spectre of terrorism and threats from non-state actors, as October 7 showed, still haunts the civilised world.

    Put it all together, and these combined threats risk tearing apart the rules-based international order – established to keep the peace after the Second World War.

    Today’s world then, is sadly far more dangerous.

    With the UN reporting that we are facing the highest number of violent conflicts since the Second World War.

    Now some argue these threats are not existential to the UK.

    And yet, what happens elsewhere, quickly happens here.

    In the past few years we’ve seen terror attacks on the streets of London, attempted assassinations in Salisbury, theft of Intellectual Property, attempted interference in our political processes, a cost-of-living crisis, brought to you by Putin, that’s hurting families here at home.

    And now, our trade. 90 per cent of which comes by sea, is the target of terrorists.

    Proving that not only do our adversaries have the intent to target us but they have a widening array of weapons with which to wreak havoc.

    In our online world our adversaries don’t need to jump in a tank board a sub or strap into a fighter jet to hurt us.

    Cyber warfare simply means hacking into our networks and watching the economic carnage unfold.

    Last year, almost a third of businesses in the UK suffered a cyber breach or attack. And the total cost to the UK economy runs into billions.

    We know significant numbers of these attacks come from Russia and China where they are also developing satellite killing technology, capable of degrading us from space.

    Even mass migration can be cynically used against us as a weapon of war, as Poland, Norway, and Finland have been experiencing.

    In other words, nation states plus non-state actors with greater connections between them plus more creative weapons all adds up to more trouble for the world.

    Over the last decade this government has made great strides to turn the Defence tanker around.

    The refreshes of the Integrated Review and Defence Command Paper have been instrumental in ensuring Britain is defended in this more dangerous world.

    We’ve uplifted our defence spending – investing billions into modernising our Armed Forces and bringing in a raft of next generation capabilities, from new aircraft carriers to F35s; from new drones to Dreadnought submarines; from better trained troops; to the creation of a national cyber force.

    And when the world needed us, we have risen to the moment.

    Giving Ukraine our unwavering support and galvanising others to their cause, including with our biggest ever funding package, announced last week.

    Taking action, we work to stamp out the global ambitions of Daesh.

    We’ve acted at the forefront of global responses to maintain regional stability after October 7th by sending a Royal Navy Task Group, a company of Royal Marines, surveillance planes and lifesaving aid to Gaza.

    And taking a lead role within global forces to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea.

    Not only that but we’ve strengthened Britain’s place in the world with expanded partnerships from the Gulf to the Indo-Pacific.

    We’re playing a major part in stirring the West into a renewed commitment to defence, using our 2014 NATO summit in Newport to bring Alliance nations together to stop the rot, by committing to spending 2 per cent of GDP on Defence.

    Today, for the very first time this government is spending more than £50bn a year on Defence in cash terms, more than ever before.

    And we have made the critical decision to set out our aspiration to reach 2.5% of GDP spent on defence.

    And as we stabilise and grow the economy, we will continue to strive to reach it as soon as possible.

    But now is the time for all allied and democratic nations across the world to do the same.

    And ensure their defence spending is growing.

    Because, as discussed, the era of the peace dividend is over.

    In five years’ time we could be looking at multiple theatres involving Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

    Ask yourselves – looking at today’s conflicts across the world – is it more likely that the number grows, or reduces?

    I suspect we all know the answer – it’s likely to grow. So, 2024 must mark an inflexion point.

    For Ukraine, this will be a year when the fate of their nation may be decided.

    For the world, this will be the greatest democratic year in history with nearly half of the world’s population going to the polls.

    And for the UK it must also be a moment to decide the future of our national defences. The choice is stark.

    Some people, especially on the left, have a tendency to talk Britain down.

    They believe Britain can no longer have the power to influence world events.

    That we should somehow shrink into ourselves and ignore what’s happening beyond our shores.

    I passionately believe these unpatriotic, Britain belittling doom-mongers are simply wrong.

    Their way would lead us sailing blindly into an age of autocracy. So we must make a different choice.

    And the history of our great island nation shows us the way.

    Britain has often accomplished the seemingly impossible before. Our history is littered with moments when we faced down the threat and triumphed.

    But looking ahead, we are in a new era and we must be prepared to deter our enemies, lead our allies, and defend our nation.

    In terms of deterrence, it’s about the UK gaining a strategic advantage over our enemies.

    The foundation of that advantage is, of course, our nuclear enterprise.

    At a time of mounting nuclear danger, our continuous at sea deterrent provides the ultimate protection.

    And that’s why we are spending around £31bn to bring in next generation Dreadnought submarines and upgrade our deterrent.

