Category: Foreign Affairs

Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech on the G8 Summit in Canada

The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2002.

May I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for giving me early sight of his statement? Kananaskis was the first G8 gathering since 11 September, and we welcome the practical steps agreed there to fight international terrorism, and to prevent the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. In particular, Kananaskis marked another step in Russia’s re-emergence on the world stage, and I believe it right that the G8 should help to reduce her nuclear stockpiles, and very fitting that Russia will assume presidency of the G8 in 2006.

We also welcome the G8’s renewed commitment to supporting universal primary education in developing countries, and to assisting those countries in tackling the scourge of diseases such as AIDS, TB, malaria and polio. The progress made on international debt relief is also welcome, although we note that the sums involved barely make up for the fall in world commodity prices that has recently so affected developing economies. The Prime Minister is right to herald the G8’s meeting with African presidents and the UN Secretary-General to discuss the New Partnership for Africa’s Development as a step in the right direction. However, only last October the Prime Minister told his party conference that a partnership for Africa meant

“no tolerance of bad governance, from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe’s henchmen in Zimbabwe.”

I agreed with him. Does he still stand by that clear statement, and if so, does he not think that the G8 missed an opportunity to send a stark signal to dictators by using the example of Robert Mugabe to show that there will be no meaningful partnership for development with countries that do not respect political freedom and the rule of law?

The G8 summit could have demanded fresh presidential elections in Zimbabwe; it could have co-ordinated sanctions between the EU and north America; and it could have shown that we mean what we say about good governance in the African continent. Did the Prime Minister argue for those things at the conference, and if so, does he not agree that it is deeply disappointing that Zimbabwe did not merit a mention in the communiqué? or in his statement?

The G8 pledged itself

“to work for peace in the Middle East, based on our vision of two states living side by side within secure and recognised borders”.

It also talked of

“the agreement on the urgency of reform of Palestinian institutions and its economy, and of free and fair elections”.

Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that, in his view, Yasser Arafat has

“an attitude towards terrorism which has been inconsistent with the notion of Israel’s security.”

Does the Prime Minister believe that a Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat can ever be consistent with the notion of Israel’s security, or does he agree with Secretary Powell, who said yesterday that if the Palestinians

“don’t bring in new leaders, then we shouldn’t expect…approaches”

that may be new or otherwise? Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement or the previous one?

Today, we learn that the United States is threatening to veto the extension of UN peacekeeping operations in Bosnia unless American troops are granted immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Did the Prime Minister discuss that with President Bush and other G8 leaders during the summit? Ten days ago, the Defence Secretary told the House,

“On the ICC, the Government negotiated an effective immunity”.—[Official Report, 20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 413.]

Last week, however, he told a Select Committee that

“immunity is not quite the right word”.

Which is it? Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us what our position is.

Was the Prime Minister not aware of grave misgivings, which we share, that the court could be used maliciously to put our soldiers in the dock merely for carrying out their duties—[Interruption.] Labour Members may complain, but the French have been able to negotiate immunity for their troops for the next seven years as a condition of signing up to the ICC. When we sought in the course of debate to introduce similar protection, that was rejected, even though it was for British troops. Will the Prime Minister tell us once and for all what protection, if any, our troops will have, apart from the judgment of the ICC—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Please let the Leader of the Opposition speak.

Mr. Duncan Smith

They hate it when they get difficult questions as they never hear the answer—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister agree with the criticism of the United States launched by the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday in the media and the newspapers? If Kananaskis is to be remembered, it will be judged by what it achieves for southern Africa, especially the 13 million people starving in that region. This is an opportunity to strike up a genuine partnership with Africa that will endure beyond the following day’s headlines. It is a two-way street, however, offering long-term assistance delivered to an agreed timetable from the developed world in return for a genuine commitment by developing countries to improve the governance of their people. But it takes action, not just words. If, with all the might at its disposal, and with the Prime Minister at the conference, the G8 cannot even bring itself to demand change in Zimbabwe, what hope is there for the rest of Africa?

The Prime Minister

If I may say so, I thought that that was an extraordinary demonstration of the right hon. Gentleman’s priorities. I make no apology whatever for using the vast majority of the statement to deal with Africa. It was extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman had more to say about the International Criminal Court than the state of Africa. I shall deal with the issue of Zimbabwe, but first I shall deal with the International Criminal Court, which the Conservatives supported when it was debated in the House. At the time, a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman said:

“It is a great shame that in the negotiations at Rome, where our team and others bent over backwards to try and assuage the fears of the USA…the USA ultimately felt that it could not join the countries that signed up”.

Another Conservative spokesman said:

“I urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow us to ratify the statute in order to realise their intention that we should be among the first 60 states to do so”.—[Official Report, 27 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 934–36.]

There is therefore a tinge of opportunism in the Conservatives’ stance today. We have taken our position because we were advised that as a result of the safeguards in place—in particular the issue of complementarity, which means that provided that a nation state is capable of trying people for any crimes, the ICC does not have jurisdiction—it is inconceivable that our peacekeepers would be brought before the court in that way. The best test of whether that is correct or not is what has happened with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which has been running for seven years and has far more intrusive powers than the ICC. In those seven years, not one peacekeeper has been up before the court. The ICC is designed to deal with people committing war crimes or genocide, and I believe that that is right. I entirely understand the concerns of the United States of America, which are perfectly legitimate. Our view, however, is that they are met by the principles that I set out and the constraints on the international court’s development.

On Zimbabwe, let me make it clear that it will not benefit in any way from the African plan, precisely because of the outrageous conduct of the Zimbabwean Government. That is why it is so important that the plan makes it clear that only the countries that engage in good governance will qualify for the extra aid and assistance. As for what we should do about Zimbabwe, at every level—in the European Union and elsewhere, in the negotiations with the United States—of course we raise the matter.

I looked very carefully at the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary when he was lambasting the Government for our position on Zimbabwe. I could not find a single sensible, constructive suggestion from him to deal with the matter. This is a classic instance of the Conservatives seizing on an issue, running with it hard, and having nothing but sheer vacuous nonsense to say about it.

