UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • David Gauke – 2019 Statement on Justice Devolution to Manchester

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Gauke, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2019.

    On 31 May the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), signed a refreshed memorandum of understanding (MoU) for justice devolution with Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).

    This agreement replaces the current MoU, published in July 2016. It details the priority areas for the delivery of justice outcomes within GMCA. The commitments agreed between the Department (Ministry of Justice) and GMCA build on the previous agreement, recognise new challenges, and identify new opportunities for developing a broader, more integrated approach which improves outcomes and experiences for victims, witnesses, and offenders, as well as the communities and neighbourhoods in which they live.

    The aim of the MoU is to increase local influence and improve partnership working to increase efficiencies and reduce reoffending. Delivery will take place within the context of the whole system approach to public services which is advocated by GMCA. The MoU fits with the Government’s priority to reduce reoffending and our 2017 manifesto commitment to further enhance the role of police and crime commissioners.

    The areas covered in this refreshed MoU are youth justice, smarter justice, adult offender management and the victim’s journey. In summary:

    Youth justice

    With the aim of targeting resources where they can be most effective, the MoU focuses on adopting a preventive, problem-solving approach which puts the people in the right service at the right time. This includes establishing a local consortium to focus on resettlement from custody and prioritising specified cohorts in youth justice policy initiatives, including data sharing. The focus of this section aligns with the youth justice board (YJB) national standards which were published earlier this year.

    Smarter justice

    We will work towards greater family involvement to support compliance with regular judicial supervision. Along with GMCA we will develop inter-agency planning to increase confidence in community sentences and ensure pre-sentence reports identify vulnerable cohorts. There will also be work carried out to help identify where family-centred principles are best integrated at different points in the system.

    Reforming adult offender management

    We want to optimise the opportunities created through the new probation model to improve delivery within the context of Greater Manchester’s unified approach to ​public services. This will include a programme of work to support increased viability of community disposals and to co-design approaches to delivery of probation services that support place-based integration. We will also explore co-commissioning options through the Greater Manchester reform investment fund.

    The victim’s journey

    We will work with GMCA as they seek to improve services for victims to provide a seamless service by using innovative approaches, including digital path- ways, jointly evaluating the effectiveness of nationally ​commissioned services for victims, agreeing a programme to develop stronger links and ways of working at local level for the benefit of witnesses in GM and working to understand the impact of the criminal injuries compensation scheme on victims of terrorism.

    This summary covers the main commitments of the MoU. It is available in full at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/moj-gmca-memorandum-of-understanding-for-justice-devolution. Work will begin now to ensure we jointly deliver these commitments.

  • Bim Afolami – 2019 Speech on Transport in Hertfordshire

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bim Afolami, the Conservative MP for Hitchin and Harpenden, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2019.

    I rise to discuss transport in Hertfordshire. I am an MP for Hitchin and Harpenden—the MP, not an MP; there is only one, at least at the moment. Transport affects us all—not just Hertfordshire, but all counties and everybody in the House—but it particularly affects my constituency, and today I want to draw the House’s and the Minister’s attention to two specific issues: first, the train system and commuters going in and out of London from the stations of both Hitchin and Harpenden—both main commuter stations into London; and secondly, the looming expansion of Luton airport and the constant disruption faced by many of my constituents and others across Hertfordshire, including the constituents of many of my colleagues.

    I will start with trains. When thinking about our transport system in Hertfordshire, we must have a sense of balance. Better public transport is essential. I do not know anybody on either side of the House who would disagree. We recognise that people in Hertfordshire want better public transport. Yes, they want better roads as well, as it so happens, but they want better public transport. They also want to maintain their standard of life. They moved, often from big towns or cities, principally London, because they did not want to be there. Hertfordshire is a much more rural county than many people realise, and the green belt is very precious to many of my constituents. It is important to bear that in mind when thinking about what infrastructure improvements are needed.

    In particular, on the subject of Luton airport, I spoke to the Minister earlier today. I know how much he understands and cares about these issues, despite being relatively new to his brief. It is important that infrastructure such as airports is used for the benefit of all and is mindful of the negative externalities and impacts on many people in Hertfordshire and in particular my constituency.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    As the hon. Gentleman says, infrastructure and better funding for transport are important not just in his constituency but across the whole UK. Does he agree that decent infrastructure is necessary to every community and that, although issues such as potholes might not be high on the register for some, for those of us who want investment in our local communities, good infrastructure is the starting point, and that requires good planning and good funding, and these two must go hand in hand?

    Bim Afolami

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Good infrastructure matters. It is the difference between being a developed advanced country and not being one. The ability to get into work in a timely manner is critical to the economic and social wellbeing of a country, particularly in constituencies such as mine that rely on commuting. He talks about potholes and roads. I will come to this later. Roads are the essential lifeblood of pretty much every small business, of people taking their kids to school, visiting family, seeing friends or just conducting everyday business. These things may appear small, but they are critical.​

    That leads me to trains. Many in the House will have heard me talk many times about trains. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) in his place. He has heard me bang on about this many times.

    James Heappey (Wells) (Con)

    I never tire of it.

    Bim Afolami

    Hitchin station in north Hertfordshire serves 3.2 million passengers a year—1.3 million more than nearby Letchworth. Everybody in the House will be aware of the debacle in the rail industry in May last year with the big timetable changes, which did not go well. Like many others, Hitchin suffered severely, although there were some improvements. People going from Hitchin into central London no longer have to change at King’s Cross St Pancras but can run all the way through the core of London to the south of London, which many constituents have told me is a significant improvement that has considerably improved their commute. That should be noted and welcomed.

    That said, there are significant problems with the timetabling, particularly with overcrowding. This is a big problem, and not just because it is uncomfortable; it can often be a health problem, especially in the summer—and we are getting into warmer weather now. For anybody who has a disability or is pregnant or feeling ill, it can be a significant problem when commuting to and from work. The overcrowding is basically due to the fact that since the timetable changes there are fewer peak time trains from Hitchin and the ones remaining stop more often going into London. This increases the overcrowding.

    The Minister or any of the millions of people watching might think me just another MP whingeing about his local train service, because that is what local MPs do, and that is partly true, but unless the things that local MPs bring to this House, often after being begged by constituents, get heard, and unless constituents can see they are being heard and that their concerns are being acted on, there will be a crisis of trust not just in the local MP, but in the Government and Parliament as a whole, as a means to resolve the issues that people face. On these sorts of issues, I urge people—I know that the Minister, being a very good champion of his own constituency, understands and cares about this—to think about these things very deeply. Constituents email or write to their MPs, but they have better things to do; they do it because it matters and significantly impacts on their lives.

    The Department for Transport does not run all the trains. It is not in charge of every driver of every route. The Transport Secretary does not determine every train timetable in and out of Hitchin or anywhere else. The Department sits atop a structure that includes Network Rail, which is responsible for the infrastructure and stations, principally, and for timetabling, and the operators —in our case, GTR—which are responsible for running services under franchise agreements with the Department. My contention is that GTR has not treated Hitchin as a major station. It has treated it as just another station in north Hertfordshire and not adequately appreciated the fact that it is the main station in that area, and this has had real consequences.