    In a more contested world, we need to bring that same goal of deterrence to our conventional forces – so we have made modernisation a critical priority.

    Taking the long-term capability decisions we need to transform our Armed Forces into a formidable deterrent.

    Enabling them to maintain the UK’s strategic advantage and empowering them to be able to deliver the outcomes we need in multiple theatres at once.

    The growing success of that work was powerfully shown last week when, in less than 24 hours, the UK was able to both take action to defend ourselves against the Houthis and uplift our support to Ukraine to new record levels.

    If Putin thought we’d be distracted by the events in the Middle East then last week, because of the long-term decisions this government has taken, his hopes were surely dashed.

    In a complex world, no nation can afford to go it alone, so we must continue strengthening our alliances so the world knows they cannot be broken.

    Defence is in many ways the cornerstone of our relations across the world.

    Our world leading Armed Forces, cutting-edge industrial base and willingness to support our allies is the reason why Britain is the partner of choice for so many.

    And among our partnerships, NATO remains pre-eminent. 75 years after its foundation, today NATO is bigger than ever.

    But the challenges are bigger too.

    That’s why the UK has committed nearly the totality of our air, land and maritime assets to NATO.

    But, in 2024, I am determined to do even more.

    Which is why I can announce today that UK will be sending some 20,000 personnel to lead one of NATO’s largest deployments since the end of the Cold War, Exercise Steadfast Defender.

    It will see our military joining forces with counterparts from 30 NATO countries plus Sweden, providing vital reassurance against the Putin menace.

    Our carrier strike group will be out in full force, with our magnificent flagship HMS Queen Elizabeth leading the way.

    And flying from her decks will be the fifth generation F35 lightning jets, accompanied by a fearsome phalanx of frigates, destroyers and helicopters.

    We’ll also have a submarine patrolling the depths and one of our Poseidon P8 aircraft conducting surveillance from the skies above, and more than 400 of our brilliant Royal Marines will be training in the Artic Circle, contending with some of the toughest environments anywhere on the planet.

    On land, we’ll be deploying over 16,000 soldiers, led by our 7th Light Mechanised Brigade Combat Team which superbly led our recent response in Kosovo.

    All of which, makes this our largest deployment of land forces to NATO for 40 years.

    But NATO is only part of our rich tapestry of partnerships.

    And this government has taken bold decisions to embark on the partnerships we need to defend ourselves from a more dangerous world.

    We are rapidly building our AUKUS partnership.

    And last month I signed our Global Combat Air Partnership (or GCAP) with Japan and Italy.

    These projects are not just about building nuclear powered subs, sixth generation fighter planes, and innovating in all forms of Defence.

    They are about sharpening our strategic edge so we can maintain our advantage over our adversaries.

    They are precisely the deep relationships needed to preserve national and regional security.

    And they’re emblematic of the way we will work in the future.

    But it’s not enough to deter. We must lead. Standing up for our values around the world.

    And Ukraine is a test case.

    This year, its future may well be decided.

    Valiant Ukrainian warriors have had incredible success pushing back invading Russian forces, retaking 50 per cent of the territory stolen by Russia, opening up a maritime passage in the Black Sea.

    But the West must not let them down.

    British leadership has already had a galvanising effect.

    We’ve convened some 10 countries to help Ukrainians train here in the UK.

    And today I can announce that our programmes have now trained over 60,000 Ukrainian troops since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

    Last month, I launched a new maritime coalition with Norway to defend Ukraine’s maritime flank.

    Since then, over 20 partner nations have joined that coalition.

    But the international community cannot let this support slip.

    Putin believes the West lacks staying power.

    And since the future of the world order is at stake, we must prove him wrong.

    Rewarding his war with victory would only increase the risk of escalation.

    Not only because he’s hell bent on rebuilding the Russian empire.

    But because it would signal weakness to other would-be aggressors.

    That is why on Friday the Prime Minister signed the historic UK-Ukraine Agreement on Security Cooperation.

    The start of a 100-year alliance that we are building with our Ukrainian friends.

    It sees us increasing our military support to £2.5bn – taking the total of UK military aid to more than £7bn. With even more gifted directly from the UK’s equipment inventory.

    £200m will be pressed into producing and procuring thousands of drones, including surveillance and long-range strike drones.

    This continues the UK’s proud record as a leading donor – always being the first to get Ukraine exactly what they need.

    The UK was the first to provide Ukraine with weapons training, the first to provide NLAW anti-tank missiles, the first to give modern tanks, the first to send long range missiles.

    Now we will become the largest provider of drones too.