On HIPC, the right hon. Gentleman speaks about the sum barely making up the difference. Let us be clear. When the Government came to office, we had nothing like the help in place for Africa on debt relief or anything else. What we have done through the additional aid means that billions of dollars of debt relief will be saved for those countries, so that the money can be put into education. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. [HON. MEMBERS: “We did.”] Well, I suppose that it was a welcome of sorts. It is one of the features of the Conservatives that although in general they are against spending any money, in particular they are always in favour of spending more.

On the middle east, in relation to Chairman Arafat, let me repeat what I said last week. I believe that if the middle east is to have a chance of getting the peace process that it needs, we need serious people to negotiate with. I have said why I believe that Chairman Arafat has let down the Palestinian people, in particular by rejecting the deal that was offered by Prime Minister Barak: he did a huge disservice to the process of peace in the middle east.

It is for the Palestinians, of course, to decide whom they elect. We are not in a position to decide that for them, but the point that we must make and that the Americans are making is that if they end up electing leadership that is not serious about partnering the peace process, it will be difficult to make the changes that we want. That is the reality, and it is why we and the Americans have both been saying it. The right hon. Gentleman will find that the vast majority of countries agree.

In particular, leaving aside for a moment the issue of Chairman Arafat, the key thing that the Bush speech did, and the reason why I think that it should be strongly supported, is that it set out the following principles, which are vital for progress: security for the Palestinian people, and a proper security infrastructure rebuilt; political reform of the Palestinian institutions—that is vital—en route to a viable Palestinian state, living side by side with a secure of Israel. As a result, if there are those changes on the Palestinian side, there must be from Israel in return the commitment to an end to settlements, withdrawal from the occupied territories, and a resolution of the issue on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

That is what is important. I believe that we have the basis of a forward plan for the middle east that can work. I believe that it will work, but only if we make sure that those principles are properly implemented. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that the attempt to make differences between ourselves and the Americans may suit the Opposition, but it does not suit the peace process at all.

Finally, let me deal with the point that the right hon. Gentleman made, in so far as he dealt with Africa at all. He said that this announcement is a deal. Yes, it is, and it gives us an important chance to make a way forward for Africa, but let us not believe that the whole of Africa is encapsulated in Zimbabwe. It is not. I am pleased to say that, increasingly, Zimbabwe is the exception in Africa, not the rule. At the same time as we take the possible action—not the impossible action—against Zimbabwe, let us congratulate those African leaders on their boldness in coming forward with the initiative, let us support it, and let us make sure that the Africa plan, which initiates the process, is carried through with the determination and vigour that has given rise to it.

08/08/2022
Tony Blair – 2002 Statement on the G8 Summit in Canada

The statement made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2002.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the G8 Summit in Canada. Copies of all the documents agreed at the summit have been placed in the House Libraries. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Chrétien for his excellent leadership at the meeting.

This was the first meeting of G8 leaders since 11 September. We reviewed progress made in tackling terrorism, including steps taken to cut off terrorists’ sources of financing, and action in Afghanistan and globally against al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. I set out detailed UK proposals for curbing opium production in Afghanistan, which is the source of some 90 per cent. of the heroin on our streets, and we agreed collectively to step up efforts to deal with this menace. We also agreed a set of practical measures to enhance the security of the global transport system.

The events of 11 September proved beyond doubt that terrorists will use any means to attack our countries and our people. We therefore agreed at Kananaskis to launch a new global partnership against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and so help ensure that these deadly materials cannot fall into the hands of terrorist groups. The world’s largest stocks of sensitive nuclear and chemical materials are in the countries of the former Soviet Union, above all in Russia. The G8 therefore agreed collectively to raise up to $20 billion over the next 10 years to fund projects under the global partnership. Among our priority concerns are the destruction of chemical weapons, the dismantling of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the employment of former weapons scientists. As part of this programme, the UK plans to commit up to $750 million spread over the next decade.

We also discussed pressing regional issues. On the middle east, G8 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the two-state vision first set out in the Saudi peace initiative: a state of Israel, secure and accepted by its Arab neighbours, living side by side in peace with a stable and well governed state of Palestine. We called for continuing efforts also on India and Pakistan.

The Kananaskis summit also marked a major shift in the G7’s relationship with Russia. G7 leaders agreed that Russia will assume the G8 presidency in 2006 and host our summit that year. Taken together with agreement by both the European Union and the United States to grant Russia market economy status, and with the launch of the new NATO/Russia Council, these moves constitute a significant further step in building a strong partnership with Russia on security and economic issues. The next step is Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation.

But the main focus of the summit was Africa. Let me remind the House why. The tragedy of Africa is that it is a rich continent whose people are poor. Africa’s potential is enormous, yet a child in Africa dies of disease, famine or conflict every three seconds. These are facts that shame the civilised world. In Genoa last July, G8 leaders agreed to draw up a comprehensive action plan for Africa. Central to this proposal was the concept of a deal: that African Governments commit themselves to economic, political and governance reforms, and that the G8 responds with more development assistance, more debt relief and greater opportunities for trade.

Over the past year, African leaders have developed the New Partnership for Africa’s Development—NEPAD. This is an African-led initiative, which puts good governance at its heart. African countries have pledged to raise standards of governance and have committed themselves to a peer-review mechanism that will provide an objective assessment against these new standards. In response, at Kananaskis the G8 published its action plan for Africa. The plan sets out specific measures in eight areas, and I shall deal with some of them.

Peace and stability are preconditions for successful development everywhere, and especially in Africa. Eight million Africans have died in conflicts in the last 20 years. The G8 committed to intensify efforts to promote peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sudan, two of Africa’s bloodiest wars, and to consolidate the peace efforts now being made in Angola and Sierra Leone.

For the long term, we need to develop the peacekeeping capacity of African countries themselves. We agreed that by 2003 we will have in place a joint plan to build regional peacekeeping forces, trained and helped by us. But we must also tackle the underlying issues that so often drive conflict. We pledged our support for the UN initiative to monitor and address the illegal exploitation and international transfer of natural resources from Africa which fuel armed conflicts, including mineral resources, petroleum, timber and water, and to support voluntary control efforts such as the Kimberley process for diamonds.