    To best illustrate these consequences, rather than use my own words—we have heard enough of those already—I thought I would gather up some emails that I have received in only the last 72 hours about the train service ​from Hitchin. Constituent 1 told me—I will not name them because then they might appear on Google and it would all be terribly embarrassing, but I will quote them directly:

    “I am still to gain an answer from GTR as to why the station of Letchworth has seen such vast improvements in service over the past 12 months whilst the Hitchin service remains relatively unimproved. Letchworth now has the same frequency of peak trains as Hitchin (despite the fact that Hitchin has almost double the annual usage) as well as gaining Direct services”

    —to London—

    “(which Hitchin commuters had previously lost). As a committed campaigner for a greener future yourself I can see no logic in the fact I can now drive to Letchworth station rather than walk to nearby Hitchin, and still get to London faster?”

    Here is another example, from Mandy.

    “Please can you explain to me why every time there is a school holiday”

    GTR

    “are totally unable to run anything approaching an acceptable service?”

    Chris writes:

    “Hello Bim…Can I ask what can and will be done? The service provided…is abysmal and must be a serious consideration when people of our age are looking to relocate out of London. It must also affect the prosperity of the area as so many of us commute. The costs are enormous yet the service is poor at best.”

    Mike says:

    “Hi Bim,

    The trains are worse than ever, it’s been a complete disgrace since the May timetable changes. Most seem to be around lack of staff? I don’t understand…

    Are you able to find out if they’re lying to us? I just want to be able to get to work in the morning and home in the evening.”

    I will not continue, but I have received those emails over the last 72 hours, and I have received hundreds more over the last 12 months. This is a real problem with which I believe GTR has manifestly failed to deal. What do we need? The answer is quite simple. In Hitchin, we need more peak-time trains leaving between 07:30 and 08:30, and more peak-time trains arriving between 18:00 and 18:45. I ask the Minister to deal with that specifically in his response.

    Let me now turn to Harpenden, the equally loved station in my constituency. GTR has been pretty unwilling to accept that any changes are necessary, but in the case of Harpenden it has openly admitted that its actions last May caused severe difficulty. It has been quite candid about that, and has engaged with me several times on the subject of the station and the trains. That culminated in a meeting that I arranged in February this year with representatives from St Albans, Luton, Bedford and, obviously, Harpenden: commuter groups, local MPs, officials from GTR, and various people who decided to turn up. That was a big room.

    The stated aim of the meeting was to deal with the problem at Harpenden, because everyone in the room recognised that there was a problem. Honest, open views were exchanged, and by the end of the meeting everyone had agreed that Harpenden needed at least two more peak-time services that would otherwise stop at Luton, because the number of commuters between Luton and London was infinitesimal compared with the number at Harpenden. That was agreed by everyone in the room—except the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker). The hon. Gentleman is not here and ​cannot defend himself, and I do not blame him for what he said. He felt that the issue affected his station, he did not want to be on record as having accepted that any station in his constituency had “lost” services to Harpenden, and he objected.

    GTR manifestly failed in its duties. It is no way to run a process to accept that there is a problem—everyone is in a room with all the passenger loading data, the information and the evidence, and everyone agrees that in Harpenden services are needed from Luton rather than Bedford or St Albans—and then to hide behind an effective veto from a local MP. I do not believe that that is the way to run a service.

    This afternoon I spoke separately to the Minister and to the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). Will the Minister commit himself, on behalf of the Department, to meeting me, various officials from the Department—if he wishes—and local commuter groups, along with GTR, to establish, finally, how we can broker some sort of agreement on a solution to the problems faced at both Hitchin and Harpenden? That would be welcomed not just by me but, most important, by my constituents. Then, finally, we might achieve a resolution and an endgame to the problems that we face.

    A connected, although separate, issue is the long-proposed rail freight site at the Radlett aerodrome, on the same line, which may not be advantageous to commuting services. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are no longer seeking to include that in their rail freight plans for the south-east?

    I have dealt with the issue of trains. Let me now turn to the issue of Luton airport, which, surprisingly enough, is in Luton. It is in Bedfordshire, which is right next to my constituency. Constituents of mine live less than 200 yards from the runway. It is a rapidly growing airport: it handles more than 16.6 million passengers a year; and passenger numbers over the last 10 years have grown by over 80%.

    If the House will indulge me, I will explain why I am particularly concerned about Luton airport beyond the fact that the disruption to my constituents from both noise and air pollution has grown significantly. Luton airport is owned by London Luton Airport Ltd on behalf of Luton Borough Council, which is also the planning authority hitherto responsible for approving increases in the allowed numbers of passengers. In December 2017, Luton Borough Council put forward a plan to expand Luton airport—a huge expansion, going up to 38 million passengers, which was later reduced to 32 million. I think, however, that everybody can appreciate that that is a significant increase from the current limit of 18 million passengers.

    I am completely opposed to this proposal for expansion of Luton airport, but that is a subject for another day, because the processes of how it will be submitted are still being gone through and the Government have already accepted that the increase is so great that the application will go to the Planning Inspectorate at central Government rather than be decided by Luton Borough Council. I would make this point about Luton airport: it is not the right place for a major airport the size of Gatwick. Its location on a plateau means that topographically it is closed by fog and bad weather ​much more frequently than most airports in the south-east. The dense pattern of settlements around Hertfordshire and that part of the country—whether Hemel Hempstead, Harpenden, St Albans or large villages—means that significant numbers of towns and villages face growing amounts of noise and air pollution and traffic on rural roads, and particularly in my constituency.

    Returning to Luton Borough Council’s role, to be frank, my constituents—and, I know, many constituents in Hertfordshire generally who are overflown by planes from Luton airport—do not trust the council on this issue, because there is a conflict of interests: Luton Borough Council owns Luton airport. I want to be very clear that I am not alleging any specific illegality or impropriety—I have no evidence of that—but, as all of us here know because we are politicians, the appearance of fairness is often as important as fairness itself and there is a significant trust deficit between my constituents, many people in Hertfordshire and Luton Borough Council and its role vis-à-vis the airport.

    In December 2013, Luton Borough Council approved a proposed expansion of 9 million—from a limit of 9 million passengers to 18 million passengers. That proposal was in 2013, so only six years ago, but it was meant to take place over a 15-year period up until 2028, and the project was designed to be a balanced one that matched growth with mitigation measures for traffic, air pollution, noise pollution and the like. On the face of it that seems a broadly acceptable way of proceeding, or at least it seemed so at the time.

    Since then I am afraid we have seen a lot of growth; in fact, as I have said, we are already getting up to the limit of 18 million passengers in 2019, despite the fact that we are only meant to get to that point by 2028. There has been lots of growth but no mitigation. In fact it has been worse than no mitigation; things have got worse—things have been going backwards. Noise for my constituents, which blights them every single day—and night, as I will come on to—is getting worse and worse and worse for those who are unlucky enough to live beneath a flight path.