    These will be manufactured here in the UK in tandem with international partners, helping to enhance our unmanned vehicle capabilities at home too.

    But our new agreement with Ukraine is about so much more than money.

    It formalises our support in everything from intelligence sharing and cyber security to medical and military training.

    And it sees us taking the first giant step towards a century long partnership.

    Britain understands that the battle in Ukraine is existential, it proves there is no such thing as an isolated conflict.

    And that to shore up the international order, we must be able to act globally.

    So, just as we were there to help evacuate British citizens from Sudan last year, just as we are working with partners to ensure the territorial integrity of our Commonwealth ally Guyana, we have also been a critical part of the US-led international operation to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

    Some 15 per cent of the world’s shipping passes through these narrow shipping lanes.

    But the Houthis have persistently violated the law by menacing commercial vessels in the region.

    In the Red Sea we have seen how our brilliant Royal Navy had to act to defend itself against the intolerable and growing number of Houthi attacks.

    And earlier this month the world sent a very clear message to the Iranian-backed Houthis.

    End your illegal and unjustified actions. Stop risking innocent lives. Cease threatening the global economy.

    We could not have been clearer with our warnings, which they chose to ignore.

    And enough was enough.

    So last Thursday, the Prime Minister and I authorised RAF precision strikes using four RAF Typhoon FGR4s and supported by two Voyager air refuelling tankers.

    The result is the Houthis have been dealt a blow.

    Our decisive response in the Red Sea and our uplift in support for Ukraine offer a direct blueprint for how the UK must continue to lead in the future.

    Offering our unwavering support to our allies, and in times of struggle galvanising global responses to any malign actor seeking to break the rules based international order, and acting decisively when the moment calls for us to defend ourselves.

    So, deter and lead, which brings me to the final essential element of being prepared. Defending our nation.

    If we are to defend our homeland, we must ensure our entire defence eco-system is ready.

    Firstly, we must make our industry more resilient to empower us to re-arm, re-supply and innovate far faster than our opponents.

    There’s a huge opportunity here for British industry.

    The UK has long been a by-word for pioneering technologies.

    We gave the world radar, the jet-engine and the world wide web.

    We’ve not lost that spark of creativity.

    On the contrary, today the UK is one of only three $1 trillion tech economies.

    But just imagine what we could do if we managed to better harness that latent inspiration, ingenuity and invention for the Defence of our nation?

    Just think about the game-changing tech we could supply to our brave men and women.

    From the pilots ready to scramble at a moment’s notice to the soldiers protecting NATO’s flanks from Putin’s fury.

    To the sailors deployed across the seven seas to secure our prosperity.

    To our absolutely essential Royal Marine Commandos, without whom we could not properly defend our nation.

    To those you will never see and never know but who are out there, giving their all, on your behalf.

    They are the cornerstone of our defence and we owe them an unimaginable debt of gratitude.

    Which is why my commitment to getting them what they deserve is iron cast.

    After all, our greatest resource has always been the men and women who work tirelessly to protect our great nation.

    But to defend our nation from the increasing dangers of tomorrow, they must have what they need to do the job.

    That’s why this Conservative government has always and has already taken vital steps to increase defence spending, approving the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War – injecting a further £5 billion last year to replenish our stocks and modernise our nuclear enterprise.

    Delivering the largest cash terms defence budget ever. Spending over £50 billion on the defence of our nation.

    And just last week, not only maintaining our support to Ukraine but increasing it to its highest level ever.

    To some the costs may seem steep – but Britain cannot afford to reverse the spending gains we have made.

    And under this Conservative government we never will.

    And we will use our influence to ensure other allies and friends, faced with this new reality, and match our commitment.

    So, we find ourselves at the dawn of a new era. The Berlin Wall a distant memory.

    And we have come full circle.

    Moving from a post-war to a pre-war world.

    An age of idealism has been replaced by a period of hard-headed realism.

    Today our adversaries are busily rebuilding their barriers.

    Old enemies are reanimated. New foes are taking shape. Battle lines are being redrawn.

    The tanks are literally on Europe’s Ukrainian lawn.

    And the foundations of the world order are being shaken to their core.

    We stand at this crossroads – whether to surrender to a sea of troubles, or do everything we can to deter the danger.

    I believe that, in reality, it’s no choice at all.

    To guarantee our freedoms, we must be prepared.

    Prepared to deter – the enemies who are gathering all around us. Lead our allies in whatever conflicts are to come.

    Defend our nation whatever threat should arise. This is what Britain has always done.

    And it is what we must do again if we, like Margaret Thatcher speaking here 35 years ago, are once more to dream of a future without walls.