Around 50 million children in Africa are not in school of any kind. We agreed therefore to implement the education taskforce report, prepared for the summit, which will significantly increase bilateral aid for basic education for African countries that have a strong policy and financial commitment. Recent analysis by the World Bank sets out clearly which policies work. We agreed that where countries have those policies in place, we will ensure that they have sufficient external finance to meet the goal of universal primary education by 2015.

We also agreed to continue our efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS through the new global health fund, and G8 countries committed to provide the resources necessary to eradicate polio from Africa by 2005. Twenty-six countries, including 22 in Africa, have already benefited under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries, or HIPC, initiative, receiving about $62 billion in debt relief. Eventually, 37 countries are expected to benefit.

At Kananaskis the G8 agreed to provide up to an additional $1 billion for the HIPC trust fund. That will help to ensure that those countries whose debt position has worsened, because of the global economic slowdown and falls in commodity prices, will get enough debt relief to ensure that they are able to exit HIPC with sustainable levels of debt.

On trade, we agreed to make the WTO Doha round work for developing countries, particularly in Africa. We reaffirmed our commitment to conclude the negotiations no later than 1 January 2005 and, without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations, to apply that Doha commitment to comprehensive negotiations on agriculture aimed at substantial improvements in market access and reductions in all forms of export subsidies with a view to their being entirely phased out.

At Monterrey in February the international community pledged to increase official development assistance by $12 billion a year from 2006. In Kananaskis the G8 agreed that at least half of that new money would go to reforming African countries, for investment in line with NEPAD’s own priorities. That is a substantial commitment by any standards—an additional $6 billion a year for the world’s poorest continent. It recognises Africa’s needs, but it is also a strong signal of the G8’s confidence that the commitments that African leaders are making under NEPAD really will transform the environment in which our aid is invested.

The UK will contribute its share of those additional resources. I can tell the House that we expect UK bilateral spending on Africa to rise from around £650 million a year now to £1 billion by 2006—three times the level that we inherited from the last Conservative Government.
President Mbeki of South Africa said of the plan that

“there has never been an engagement of this kind before, certainly not between Africa and the G8…it is a very, very good beginning.”

President Obasanjo from Nigeria called it a

“historic moment for Africa and for the whole relationship between the developed and developing world”.

Africa is not a hopeless continent, as some have described it. Uganda, for example, has reduced poverty by 20 percentage points in the last 10 years, and growth has averaged around 7 per cent. a year. HIPC debt relief and aid have been used to help to provide free primary education. As a result, enrolment has doubled, putting millions of children into school. Mozambique has seen growth of 9 per cent. in the past 4 years, and Tanzania is now providing free primary education. As a result of courageous new policies, Mali has reduced poverty dramatically in the past 4 years.

Of course, we need to do more—much more—but for the first time there is a comprehensive plan, dealing with all aspects of the African plight. For the first time, it is constructed with reforming African leaders as partners, not as passive recipients of aid. For the first time, we link explicitly and clearly good governance and development.

So this is not our destination—of an African renaissance—achieved, but it is a new departure. It is a real signal of hope for the future, and it is up to us now to make it a reality. I am proud of the part that Britain has played in it. There are those who say that Africa matters little to the British people. The millions who donate to charities—who give up time, energy and commitment to the cause of Africa—eloquently dispute this. Africa does matter: to us and to humanity. We intend to see the plan through.

08/08/2022
James Callaghan – 1977 Statement on Meeting with the French President

The statement made by James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 13 December 1977.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the talks I have had yesterday and today with the President of the French Republic, M. Valery Giscard d’Estaing.

The objective of these annual meetings is to develop the habit of regular but informal consultation between British and French Ministers so that this becomes the most natural way of exchanging views on matters of long-term importance to both countries. On this occasion, I was glad to be able to welcome the President to Chequers together with the French Prime Minister, M. Barre, and their colleagues the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Defence. On the British side, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Trade, and the Minister of State for Industry took part in our discussions The talks took place in a friendly atmosphere and revealed a broad similarity of approach to the main issues of the day.

As I reported to the House on 7th December, current questions affecting the European Community were fully discussed at last week’s meeting of the European Council. At Chequers, the President and I discussed the longer-term development of the Community. We found that our views were similar. We discussed the important and pressing question of the Community’s fisheries policy, on which the Commission’s proposals will provide the basis for a further meeting of the Fisheries Council next month.

We resumed our discussions on the world economic situation and were in agreement that it is essential for the OECD and the Community to achieve their growth targets next year if unemployment is not to rise still higher. Our own fight against inflation, which is making good progress, needs the help of more expansionary policies in the strongest economies. We discussed the problems arising from the surpluses accumulated by the OPEC countries and by Japan.

In a thorough review of our bilateral relations, we agreed to establish a Committee for Industrial Co-operation, drawn from senior officials of the two countries, which will identify new areas of industrial co-operation between us. These will include offshore oil technology, technology that is peripheral to the computer industry, the paper industry and the machine tool industry, among others. We welcomed the contacts already established between British Leyland and Renault on possible co-operation between these companies which, while leaving the initiative to them, we support and encourage.

We discussed a proposal for a 2,000 megawatt cross-Channel electricity cable link. We noted that the generating authorities in our two countries are in negotiation towards an agreement and expressed our support for this. We reviewed prospects for co-operation in the supply of defence equipment, and welcomed the significant progress that is being made. We exchanged views on possible new projects in the field of civil aviation. We agreed that quick decisions were needed on the various options which had opened up and that these matters should be decided on the basis of the commercial and market factors involved.

We agreed that there will be annual meetings in future between senior officials of our countries who are concerned with economic management. In a wider framework, we agreed to encourage the Franco-British Council to organise annual meetings, such as we already have with the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries, between leading British and French politicians, industrialists, trade unionists and others to discuss matters of common concern.

We had a very thorough and useful exchange of views on the international situation, devoting particular attention to the prospects for a Middle East settlement and to Africa, on which our thinking was very close. We agreed to deepen consultation between us on African problems.

This latest meeting has confirmed once again the value of these exchanges as a positive and constructive basis on which to build Franco-British friendship.