    Luton airport is now in breach of a key noise control planning condition known as the night noise contour. Broadly speaking, limits were set on how much night noise there should be and Luton airport has exceeded that limit. Here I come to the problem with Luton Borough Council: guess which body will be making the decision on whether Luton airport will be able to breach its agreed planning condition, which was expressly designed to limit noise that affects Hertfordshire? That body is Luton Borough Council.

    People might think that, just because the council owns the airport, it would not necessarily approve any expansion, and that is of course true. I am sure that it will say that there are strict Chinese walls in its organisation, and perhaps there are. However, Luton Borough Council receives more than £20 million from Luton airport from dividends alone, and we can see the direct incentive to make the airport grow as fast as possible so that Luton gets the gain from the growth. I accept that there is significant economic gain for Luton; I do not deny that. However, the pain—in terms of increased traffic on small rural roads, increased noise and air pollution and significant disturbance—will come to my constituents and the people of Hertfordshire. Luton gets the gain and Hertfordshire gets the pain.​

    Does the Minister agree that planning conditions governing aviation noise and emissions are a key part of maintaining the balance between growth and environmental protection to which the Government’s aviation policy framework aspires? Does he condone the failure of Luton Borough Council to enforce a key planning condition despite the fact that the airport has breached the condition for the past two years and that a further breach of the same condition is predicted for this year? Will he, on behalf of his colleague, the aviation Minister in the other place, agree to the aviation Minister or another Minister from the Department sitting down with me and other local representatives and campaign groups from Hertfordshire to discuss whether the decision should be called in, in the light of the breach of the noise planning contour at Luton airport, such is the disturbance that this is imposing on my constituents?

    We spoke about roads and potholes at the beginning of the debate, and I want to put on record that Hertfordshire County Council is doing its level best to improve the state of its roads. It has done well, and I call out Councillor David Williams, the leader of the county council, for working hard on this and making it a focus, but the council needs more money. I urge the Minister and the Department to keep in mind that we are not there yet. The money has increased, but there needs to be significantly more to improve the state of our rural roads in Hertfordshire and across the country.

    On the roads we have cars, and we also have buses. Buses are the lifeblood of rural areas for elderly people or those who cannot afford a car. They cannot get anywhere without an adequate bus service, but in many parts of my constituency the local bus services have worsened and are inadequate. The village of Redbourn is an example, and I call out Councillor Victoria Mead for her absolutely fantastic campaigning to improve the bus service from Redbourn. Various villages to the south of Hitchin also have failing bus services that need support and improvement, and I urge the Minister to take a look at this issue in rural areas. How can we help our local bus services? I will work with him on anything that he and the Department wish to do.

    I am a realist; I know that there is no magic wand. These issues are structural—whether they involve trains or Luton airport—and they take time. They are complex and difficult, and as I have said, the Government are not the only actor involved. However, I am asking the Government—in addition to answering the precise questions that I have mentioned—to lean in a bit more heavily on the side of the people and against the interests of GTR, which is not taking my constituents’ concerns adequately into account, and against the unbridled, unfettered growth of Luton airport by Luton Borough Council, which is pursuing this reckless growth and profit without taking Hertfordshire residents into consideration. Let us work together to ensure that we improve the lives of the Hertfordshire residents that I and many other colleagues are here to represent.

  • David Mundell – 2019 Statement on D-Day

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 5 June 2019.

    As we mark the 75th anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy, we should all take time to reflect on the enormous bravery shown by all those who took part. Scottish soldiers and sailors were of vital importance to the UK and international war effort, and Scottish engineers played a key role in building the famous Mulberry harbours which helped make the landings possible. Across Scotland we remember the ingenuity, courage and commitment of all those who were part of such a pivotal moment in modern history. And we remember all of those who didn’t make it home, giving their lives so that we have the freedoms we enjoy today.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Statement on the British Normandy Memorial

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 6 June 2019.

    Thank you President Macron for your support to ensure a lasting monument to the service and sacrifice of those who fought in the Battle of Normandy – something which means so much to our veteran community and to the whole of the British nation.

    It is incredibly moving to be here today, looking out across beaches where one of the greatest battles for freedom this world has ever known took place – and it is truly humbling to do so with the men who were there that day.

    It is an honour for all of us to share this moment with you.

    Standing here, as the waves wash quietly onto the shore, it’s almost impossible to grasp the raw courage that it must have taken that day to leap out from landing craft and into the surf – despite the fury of battle.

    No one could be certain what the 6th June would bring. No one would know how this – the most ambitious – amphibious and airborne assault in all of human history, would turn out.

    And, as the sun rose that morning, not one of the troops on the landing craft approaching these shores, not one of the pilots in the skies above, not one of the sailors at sea – knew whether they would still be alive when it set once again.

    If one day can be said to have determined the fate of generations to come – in France, in Britain, in Europe and the world – that day was the 6th June 1944.

    More than 156,000 men landed on D-Day – of which 83,000 were from Britain and the Commonwealth.

    Over a quarter million more supported operations from air and sea – while the French Resistance carried out extraordinary acts of bravery behind enemy lines. Many were terribly wounded.

    And many more made the ultimate sacrifice that day and in the fierce fighting that followed, as together our allied nations sought to release Europe from the grip of fascism.

    Men like Lieutenant Den Brotheridge of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry. 28 years old. Husband. Father-to-be. Thought to be the first Allied soldier to be killed in action after leading the charge over Pegasus Bridge.

    Marine Commando Robert Casson of 46 Royal Marine Commando, who was killed on the approach to Juno Beach, three weeks before his brother Private Joseph Casson was also killed in Normandy.

    And twins Robert and Charles Guy, 21, who both served in the RAF and were shot down and buried separately. Their names will now be reunited here.

    These young men belonged to a very special generation, the greatest generation. A generation whose unconquerable spirit shaped the post war world. They didn’t boast. They didn’t fuss. They served. And they laid down their lives so that we might have a better life and build a better world.

    The memorial that will be built here will remind us of this. Of the service and sacrifice of those who fell under British Command in Normandy, of the price paid by French civilians – and of our duty, and our responsibility, to now carry the torch for freedom, for peace and for democracy.

    I want to thank all those involved in this memorial. George Batts and the veterans who have campaigned so hard to make it happen. The people of Ver-sur-Mer, and Phillipe Onillon the town’s mayor.

    Here in Normandy, the names of those British men and women who gave their lives in defence of freedom, will forever sit opposite their homeland across the Channel.

    Here, in Normandy we will always remember their courage, their commitment, their conviction.

    And to our veterans, here in Normandy, I want to say the only words we can: thank you.

  • Denis Healey – 1985 Speech on Foreign Affairs and Overseas Development

    Below is the text of the speech made by Denis Healey, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 8 November 1985.

    Like the Foreign Secretary, I want to concentrate on the forthcoming Geneva summit where the leaders of the two most powerful countries in the world will meet. Our survival will depend in part on how that meeting goes. I strongly endorse the Foreign Secretary’s closing words in that regard.

    I shall not talk about the economic problems facing the European Community, although the outlook is as depressing as I can ever remember. The Foreign Secretary referred to Spain and Portugal joining the Community just six weeks from now, but the last meeting of Community Finance Ministers failed utterly to take account of that in arrangements for the budget next year. We shall have an opportunity to discuss the Common Market budget next week, I believe, so some of those issues can be left until then.

    I shall not talk about South Africa, which we debated a fortnight ago. I am sure that we shall return to the subject many times in the new Session. I do not applaud the choice of Lord Barber as the British representative on the Commonwealth mission—I do not think that the chairman of Standard Chartered Bank can be regarded as ​ totally without bias in these matters. I can only hope that the noble Lord distances himself as much from the Prime Minister on South African matters as he did from the Prime Minister’s views on monetary problems when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    I should like to say just a word about Argentina. Even The Times welcomed the recent meetings between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, me and the leader of the Liberal party and President Alfonsin on the grounds that they had decisively broken the taboo on discussions of Falklands problems. I hope that, in spite of what he said today, the Foreign Secretary will exploit the opportunities that we have offered him to produce an environment in which we can at least reduce the heavy burden on our economy and defences imposed by the Prime Minister’s Fortress Falklands policy.

    The Foreign Secretary must recognise that practical co-operation with Argentina on matters such as fisheries and communications with the Falkland Islands are bound to depend on our readiness to discuss all aspects of the Falklands problem.

    Let me pass to the summit meeting. I deplore the tendency by newspapers and the Government to treat this essentially as a propaganda battle and to pay excessive attention to who is winning the propaganda war. I gather that when the Prime Minister last conversed with President Reagan she asked for a repackaging of the American proposals, as though they would be more acceptable if presented in gift-wrapping rather than brown paper.
    The Foreign Secretary was curiously evasive in telling us whether the proposals which the NATO council discussed on Wednesday last week were the same as those put to the Soviet Union on Friday. My understanding is that they were not. The NATO council has not, so far, discussed the proposals as they were presented last Friday to the Soviet Government.

    The real issues that underlie this so-called propaganda war are of vital importance to the people of Britain no less than to the people of the United States and the Soviet Union. Like the editor of the Financial Times, I could only see as a profound let down the speech at the United Nations in which President Reagan trailed his approach to the summit. Even as a propaganda effort it was clearly aimed at the right wing in his own Republican party rather than at world opinion.

    Of course it is important that the Soviet Union and the United States should discuss regional problems that might bring them to blows. I welcome the talks on these matters which have already taken place, at least at official level, although I doubt that the President was wise to talk in September about joint Soviet-American “intervention” in the Third world. But in his United Nations speech the President’s choice of issues was gravely one sided and his description, especially of what was happening in Nicaragua, was ludicrously distorted. Above all, he left out entirely the regional problems of the middle east where the risks to world peace are the greatest and where the Soviet Union and the United States are already directly and militarily involved.
    In half of the middleeast—the eastern half—Russia and the United States have reached a close understanding about the Gulf war which has already been responsible for the loss of one million lives. They should be trying to bring it to an end rather than acting simply as co-belligerents ​ with Iraq. Surely they need to reach an understanding with the other half of the middle east on how to get peace between Israel and her neighbours.

    I shall mercifully draw a veil over the lamentable diplomatic shambles that attended the recent visit of two PLO representatives to London. I shall draw a veil also over the American achievement in undermining America’s two best friends in the Arab world—King Hussein, by banning a contract to provide him with arms, and President Mubarak, by skyjacking the Egyptian aircraft and failing to apologise for doing so.

    Now that the dust has settled, it is clearer than ever that no progress on the problems separating Israel from her Arab neighbours can be made without involving the PLO —both King Hussein and President Mubarak restated that during the past few days—nor can progress be made without the acquiescence, if not the positive co-operation, of both Syria and the Soviet Union. Until, somehow, diplomacy can create a framework that takes account of those two facts, all purely Western efforts to encourage a settlement are bound to fail. I hope that the Minister for Overseas Development will tell us precisely what the Prime Minister meant at Question Time the other day when she talked about the need for a framework for a new initiative for such talks. I believe that the framework must include the PLO, Syria and the Soviet Union.
    I welcome the indications that Prime Minister Peres is now in contact with the Soviet Union and is seeking diplomatic recognition of Israel and the release of more Jews who wish to settle in his country. I hope very much that the summit at least assists in that regard.

    The central problem facing the summit—the problem which has made it the focus of interest for thinking people all over the world—is whether it will help to bring the nuclear arms race to an end. My concern, which I have expressed many times to the House, is that the nuclear arms race is moving into an area that will make arms control more difficult and war more likely, unless it can be stopped now. It is a staggering fact that the United States and the Soviet Union between them now have 20,000 strategic nuclear warheads and well over 50,000 nuclear warheads, if one adds the intermediate and tactical weapons that they possess. Those 50,000 nuclear warheads amount to more than 1·5 million Hiroshima-size atomic bombs. If those arsenals of nuclear weapons were ever used there would be an eternity of nuclear winter.

    Yet neither side has gained one jot in its security by pursuing this arms race during the past 40 years. Both have wasted colossal sums of money which would have been far better spent on improving the lot of their peoples and, indeed, the lot of the world.

    So far, the stability of the nuclear balance between Russia and the United States has proved invulnerable to wide variations in their relative capabilities. It is now universally recognised, even by Mr. Richard Perle of the Pentagon, that there is broad parity in strategic nuclear weapons between the Soviet Union and the United States. For this reason deliberate aggression by one or the other is well nigh inconceivable at the moment.

    However, the colossal size of their existing arsenals has encouraged both Governments to think more and more about the possibility not just of deterring but of fighting a nuclear war. Each suspects the other of hoping to win a nuclear conflict if it can destroy sufficient of the enemy’s retaliatory forces in a first strike, so that each side is also thinking about pre-empting an enemy first strike. Mr. ​ Richard de Lauer, the Pentagon’s chief of engineering, recently recommended the Trident D5 missile to Congress on the ground that it was a counterforce weapon which might give the United States a pre-emptive capacity. That is the weapon that the British Government are planning to buy at colossal cost from the United States for Britain’s forces.

    The Soviet Union and the United States are developing, and beginning to deploy in some cases, two or three new inter-continental ballistic missiles, new strategic nuclear bombers, new air-launched cruise missiles and new missile-carrying submarines. The United States is planning to replace its obsolete nuclear weapons in Europe with new nuclear missiles and artillery warheads, and no doubt the Soviet Union is doing the same.