Mrs. Thatcher

May I put three points to the Prime Minister? First, does the Prime Minister agree that in these days we are not short of Summits, of committees of co-operation or of Summit statements, particularly about the need for extra growth, and that they are all phrased in the same terms? The only thing that we are short of is results from the Summits. It is ironic that this statement on the need for industrial growth comes on a day when industrial production is once again down. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any practical proposals for growth have ever emerged from these Summit meetings?

Secondly, in view of our need fox greater agricultural production, did the Prime Minister discuss with the President the need to devalue the green currencies? Thirdly, did he tell the President that it is his intention to increase his commitment to defence expenditure in accordance with our own commitment to our other allies?

The Prime Minister

It is true, I think, that there are far more international meetings than there ever have been and that sometimes the results are not commensurate with the effort which has been put in. Nevertheless, there are problems here of interdependence which have not been solved and cannot be solved by any one country. I know that I speak for the President of France, as I speak for myself, when I say that this exchange of views is of very great value, and I do not think that the right hon. Lady is doing justice to these exchanges by the approach that she takes.

Certainly the matters of the cross-Channel electricity link, the supply of defence equipment, and the examination of new fields for co-operation in the industrial areas are of value. What happens, as the right hon. Lady may discover one day, is that one can supply a political impetus. When issues are being discussed by officials—no doubt very well—or by industries, it sometimes needs Heads of Government and appropriate Ministers to get together in order to give the real push. That is the value of it, not that any great results come out of any one meeting. I should like to cut down on the number of meetings that I attend in this way, but I do not think that it would be of value to this country if we were to cut off these Summits. Therefore, I do not agree with the right hon. Lady about that.

We did not discuss the question whether we should devalue the green pound. All the green currencies in Europe are capable of adjustment and it is for Governments to decide when they do so. Our Government have not decided not to devalue. It would be a question how we measure the relative importance of the consumer and the return to farmers in this sphere.

We did not discuss our contributions in the area of defence, at least not in financial terms. We discussed possible projects on which we could work together in the sphere both of a possible replacement for some existing helicopters and, indeed, of some other armaments.

Mr. Conlan

Did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of discussing the problems associated with the Concorde landing rights, and did he give the opportunity to the French Government to associate with the British Government to ensure that there will be more co-ordination than there has been in the past to ensure that Concorde can land in a greater number of places than is seemingly possible at the moment?

The Prime Minister

We discussed this briefly, but the problem of the landing rights at Singapore is basically a matter, I think, with which we ourselves have to deal, and I did not invite the French President to assist on that matter. However, there is co-operation whenever we need to work together.

Mr. Cyril Smith

Did the Prime Minister have any discussion on the problems of the British textile industry, particularly in relation to any objections that France or any other Common Market Member may have to an extension of the temporary employment subsidy? If he did have such discussions, what form did they take and can he give us any indication whether the Government will agree to any such extension?

The Prime Minister

We discussed this matter briefly, particularly in relation to the negotiations that the Community has been carrying on. I did not raise with the French President the question of the temporary employment subsidy, nor he with me. Obviously this has to be the subject of an early decision, but I cannot imagine any circumstances in which either it will not continue or there will not be a replacement of it when the present scheme runs out—unless, of course, we have the dire misfortune of the return of a Conservative Government, in which case all these schemes will be washed out and unemployment will rise to 3 million.

Mr. Amery

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President how we could exploit the 12-year lead we have over United States technology in supersonic civil flight?

The Prime Minister

We touched on this matter, but naturally we did not reach any conclusions about it. This is a matter which will come increasingly under discussion. I express only the personal view to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not expect it to be Government policy at this stage. I do not think another Anglo-French project could possibly succeed in view of the resources that would be required; it would have to be on a broader scale. But this is not a matter on which the Government have reached a conclusion.

Mr. Ward

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the need for an electricity link with France. Will he say whether the French raised the question of a gas pipeline to take advantage of Britain’s lead in this area?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, we did not discuss that, but we discussed the differences that arise in our economies because of the great good fortune that this country has with its massive reserves of coal and the oil discoveries that have been made, as well as, of course, the natural gas. I think that the French Government wish that they were in the same position. They, of course, are having to go nuclear much earlier than we are because of their shortage.

Mr. Peter Walker

Is the Prime Minister aware that all the areas of industrial collaboration that he identified are areas in which collaboration probably should be on a wider scale than merely an Anglo-French basis? For example, West Germany has a considerable interest. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking about that?

The Prime Minister

Particularly in relation to defence, we covered this aspect of the matter, and the European Programme Group, which the right hon. Gentleman may know about, is considering possible defence collaboration in the manufacture and development of particular projects on an Anglo-French-German basis. However, these were only bilateral talks between us.

On the other hand, I think that the President of France feels—and, certainly, I feel—that we share a number of problems in various areas. These are becoming increasingly known to us, and, though obviously they are also linked with Germany, perhaps we have a closer link with France. This is particularly true of textiles, for example. It is true also, I think in shipbuilding, where we have problems, in steel, and in the attitude towards the Japanese surplus. All of these are very important issues where I think an Anglo-French initiative can be and should be built—but not to the exclusion of any of our partners.

Mr. Heffer

In discussing the question of our oil and coal reserves, did my right hon. Friend stress the essential unity of the United Kingdom, particularly in view of the fact that the President of France entertained the so-called President of the Quebec Province of Canada and appeared to support independence? In view of the attitude being developed by the Scottish nationalists in relation to Scotland, this could have a significance for this country.

The Prime Minister

I discussed the question of devolution with the President and told him that I thought the best way to preserve the independence and unity of the United Kingdom was for the devolution Bill to go through in the form that, broadly, it is in now—and I believe that this would take a lot of poison out of the propaganda that is being used, in Scotland in particular.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President of France the Philistine and even barbarous policy followed by the French Government towards the culture and language of Brittany, which is now leading to the destruction of an ancient language?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir.

Mr. James Johnson

In view of what the Prime Minister said about M. Giscard d’Estaing and fishing policy, is he aware that in the eyes of our fishing industry the French are a bête noire? Did they discuss the tough and patriotic line taken by the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? If so, did M. Giscard d’Estaing say anything about the 50-mile exclusive limit?