    Fears on both sides of a first strike are bound to increase rapidly if these developments continue. A report of the recently published unclassified version of the latest CIA national intelligence estimate stated that Soviet air defences would not be able to

    “prevent large-scale damage to the USSR”

    by United States nuclear bombers and cruise missiles for at least the next decade— that is bombers and cruise missiles alone. More important, Trident D5 is said to offer the United States for the 1990s the capacity to destroy 95 per cent. of Soviet inter-continental ballistic missiles if it strikes first. The same CIA assessment reports that, at least until the year 2000, Russia could pose “no significant threat” to American atomic submarines.

    Those figures from American sources take no account of the enormous destructive power of America’s ICBM force, which is based on land. In addition, President Reagan is planning to equip the United States with a ballistic missile defence, through his star wars programme, and is inviting the Soviet Union to follow suit. He told a BBC correspondent that his message to the Soviet Union was:

    “We wish you well with your defence plans.”

    That is a different story from what the Foreign Secretary told us today and the President could have fooled me, because a welcome and goodwill for the Soviets’ ballistic missile plans are the last views I have heard from Secretary Weinberger or Mr. Shultz.

    President Reagan’s personal attitude to star wars has not wavered since he first made a speech recommending it in March 1983, when he said:

    “The human spirit must be capable of rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by threatening their existence.”

    The President said that he was determined

    “to find a way of defence which will make nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

    Bruce Kent and Joan Ruddock could not have put the case for nuclear disarmament more forcibly. The President added that if

    “defensive systems were paired with offensive systems they could be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy—and nobody wants that.”

    The tragedy is that that is exactly what the President’s star wars programme is leading to. When the President made his speech in March 1983, nearly all the experts in the United States believed that it was nonsense, but when he made it clear in the following months that he was not to be shaken, they all switched round. In fact, there has never been such a mass conversion since a Chinese general baptised his troops with a hose.

    Today, no one who is involved in the star wars programme shares President Reagan’s view of it—not ​ General Abrahamson, who is in charge of the whole project, not Dr. Yonas, who is the chief scientific adviser to the programme, and not Dr. Keyworth, who is the President’s chief scientific adviser.

    The State Department’s official pamphlet on star wars, published a few months ago, said that the project is designed not to replace nuclear deterrence, but to enhance it. In other words, it is designed to threaten the existence of other nations and human beings more credibly. Its purpose is not to make nuclear weapons obsolete or to give the peoples of the world immunity from nuclear attack; its purpose, as has been welt described in speeches by Dr. Keyworth and in a speech by Dr. Yonas that I heard in Ottawa recently, is to protect America’s land-based missiles, rather than to protect the American people. For that reason, it is bound to accelerate the arms race in both offensive and defensive systems and will lead exactly to the consequence against which President Reagan warned in his speech two and a half years ago. It will also lead to a situation in which, to use the recent words of Mr. Nitze, the

    “growth of defences could support rather than discourage a first strike.”

    That is why the star wars programme has been publicly opposed by the last three American Presidents—by Republican Presidents Ford and Nixon no less than by the Democrat President Carter—and by at least three of the last four American Defence Secretaries—by Republican Secretary Schlesinger no less than by Democrat Secretaries Brown and McNamara. In fact, the SDI programme in the United States is supported only by those who reject arms control in principle, such as Dr. Weinberger and Mr. Perle, and, of course, by those who cynically hope to get a lot of money out of it. As the House knows, star wars is described by the military and industrial community in the United States as pennies from heaven.

    The President is sticking doggedly to his original vision, but he is alone. In spite of his words on the BBC, no one really believes that President Reagan’s successor —it will not be a decision for the present President—will give the Soviet Union the secrets of the star wars programme if it turns out to work.

    After all, only the other day the American Administration forced the British Customs and Excise to take a child’s computer off the shelves of the duty-free shop at Heathrow because it might find its way to the Soviet Union.
    Indeed, both American law and the ABM treaty forbid the United States to give information about ballistic missile defences even to its allies, including the United Kingdom. That fact casts an odd light on the idea of the Secretary of State for Defence that British firms could get great benefits from doing research for the United States into the SDI programme.

    President Reagan told Soviet journalists last week that he would not deploy star wars until both sides had destroyed their offensive weapons, but on the very next day he was forced by his advisers to withdraw that undertaking. He then went to the other extreme and said that the United States would deploy star wars unilaterally if it could not get other world leaders to agree to an international system of defence against nuclear missiles. So much for the undertakings that the President gave to our Prime Minister in December. He now tells us not that he will consult or negotiate about deployment, but that if it proves feasible he will deploy unilaterally unless everybody else in the world agrees with him.

    The European allies had grave misgivings about the star wars programme from the word go. Those misgivings were superbly listed by the Foreign Secretary in the speech to which he referred earlier and for which, I am told—I hope that I am wrong—the Prime Minister later apologised to President Reagan. If that is not true, I hope that we may be told so. The Foreign Secretary does not rise to respond to that challenge.

    The tragedy is that the European allies did not make their position crystal clear in time. On the contrary, the Washington correspondent of The Sunday Times and The Guardian told us from American sources in September that the Prime Minister had used her support for SDI to try to get President Reagan’s support for buying the Ptarmigan project and threatened to withdraw her support for SDI if she did not get the Ptarmigan contract. The House will agree that The Times showed unusual innocence recently in asking why President Reagan delayed until this week publishing the decision, which must have been taken long ago, to buy the French system instead, even though President Mitterrand has openly opposed the star wars programme from the start.

    Of course, the reason for the delay is obvious. The President wanted to be sure that he had our Prime Minister in the bag at the NATO meeting before he announced his decision. He took her for a ride. She gained nothing by sucking up to President Reagan except to explode the myth of a special relationship with the United States. Her only reward was another spillage of rancid bile from the Prince of Darkness, Mr. Richard Perle, who, according to The Sunday Times last week, accused her of following Baldwin and Chamberlain in appeasing the Soviet Union. He did so because she had dared to question Mr. Perle’s propaganda about certain alleged Soviet violations of the ABM treaty.

    I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it is still possible for America’s European allies to exert a decisive influence on American policy in this area, provided that they are united and honest on a clear policy. There is always a power battle in Washington between the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and various parts of the Congress about almost every element of American foreign and defence policy. That power battle can be swung in Europe’s direction provided that Europe makes its views known in time. The best example of that was when united European pressure on the American Administration gave victory to Mr. Shultz over Mr. Weinberger on the interpretation of the ABM treaty on testing. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the part that he must have played in mobilising European support for that interpretation.

    I strongly support the Foreign Secretary’s view—I have said so many times—that a collective European approach to the defence and diplomatic problems facing the Alliance is essential if we are to proceed in the direction of peace rather than war. It is important that Europe should constitute an independent pillar within the Alliance. I shall devote my remaining remarks to what Britain and Europe should be pressing the United States for in relation to the arms talks and the forthcoming summit.