The Prime Minister

I think that it would be true to say that there would not be normal relations with France unless there was some friction between fishermen off the South-West coast and French fishermen, who claim ancient and historic rights to fish there. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out—and I supported him in this—that because of the need to preserve our fishing stocks there is more identity of interest between the French and ourselves, if we choose to exercise it, than on the surface there might seem to be. We hoped that the French would join us in defending these coastal rights that we have put forward.

Mr. Henderson

Did the Prime Minister find any movement in the French view towards the position that our fishermen have taken, namely that we must have exclusive control over territorial limits if we are to have conservation in the future? Did the French President indicate that when he visits Edinburgh he intends to say “Vive l’Ecosse libre”?

The Prime Minister

I cannot compete in this linguistic exercise. I cannot say that the French President made any alteration in the French approach to this problem. It is an important issue to him because of unemployment among French fishermen and he has his interests to look after. The question is whether we can identify a joint interest here in the preservation of our coastal areas. I think that we can.

Mr. Marten

As a great believer in Franco-United Kingdom co-operation rather than British-French co-operation, may I ask whether the accord which seems to have stemmed from this meeting extended to a joint belief that no extra powers should be given to the directly-elected Assembly, if there is one? Do France and Britain see eye to eye on that point?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that I want to go any further than the phrase that I used—namely that we found that our views were similar.

Mr. Skinner

In view of the Leader of the Opposition’s scathing remarks about this summitry—I am sure that the Prime Minister knows that I am a sceptic about these matters—does my right hon. Friend think that the Leader of the Opposition’s worldwide summitry has tended to establish her as more of an international statesman, taking into account what she has had to say this afternoon and that she has travelled to Australia, Yugoslavia, Italy, China and a score of other places? On the specific matter of direct elections, is the Prime Minister saying that both he and Giscard d’Estaing are agreed on the phrase that he used, namely that to delay for another year does not really matter?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, not on that point. I am sure that the French President would much prefer us to come to a conclusion so that elections could be held in 1978.

As for world travel, it is not for me to comment on anyone else’s travels, by any means of locomotion. But I am bound to say, having read the debate yesterday, that it seems to me that we have a new test to apply to international trade, namely that all trade with Communist countries is bad unless the Leader of the Opposition has visited them.

Mr. Forman

In reviewing the intractable problems of the world economic situation with the French President, was there any meeting of minds between Her Majesty’s Government and the French Government on the vital importance of Britain and France using their influence jointly in gatherings such as GATT and elsewhere to increase the trade potential for our exports to developing countries and also to improve the access for their exports to our countries?

The Prime Minister

That is a very important and interesting question. I cannot say that we spent time on it in the discussions yesterday, but it is certainly a matter that our officials could take up and I shall be glad to bring it to their attention.

Mr. Faulds

Did my right hon. Friend discuss the Middle East with the French President, more particularly in view of the fact that the French Government make a more realistic appraisal of their interests in that part of the world—an example which we might well follow?

The Prime Minister

Yes. We discussed this subject and we each put forward our own views about it. As to whose position is more realistic I would not care to say, except that I am glad to be able to report that I keep in constant contact with the leaders both of the Arab countries and of Israel. I had a telephone conversation yesterday with Mr. Begin—

Mr. James Lamond

Reverse charge?

The Prime Minister

It really would take a Scot to think of that. I am also keeping in close communication with the Arab leaders on these matters and shall continue to do so.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Another long statement is to follow. I shall take two more speakers from each side. Mr. Ian Lloyd.

Mr. Ian Lloyd

Since this important conference concentrated on the question of industrial growth, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he and the President had before them the interesting report by the Economic and Social Committee of the Commission on the subject of industrial growth? Did he or the President refer to the criteria set out in that report, and did the Prime Minister explain to the President why not one of those criteria was satisfied by the Polish shipbuilding deal?

The Prime Minister

The House gave its answer on the last part of that question very forcefully last night. The speeches led me to the conclusion that the Opposition were a little unwise to raise the question.

As for industrial co-operation, we discussed what bilateral approaches could be made between British and French industry, except in the defence sector at which, as I said, we looked in a wider context. Although we had at the back of our minds the document referred to by the hon. Gentleman, we did not discuss that paper in particular.

Mr. Hayman

In view of the grave problems of the civil aircraft industry in France and here, can my right hon. Friend tell the House when the urgent decisions on new projects, to which he has referred, are likely to be made?

The Prime Minister

Both the President and I will ask our respective industries to work hard at this subject and to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible. I know that that answer is not very definite. We had in mind that the industry should be able to evaluate the position by late spring, and that both Governments could then reach a conclusion. I repeat, however, that this issue must be approached on a commercial basis.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson

In an earlier reply the Prime Minister seemed to rule out the possibility of any future versions of Concorde. Will he tell us what discussions he had about the existing Concorde production line and whether there is any prospect of further aircraft being ordered?

The Prime Minister

We did not discuss that matter, but I cannot hold out any hope that there will be any extension of the existing line. There are no orders for further numbers of Concorde.

Mr. John Garrett

Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the French President the superior rate of economic growth in France, which has obtained for some years past, and the extent to which that has been due to interventionist national planning and public ownership of the financial institutions? Did my right hon. Friend feel that we had anything to learn from the French experience?

The Prime Minister

I think that both of us have something to learn from each other. But in the eyes of the major parties in France there is clearly not the same ideological objection to public enterprise as exists in the mind of the Conservative Party here. Therefore, the French have been able to approach the issue on a less dogmatic basis than seems possible here. There is certainly a great deal of intervention by the French Government in their industry, as is well known.

The French will not have such fast economic growth next year as they would like. We hope that our rate of growth will be much faster as a result of the fact that we have now overcome inflation. Indeed, our rate of growth next year might even approach that of the French.

07/08/2022
Simon Kirby – 2017 Speech at the Asian Financial Forum

The speech made by Simon Kirby, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in Hong Kong on 16 January 2017.

Good morning.

I’m honoured to be here today.

Not only because Hong Kong is such a beautiful and vibrant city.

But because this is a forum that brings together some of the finest expertise in our financial community – from across Asia, and from across the rest of the world too.

This is all the more important as we meet in the context of economic and financial uncertainty, and profound political change.

Change and uncertainty require global dialogue, so it is a real privilege to be given the opportunity, on behalf of the British government, to contribute to that dialogue here today.

The theme of this year’s forum is ‘Driving change, innovation and connectivity’.

And I want to talk about each in turn.

Let me start with change.

Because as you may have noticed, that’s something we in Britain had quite a lot of in 2016!

Not only did we get a new Prime Minister – and, I’m proud to say, the second female Prime Minister in our history.

But we also took the historic decision to take a new direction and to leave the European Union.

I know that for many of you, this will raise some questions about how things will change in the future.

But let me provide some reassurance.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that the process of leaving the European Union will begin by the end of March this year, meaning no unnecessary delays.

Most importantly of all, our economy is growing, our banks are well capitalised, and we are well equipped to deal with any ongoing risks.

So it is clear Britain is in a strong position to make this adjustment.

I also want to be clear that the UK government sees this as a huge opportunity for Britain.

We are not turning our back on the international stage.

We see our relationships with countries across Asia and the rest of the world as more important now than ever before.

And, working closely with our international partners, we will continue to advocate passionately for free trade and free markets.

But it’s not all change in the UK.

When it comes to Financial Services, the UK remains home to one of the most international and the most experienced financial capitals in the world:

we’re the largest exporter of financial services in the world

we’re home to over 250 foreign banks – more than any other financial centre

we account for close to 40% of global FX trading – more than anywhere else in the world

and with an unrivalled pool of investors, we’re also Europe’s largest asset management centre – with almost £7 trillion pounds under management

and all this is supported by world-leading legal and professional services

So the UK is a leading global financial centre, and the natural partner of choice for Asian companies looking to go global.

And we’re determined to keep it that way as we navigate our exit from the European Union.

Because we don’t rest on our laurels in Britain, which leads me on to our second watchword of this forum – innovation.

What’s clear is that if you don’t keep moving, you don’t keep your reputation for excellence.

The City of London can look back on centuries of success – but we know our future success depends on making the most of opportunities to come.

And these are exciting times in global finance.

In the UK, we are embracing innovation – and I’m pleased to say we’re doing it in partnership with countries across Asia.

Take FinTech.

Domestically, we’re doing many things to support the development of this important sector.

But we’re also co-operating with other leaders in FinTech.

We’ve agreed partnerships – we call them ‘FinTech Bridges’ – with Singapore, the Republic of Korea and the People’s Republic of China.

I’m delighted that we’ve taken the first steps towards agreeing a Bridge with Hong Kong too.

And in a few months’ time, we’re going to hold the first ever International FinTech Conference to promote the UK’s world-leading FinTech sector to investors from across the world – and I hope to see many of you in this room there.

We’re also leading the way in developing new capital markets.

We’re collaborating with countries across the world, in particular here in Asia, to develop the market for green finance to meet our collective commitment to stop climate change in its tracks.

The UK is also the leading western hub for the Islamic Finance, and we continue to work closely with countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, and with the Gulf Cooperation Council, to drive innovation in this important market.

And we’re also supporting others – in particular India and China – to internationalise their currencies, helping them to connect and integrate their financial markets with the global financial system.

And this brings me to the final theme of this conference: connectivity.

Because, as the examples I have mentioned show, in the UK we believe the best way to tackle the big issues, and the best way to raise prosperity for all, is through partnerships across borders.

We place huge importance and value on the connections we have here in Asia.

It’s telling, for example, that the Prime Minister’s first bilateral visit outside Europe was to India.

And that the British Chancellor’s first foreign trip was to Beijing and Hong Kong.

The UK has always had a special relationship with this part of the world.

But it’s about much more than shared history.

It’s about common values and cultural links.

It’s about the thousands of people from this part of the world that come to study and work in the UK; and the thousands of British citizens that choose to make their living here.

And of course, it is about the close connections between the UK and Asian economies.

Those connections matter because we have so much to offer each other.

I saw this first-hand when I took part in the recent UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue – where we not only made substantial progress to boost our cooperation on financial services, but also cemented ties on energy, trade and investment.

I saw this too on my recent visit to Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, where I discussed with my counterparts, and with industry, the many ways in which we can collaborate further on Financial Services.

In Britain, we believe passionately in the power of working in partnership with countries right across the globe.

And we will continue to work tirelessly to strengthen those partnerships in the future.

So – we are living in times of change.

But we should be optimistic – both at home in the UK, and across Asia – that we will also be in times of great opportunity and progress.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, by embracing change…

By empowering innovation…

And by working in partnership…

We will all become more prosperous as a result.

Thank you.

05/08/2022
Nigel Adams – 2022 Comments on Visit to Osaka

The comments made by Nigel Adams, the Cabinet Office Minister, on 4 August 2022.

It has been great to visit Osaka, see the site for the 2025 Expo and learn more about the historic ties between Japan and the UK.

Expo 2025 will be a fantastic opportunity to showcase the best of British innovation and culture and further enhance our deepening partnership with Japan.

My conversations with stakeholders this week have underlined the deep interest and shared values between the UK and Japan and the scope for us to work more closely together in the coming years on key global challenges in life sciences, sustainability and digital technology.

04/08/2022
G7 – 2022 Statement on Taiwan Strait

The joint statement made by the G7 on 3 August 2022.

We, the G7 Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, reaffirm our shared commitment to maintaining the rules-based international order, peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and beyond.

We are concerned by recent and announced threatening actions by the People’s Republic of China (PRC), particularly live-fire exercises and economic coercion, which risk unnecessary escalation. There is no justification to use a visit as pretext for aggressive military activity in the Taiwan Strait. It is normal and routine for legislators from our countries to travel internationally. The PRC’s escalatory response risks increasing tensions and destabilizing the region.

We call on the PRC not to unilaterally change the status quo by force in the region, and to resolve cross-Strait differences by peaceful means. There is no change in the respective one China policies, where applicable, and basic positions on Taiwan of the G7 members.

We reiterate our shared and steadfast commitment to maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and encourage all parties to remain calm, exercise restraint, act with transparency, and maintain open lines of communication to prevent misunderstanding.

04/08/2022
Priti Patel – 2022 Comments on UK and Ghana

The comments made by Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, on 28 July 2022.

The UK and Ghana has a deep and long-standing relationship, and we are powerful allies when confronting the scourge of organised criminal gangs that operate across our borders.