    The greatest danger of the arms race lies in the quality of the new weapons being planned rather than in the quantity of the old weapons. By far the best objective in the arms talks would be to seek a freeze on the testing, ​ development and deployment of new nuclear weapons. A nuclear freeze already has overwhelming popular support on both sides of the Atlantic as well as almost unanimous support in the United Nations.

    Of course, a freeze is not without its own difficulties. There is a problem in deciding the point at which one cuts off programmes already under way. I believe that, since the two sides enjoy rough parity, that problem should not be difficult to overcome. Certainly it would be much easier to negotiate a freeze than a reduction in existing weapons when the pattern of the two sides’ deterrence is so different. Moreover, a freeze would be much easier to verify than a reduction in forces because it is easier to tell whether a new weapon is being tested than to know whether a weapon photographed by satellite is within a permitted ceiling.

    The Prime Minister has made a great deal in the House of saying that it is not possible to verify a ban on research. She said that again the other day. That is true in relation to research in brains or in laboratories, but it is possible to verify a ban on the external testing associated with research, especially since public sources tell us that western satellite intelligence photography has a resolving power which enables its possessor positively to identify objects as small as 150 cms. across.

    The United States Defence Department has already published a list of the tests that it plans to carry out as part of its SDI research programme, because it knows that Russia can and will observe them. Surely our objective, which we should press on our European allies to press on the United States, should be to tighten the ABM treaty so as to ban all tests relating to space defence—on both sides. That would kill not only the SDI before its birth but the possibility of a Soviet breakout.

    I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the Russians have indulged in a great deal of activity in space defence in the last 15 years, but none of that activity could come to fruition in a new space defence system if tests were banned now.

    If one seeks a ban on observable tests relating to SDI, one must also ban the development of anti-satellite systems on both sides. I remember Mr. Richard Burt, when he was still working at the State Department last December, saying that the United States would be proposing such a ban. However, the United States has not put forward such a proposal and Mr. Burt is now ambassador in Bonn. One can only guess at the new American policy.

    Surely the United States has a major interest in banning anti-satellite systems now because it claims that the Soviet Union is ahead. Indeed, as the Foreign Secretary said, the Soviet Union is the only country which has a working ASAT system, although I believe it is a primitive one. Moreover, nothing would be more dangerous than for each side to acquire the ability to rob the other of its eyes and ears in a crisis. Dr. Keyworth, the President’s main scientific adviser, pointed out the other day that if America develops an anti-satellite system it will enable it to test its technologies for each of the three layers of space defence. If we do not reach agreement on a ban on anti-satellite activity now it will soon become very difficult to verify because the Americans plan to carry their anti-satellite weapons on F15 aircraft. They will be difficult to detect by what the Russians call “national means”, satellite photography.

    By far the most important single contribution to a freeze would be a comprehensive test ban treaty. No one would deploy new nuclear weapons if they had never been tested in real life. It is only three years since the Prime Minister told us that negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty were going, alas, far too slowly and should be speeded up and completed. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are now pressing for a reconvening of the conference for a CTBT because it would command overwhelming support in the rest of the world. The non-proliferation treaty review conference in Geneva the other day called upon the nuclear powers to start negotiations for a comprehensive test ban in the next six weeks—before the end of the year.

    The only excuse offered for not proceeding to the signature of a comprehensive test ban treaty is the alleged inability of science to detect very small underground tests. However, this week’s issue of Modern Geology contains a long article by the leading British seismologist, Dr. Leggett of Imperial college, in which he demonstrates that there is no chance of the Soviet Union successfully evading detection if it breaks a comprehensive test ban. That chance has been further reduced since that article was written by the fact that in the last few days India, Sweden and four other neutral countries have agreed to make their territories available for monitoring a comprehensive test ban and to man seismological stations in the Soviet Union —which in principle the Soviet Union has already agreed to accept as part of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

    Another contribution which Britain could make, especially since the United States believes that the phased array radar at Krasnoyarsk is intended to control a ballistic missile system, is to take up the Soviet offer to stop the development at Krasnoyarsk in return for stopping work to produce a phased array radar at Fylingdales and at Thule in Danish territory.

    If the American Government are worried about Krasnoyarsk, here is an opportunity to get rid of both. There is no question that if such phased array radars, whether in the Soviet Union, Britain or Greenland, were used as battle management stations for ballistic missile defence, they would be a flagrant violation of the antiballistic missile treaty. I suggest that the Foreign Secretary should immediately approach the United States and say that we insist that the United States should negotiate on the Soviet offer to stop development in Krasnoyarsk in return for stopping development at Fylingdales and Thule, and will refuse to proceed with the development until and unless such negotiations begin.

    The correspondent for The Times in Washington reported last week that diplomats and politicians are asking two questions about President Reagan. Can he cope? Does he know what he wants? The second question is unfair. He knows exactly what he wants from the star wars system, and he described his desires eloquently in his interview with the BBC. The trouble is that nobody believes that what he wants is attainable. He has been deceived by his advisers on star wars as he was deceived by those who told him that there is no word in the Russian language for freedom. That is another remark that he made in his BBC broadcast. Those who share his yearning, as I hope all of us in the House do, to base the security of the human race on something other than mutually assured destruction know that star wars is not the answer. To pursue the star wars mirage means only an accelerating arms race in both offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.

    The truth lies elsewhere. We need a freeze on all new nuclear weapons as the basis of our negotiation on the more complex but less urgent task of reducing the number of existing weapons. I agree with what I hope the Foreign Secretary implied, that that task, at least in Europe, could be achieved quite quickly, certainly if the British and French Governments would agree to let their forces be counted in the balance.

    I regret that the Prime Minister, as the Foreign Secretary told us, has refused to talk directly to the Soviet Union about British weapons, but I welcome the fact that she has agreed to let the Foreign Secretary talk to Mr. Shevardnadze about wider aspects of disarmament on a bilateral basis. I am asking the British Government to take a lead in bringing the world back to sanity, to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race and to offer us a future to which out children can look forward with hope rather than with despair.

  • Geoffrey Howe – 1985 Speech on Foreign Affairs And Overseas Development

    Below is the text of the speech made by Geoffrey Howe, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 8 November 1985.

    I intend to concentrate most of my remarks today on the important issues of East-West relations and arms control, and on the contribution that a stronger Europe can make to that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) will deal with further points raised in the debate.

    Before I turn to the main subjects, I should like to bring the House up to date on three other important areas where the Government have recently been active in international affairs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already drawn the attention of the House to the wide range of the discussion and the extent of common ground achieved at the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government at Nassau last month. That meeting showed again the unique scope and nature of the Commonwealth. We reached wide agreement on measures to increase the security of small states and on the need to devise more effective action to counter international terrorism and to halt drug abuse. Britain played a major part in securing those significant, practical agreements. We shall now work hard to put them into practice.

    The discussions at Nassau were dominated by developments in Africa, and in particular the growing crisis in South Africa. The House has had the opportunity to debate the Commonwealth accord on South Africa. Nobody in this country or overseas who has read the reports of that debate could fail to be impressed by the broad measure of agreement—indeed, by the profound feeling on both sides of the House—on the evils of apartheid and, in the words of the Gracious Speech, on the need for “peaceful, fundamental change.”

    The Commonwealth agreed to establish a group of eminent people, who will seek to promote a dialogue between the South African Government and representatives of the black community. As the House will be aware, the British nominee for the group is my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Barber of Wentbridge. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) will recognise that Lord Barber is a man well known to the House by ​ virtue of his distinguished career in public service, including, of course, a term of office as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He belongs to the moderately exclusive club to which the right hon. Gentleman and I belong. He is equipped beyond that, by virtue of his more recent experience in working with many African countries, to make a knowledgeable and comprehensive contribution to the work of the group.

    The 60 nations of the Commonwealth and the European Community have together given a plain political signal of the need for fundamental peaceful change in South Africa. As the Commonwealth accord acknowledged, it is not for outside countries to prescribe specific constitutional changes for South Africa. It is important to acknowledge that some significant legislative and other changes have been announced there, but the whole House wants to see from the South African Government more movement, more quickly. Above all, there is a need for effective dialogue with genuine black leaders. We urge the South African Government to take the earliest possible steps in that direction. In that connection, it is a matter of considerable concern that, since the Commonwealth meeting, they have introduced further sweeping restrictions on the press. These can do nothing to promote the essential objective of rapid peaceful change, which we all seek.

    Peaceful change in South Africa is essential for the wider stability and prosperity of southern Africa as a whole. We have strongly condemned South African incursions into Angola. We equally deplore attempts to undermine security in Mozambique, and we shall continue to work for implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 435 on Namibia and the withdrawal of foreign troops.

    The Commonwealth Heads of Government also discussed international economic issues, especially the urgent measures needed to deal with the related problems of debt, exchange rate instability and protectionism. As we reaffirmed at Nassau, the Government remain committed to a substantive aid programme. That is true both for emergency relief—where our record on famine relief to Africa and earthquake relief in Mexico has demonstrated our firm and continuing commitment—and for long-term development. We shall also continue to support the invaluable work of the voluntary agencies. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will have more to say about this subject.

    The report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on famine in Africa, published in May, was a characteristically useful contribution to the House’s consideration of this pressing and difficult topic. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the House, to pay tribute to the invaluable work of that Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw.)

    Another issue of great importance on which we have received heartening support from members of the Commonwealth is our commitment to the people of the Falkland Islands. As the Gracious Speech makes plain, we shall continue to honour that commitment. We shall also continue to work for more normal relations with Argentina. Since 1982 we have taken a series of initiatives designed to open the way to practical co-operation with Argentina. So far, however—although some Members ​ of the House in their contacts with the Argentines have appeared to ignore this fact—there has been almost no response.

    Nowhere is a co-operative approach more necessary than in the conservation of the south-west Atlantic fishery. The need to conserve the fishing stocks is universally accepted. It is plain common sense that conservation can best be achieved by co-operation among all those with an interest in orderly fishing in that region. That is why we have supported the initiative by the Food and Agriculture Organisation to put in place a multilateral fisheries regime. The first need is to establish the facts. To help in that, we have commissioned a study of the south-west Atlantic fishery from Dr. Beddington of Imperial college. This has now been completed and has been placed in the Library. We shall make it available to the FAO and the other fishing nations.

    Our approach to this issue is wholly practical. We want an effective multilateral regime, entirely without prejudice to our position on sovereignty. I was encouraged to see recent press reports suggesting that the Argentine Government may be thinking on the same lines. The recent victory in the elections of Senor Alfonsin’s party is a sign that democracy is being strengthened in Argentina. We welcome that, and we regard it as all the more reason for the Argentine Government to adopt our approach of looking for ways of reducing tension and co-operating together in a practical and sensible way.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

    That electoral victory having been won, is it not all the more reason for the Government at least to recognise that sovereignty must be discussed—albeit very low down the list of topics—or they will get nowhere?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    There is no reason to change our position on that. We are approaching this practical matter without prejudice to the different positions held on sovereignty. We made clear our view on it when we attempted to establish a basis for talks in Berne more than a year ago. I have nothing to add to what we said then.

    Obviously, I cannot discuss in great depth all aspects of the middle east, but the House will recognise that the depressing cycle of violence and retaliation has underlined the urgency of a negotiated settlement of the region’s problems, and yet has at the same time made progress in that direction more difficult.

    In the Gulf, we fully support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General. They remain the best hope for peace there, and we urge all those involved to work with him to find an early settlement.

    The hijacking of the Achille Lauro, and the brutal murder of an innocent American passenger, reminded us of the ever-present alternative to Arab-Israel peace talks: a new wave of extremism in the region. The Prime Minister and I had hoped that my planned meeting last month with a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation would carry forward King Hussein’s brave initiative for peace in the region. Unfortunately, and as King Hussein made clear, that meeting did not take place because of a last-minute change of mind on the part of the Palestinians. That was an opportunity missed, but we shall continue the search for ways to support the peace process. In the meantime, we look forward to the visit to Britain of Israel’s Prime Minister, Mr. Peres, early next week.

    We shall maintain our support, too, for UNIFIL—the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. This force is a ​ contribution that the international community can make to stability in that tragic country. Our ambassador and his staff in Beirut are also working to secure the early release of the British United Nations official held hostage in Lebanon, Mr. Alec Collett. Such personal cases are among the most difficult and distressing problems that a Foreign Secretary must consider. The safe release of Britons detained in several countries, often for long periods without any or sufficient justification, is a subject of daily concern to me and my colleagues. We know the agonising uncertainty that families must endure. I know, too, that the plight of such people can often be made more difficult by public discussion, which is why I have mentioned only one name. We try to keep those Members who are directly concerned with these cases closely informed. The House will understand why, in the interests of those people, I think it best to say no more about individual cases here.

    I referred to the efforts of our ambassador in Beirut, Sir David Miers. He returns to Britain very soon after representing Britain with distinction in an especially dangerous post. He is one among many members of the Diplomatic Service who, in today’s increasingly violent world, risk their lives in the service of our country, and to whom the House will wish to pay tribute.

    I said at the outset that one of the main themes I wished to tackle today was the task of improving East-West relations. In this, as in other areas of our foreign policy, our voice has been immeasurably strengthened by our ability to speak with the joint authority of our European partners. That is why we have proposed, as the Gracious Speech makes clear, that Community co-operation in foreign policy should be strengthened, by placing political co-operation on a more lasting foundation. I am glad to report that discussions on that proposal—based mainly on the original United Kingdom text—are making good progress.

    Europe is central to Britain’s foreign policy. Unlike the Labour party, we have a clear and unequivocal position. The Community provides much of the framework for Britain’s relations, not just with most of the European democracies. but with our other allies and trading partners. If the United States stands as one pillar of the Western alliance for peace, the other pillar of the Atlantic arch stands right here in Europe.