Ghana is the beacon of freedom and democracy in West Africa and through our joint work we are tackling global threats and cracking down on the threats to our mutual security.

28/07/2022
Graham Stuart – 2022 Statement on the Humanitarian Situation in Afghanistan

The statement made by Graham Stuart, the Minister for Europe, in the House of Commons on 19 July 2022.

My noble Friend the Minister for South and Central Asia, North Africa, United Nations and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following written ministerial statement:

The UK has committed £286 million in financial year 2022-23 for Afghanistan. This aid will provide life-saving support to the most vulnerable, especially women and girls. We are working with aid agencies to ensure that marginalised groups have equal, safe and dignified access to assistance and services. Our funding has included support for access to sustainable clean water and sanitation, nutrition treatment and primary healthcare services, as well as support in response to gender-based violence.

The earthquake in Paktika and Khost provinces in eastern Afghanistan on 22 June exacerbated the humanitarian situation and killed over 1,000 people and injured over 2,900. The Government offered support only hours after the earthquake struck. UK aid was already being delivered to the affected areas prior to the earthquake via the UN, non-Government organisations and the Red Cross. The Government rapidly allocated £3 million for immediate life-saving support to people affected. £2 million has been disbursed to the International Federation of the Red Cross, £500,000 to the Norwegian Refugee Council and £500,000 to the International Rescue Committee to provide shelter, healthcare, water, sanitation and hygiene support.

The Government’s response to the earthquake is part of our concerted ongoing humanitarian support. Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis is affecting just under half of the population, with 18.9 million facing acute food insecurity. Afghanistan remains one of the world’s most severe food security crises. People continue to turn to drastic measures to feed their families. Over 6 million people have been internally displaced and millions of children are out of school, in part because the Taliban still prevent girls from attending secondary school.

The UK has disbursed £140 million in humanitarian aid since April 2022 including £50 million to the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, £70 million to the World Food Programme and £12 million to the United Nations Children’s Fund. Through the World Food Programme, the UK aims to support over 4 million people with food assistance. All our funding is provided directly to humanitarian organisations working in Afghanistan. All UK aid is subject to strict monitoring and verification to ensure it is only used to help the vulnerable people it is intended for.

Humanitarian partners report they are increasingly facing interference attempts by the Taliban and other armed groups in the delivery of independent, equitable and safe humanitarian assistance. There have been instances of periodic disruption in aid delivery in specific locations, however to date, UK funded agencies continue to deliver. The UK regularly emphasises to the Taliban the need for humanitarian organisations to operate independently in the delivery of assistance and to respect the rights of women and girls.

The UK continues to engage closely with donors and played an instrumental role in supporting the World Bank Board’s decision to make the remaining $1 billion in the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund available. $793 million of programming is currently in the process of being mobilised, focusing on community projects and livelihoods, health and food security.

The Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon are in regular contact with their international counterparts on Afghanistan. At the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in May, the Foreign Secretary discussed the current security, humanitarian, and human rights situation as well as longer term prospects for the country and region with her counterparts. Ministers have regular discussions with humanitarian actors working in Afghanistan, most recently during Lord Ahmad’s trip to Geneva in June 2022, where he met the Red Cross and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

26/07/2022
Ben Wallace – 2022 Comments on Visit to Slovakia

The comments made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, on 25 July 2022.

Slovakia is a leader in Central Europe in standing up for Ukraine and resisting Russian aggression.

I was delighted to visit my good friend Jaroslav Nad today. Our bilateral meeting explored next steps in military aid to the conflict as well as British support to Slovakian defence.

26/07/2022
Graham Stuart – 2022 Speech on Srebrenica

The speech made by Graham Stuart, the Minister of State at the Department for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, in the House of Commons on 14 July 2022.

It is a great, albeit sobering, pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, showing the unity to which so many referred. There is real-world power in standing up for the principles and values that are shared on both sides of the House, and that all of us, including the UK Government, wish to back and reinforce.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate and, of course, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is fantastic to have Members on both sides of the House who not only speak with passion on this issue but have deep personal knowledge and engagement from their previous professional career. I pay tribute to them for their work as the respective chairs of the all-party parliamentary groups on Bosnia and Herzegovina and on Srebrenica. The professional career of my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) also involved him in that part of the world.

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)

I am very much involved in Bosnia, so I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which is terribly important because it is widely viewed in Bosnia. People pay huge attention to what is happening, because they do not get this sort of debate in their own country. The young people, by the way, do not want another war, and people in Bosnia are watching what we say and do very carefully.

Graham Stuart

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.

Colleagues on both sides of the Chamber are right to continue drawing attention to the fragile situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to the lessons we must all learn from the Srebrenica genocide. I am grateful for the contributions made by hon. and right hon. Members, and I will try to respond to the points they have raised.

This debate comes just after the 27th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. As colleagues have said, it was the worst atrocity on European soil since the end of the second world war. Today, as we did on Monday, we remember the victims of those terrible events and stand with the families in their ongoing fight for justice so many years on.

There is no question but that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide. That was the conclusion of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and of the International Court of Justice after extensive legal processes, yet some individuals and groups continue to deny these events. We have seen this over the past few days in and around Srebrenica, and we utterly condemn this behaviour. Glorifying the perpetrators and instigators of such heinous acts takes us further away from reconciliation and hinders the country’s ability to move forward and come together, so it is vital that we deliver justice and challenge the lies and false narratives, as successive speakers have said.

To date, a total of 57 individuals have been tried at the state court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for crimes committed in and around Srebrenica in July 1995. A further 20 individuals have been tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and its successor, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, for crimes related to Srebrenica. We are proud to have supported this work.

Of course, we house Radovan Karadžić in a UK cell as he serves his whole-of-life prison sentence following his conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for the genocide at Srebrenica. Last month, the UK helped to pass a UN Security Council resolution on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, extending the term of the current prosecutor. We will continue to fight to end impunity for war criminals, and to see that they are held to account.

As others have said, Bosnia and Herzegovina faces new challenges today. Threats are on the rise, from the knock-on effects of Putin’s war to the destabilising actions of Russian-backed secessionists, about which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) spoke so powerfully.

Alicia Kearns

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. He is talking about the prosecutions we have achieved, but there have been very few prosecutions for sexual violence. Will he commit to meeting me to discuss whether we can create an international organisation with the sole job of going in at the start of a conflict to collect evidence of sexual violence so that we are able to prosecute and get justice? Waiting until the end of a conflict is too late because, unfortunately, the evidence will have gone.

Graham Stuart

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She will be aware that, on 16 November 2021, the Government launched a major global initiative to stop sexual violence against women and girls in conflict, which included a £20 million fund. We are alive to this issue, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss how it is not enough to have effective mechanisms afterwards, and how we need to get in early to try to make sure it does not happen in the first place.

The leaders of Republika Srpska have been emboldened by Russia’s actions. With Moscow’s support, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned, they are using divisive and dangerous nationalist rhetoric. They are encouraging ethnic hatred and genocide denial, and they are pushing for the de facto secession of Republika Srpska, in direct contravention of their country’s constitution.

The situation is serious, and we must learn the lessons of the region’s history and the consequences of inaction. The west took too long to act in the 1990s, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary argued when she visited Bosnia and Herzegovina just two months ago. Sarajevo suffered under siege for 1,425 days. We were not bold enough to prevent terrible events such as the genocide at Srebrenica. If the Government and I, and everyone who has spoken today, are serious when we say “never again,” and if it is not just empty rhetoric, we must act today to preserve security and stability. That is why we are deploying a wide range of diplomatic, economic and defence support to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

First, we are working to protect the hard-won Dayton peace agreement. In April, in response to their unacceptable nationalist rhetoric and denial of the genocide, we sanctioned Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian Serb member of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s state-level presidency, and Željka Cvijanović, the President of Republika Srpska. These designations include travel bans and asset freezes, and they were the first under the UK’s Bosnia and Herzegovina sanctions regime. We will keep the situation under review, and we will apply further designations if necessary. We will continue to support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and we will continue to back the work of the High Representative, Christian Schmidt.

It is fantastic to see total co-operation and agreement, from what I can tell from every word of the speech by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, between Her Majesty’s Opposition and Her Majesty’s Government on almost every aspect of this.

Secondly, as has been said, we have to give hope and show that Bosnia and Herzegovina can succeed. We are investing to boost the country’s economic security. We are extending our offer of honest and reliable infrastructure investment to the western Balkans, and we aim to mobilise $100 million of UK-backed investment by 2025. Across the western Balkans there is a nearly £13 billion facility at UK Export Finance, our credit agency, to support and encourage British involvement in such activity, which will help to provide the resilience and capability to counter Russian interference.

Thirdly, we are boosting Bosnia and Herzegovina’s ability to counter security threats and malign influences—again, I am directly answering a point made today. That includes training its cadets in world-class British military academies such as Sandhurst. That support, like our support for Ukraine, is about our belief in a simple principle: the right of people to decide their democratic future and to protect themselves. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s future lies on that path—it must do—and in greater partnership with NATO and countries such as the UK.

Finally, we are ensuring that the truth about Srebrenica will endure. We have built a strong partnership with the Srebrenica memorial centre, to develop its operational capacity and establish a centre for genocide research, prevention and reconciliation. We are also supporting Remembering Srebrenica, which just yesterday hosted its national commemoration event in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We have provided £200,000 to that organisation to ensure that it can continue to do its highly valuable work.

Yasmin Qureshi

I am glad that £200,000 has been given to Remembering Srebrenica. I do not know whether the Minister is aware that that charity, which has been in existence for some time, has always struggled to get sufficient funding. Every year, it has to beg for money from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities or the Foreign Office, and the situation has been very difficult for it. In the light of what is happening, should there not be a proper system in place to fund this charity, on a yearly basis, with a decent amount of money to allow it to carry out the work it does across the country?

Graham Stuart

I hear what the hon. Lady says. I think most Members in the Chamber would recognise that £200,000 is a substantial sum and that we in the UK are unusual in having that kind of Government backing. She and I, and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and others, attended the events this week, and it is important to see the power they have and their ability to bring people together. Like her, I hope that the charity can succeed and we can ensure that it has a viable future.

Let me have a look at some of the other issues raised and make sure that I am dealing with them all as best I can, given that there is the opportunity to do so. On tackling the destabilisation efforts, I have already mentioned the sanctions on Bosnian Serb presidency member Dodik. On the military aspect, the UK supports EUFOR and wants to see its mandate renewed at the UN Security Council in November. We cannot allow a security vacuum in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we will work with allies on a NATO alternative should Russia choose to use its veto—the House should be aware of that, as that threat could be there. But if Russia tries to stop EUFOR, we would look to provide a NATO alternative, which the Russians might find less satisfactory. I have stated on the record the importance we attribute to the need for a speedy response.

On Amir and the powerful tale told about him, I thought the most memorable line from a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton was that

“denial is fought through remembrance.”

That is why it is so important that we continue to do this, so that Amir’s story is heard and his family feel that it is, and so that it positively contributes to ensuring that there is not a repetition in this part of the world or somewhere else.

On the support for reconciliation, my predecessor as Minister for Europe visited Bosnia and Herzegovina on 16 June, where he met young politicians, Foreign Minister Turković and the Central Election Commission. We are trying to ensure that we have those kinds of ministerial ties. I have also already mentioned that the Foreign Secretary visited Sarajevo on 26 May, when she reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to peace and stability in the western Balkans in the face of Russia’s malign influence. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for his support for the role of Sir Stuart Peach, which is really important.

On work with the Department for Education, I have not yet had that opportunity, but I hope that, given the general tenor of my speech and the unanimity strongly felt in this place, we have shown that we are determined to ensure that we remember the past but do not see this act of remembrance as somehow separated from current circumstances, as it is anything but. It is part of dealing with the current threats and destabilisation and taking them seriously. On various fronts, diplomatic, civil society and defence, we are trying to make sure that we are an active player. At the heart of what a lot of colleagues have raised is that we must stay focused on this, and that we do not find ourselves asleep at the wheel and failing to respond, alongside allies, when circumstances demand action. I am delighted to conclude the debate, and I hope that I have answered colleagues’ questions.

15/07/2022