    Today, more than ever, Britain’s influence in the world is linked to our place in Europe. That is why we have been committed, since we acceded to the Rome treaty in 1973, to its goal of

    “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined other European Heads of Government at Stuttgart two years ago in defining that aim as being to deepen and broaden the scope of the Community’s activities so as to cover a growing proportion of member states’ mutual relations and their external relations.

    European unity is not a question of constitutional theory; it is about practical realities. It is about improving the prospects of economic success and of success in the fight against unemployment; breaking down the barriers to trade; easing the burdens on business and exploiting our common technological strength; and working together, in internal and external policy alike, for objectives which no single member state can achieve on its own.

    The outcome of the inter-governmental conference, set up at the last Milan European Council, must be measured ​ against those yardsticks. One of the questions being discussed at the conference is whether or not to change the Treaty of Rome. The treaty is not immutable, but if we are to consider change, it must be change for a purpose.

    We shall judge any proposals which come for consideration by Heads of Government in Luxembourg in December by the extent to which they correspond to the objectives that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in Milan. How far will they make a real difference to completion of a genuine common market? How far will they strengthen political co-operation? How far, in other words, will they make a real contribution to European unity?

    We in Britain can take particular satisfaction in the forthcoming accession to the Community of Portugal and Spain. As the Gracious Speech makes plain, the Bill providing for enlargement will be brought forward shortly. Enlargement is being accompanied by important and positive developments for Gibraltar, based on our firm commitment to respect the wishes of the Gibraltar people.

    This is the basis on which I shall pursue these and other questions when I hold a round of discussions with my Spanish colleague in Madrid next month.
    I told the House in March that the search for mutual security between East and West would be a long haul. Nothing in the past six months has altered my view, nor my belief that progress can be, and is being, made.

    The House has given welcome and broad-based support to the efforts which the Government have been making over the past two years to improve our relations with the East. Most recently, we have continued that process with the important visit to this country of the general secretary of the Hungarian Socialist Workers party, Mr. Kadar. I have had further extensive discussions with the Foreign Ministers of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Dialogue is not an end in itself, nor will it change people’s minds overnight, but it is an essential part of the steady process of building trust and understanding.
    In pursuing that approach, we shall certainly not turn a blind eye to those aspects of Soviet and East European conduct that cause widespread anxiety in the House, and, indeed, throughout the country regarding Afghanistan and human rights.

    On the many occasions when I have met Mr. Gromyko, and now Mr. Shevardnadze, I have urged them to take practical action on particular cases. The recent news that the Soviet Union intends to release for medical treatment in the West Mrs. Yelena Bonner, the wife of Dr. Andrei Sakharov, is at last a step, but only a step, in the right direction.

    There have been reports that the Soviet Union may be thinking of some liberalisation of its policy on Jewish emigration. Let us wait and see. I am sure that the whole House will join me in urging them to take that action, for which we have long pressed and which is long overdue.

    As I made clear to Mr. Shevardnadze in New York in September, we seek a constructive long-term relationship with the Soviet Union, but not at the expense of national security, nor of speaking our minds on the points where we disagree, nor of being ready to stand up for democratic values. There should be no doubt in Soviet minds of the seriousness of our purpose. Arms control is an integral part in that relationship, and the Gracious Speech reaffirms in clear terms the commitment of the Government to arms control.

    Along with all our allies, we are determined to achieve balanced and verifiable measures of arms control, covering a wide range of weapons and activities. We are pressing particularly hard, in the negotiations in Geneva, where we shall be in the Chair next year, for a total verifiable ban on chemical weapons. We also look for real progress in the CDE and MBFR negotiations at Stockholm and Vienna.

    The House will, I am sure, wish to appreciate the importance of the part the Government have been playing in helping to shape the arms control strategy of the West as a whole. We have been able to do that because of the essentially democratic nature of the North Atlantic Alliance. Between the NATO democracies, and within them, there is a give and take of views. As the arms control debate has unfolded, this Government have played a leading part in securing an agreed position within the alliance.

    The ministerial meetings of NATO, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I attend, have been particularly important in underlining the commitment of the alliance as a whole to stable, balanced arms control, based on enhanced deterrence and scrupulous observance of treaty obligations. My right hon. Friend and I have been able to play an extremely active part in those debates.

    Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

    Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether at last week’s NATO council meeting Mr. Weinberger revealed the proposals which President Reagan announced two days later? Were they the proposals to which the council gave its support?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    There was a discussion of the proposals. In that context, the NATO council gave its united support to the approach.

    Mr. Healey

    Were they the new proposals?

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I think I am right in saying that the proposals were discussed then. There has been a great deal of discussion since then, and two days later there followed a broadcast by President Reagan.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also made an important contribution in her personal meetings with President Reagan and other Western Heads of Government.

    Even the right hon. Member for Leeds, East will by now have come to appreciate the importance of the four points agreed between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David last December. That meeting, with its emphasis on the need to adhere to existing treaty obligations, can now be seen to have laid the basis for what has since become the strategy of the whole North Atlantic Alliance. It was on that foundation of respect for existing obligations that the June meeting of the North Atlantic council was able to confirm to President Reagan the alliance’s view of the importance of observing the constraints of the Salt II treaty regime.

    That process of consultation within the alliance, in which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has played such an important role, will not stop with the summit that is to take place in a couple of weeks time. She and I will meet President Reagan immediately after the summit to discuss the way ahead.

    There is another fact that needs to be recorded about the part played by Her Majesty’s Government within the Western alliance. The one certain way of diminishing our influence and of destroying the role of the British Government overnight would be the adoption of the defence and foreign policies of the Labour party.

    Britain’s voice is heard in this debate, not because we have opted out of Western defence, but because we have been pulling our weight. The alliance has remained united, from the deployment of cruise missiles in Great Britain just two years ago to this week’s welcome decision on INF deployment by the Netherlands Government, precisely because of our determination to stay together. President Reagan goes into the final stages of preparation for his meeting with Mr. Gorbachev confident that he has the free, full and united support of his NATO allies. It must be said plainly that the Government have played a full part in shaping and sustaining that support.

    A large part of the discussions to which I have been referring has been focused on President Reagan’s strategic defence initiative. Far too little attention has been paid to longstanding and comprehensive Soviet activities in the same area. As I pointed out in my speech to the Royal United Services Institute in March, that lack of balance has distorted the debate.

    Mr. Healey

    “But when they seldom come they wish’d-for come, And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.”

    Sir Geoffrey Howe

    I am always glad to welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the wisdom that I occasionally manage to utter, and he has endorsed that particular speech many times.

    I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House of the key facts. The Soviet Union is alone in having deployed a sophisticated localised defence against ballistic missile attack, which it is now upgrading. The Soviet Union is also alone in having deployed an anti-satellite system capable of threatening important Western targets. Those activities, technically legitimate as they may be, demonstrate the hollowness of the Soviet claim that the threatened “militarisation of space” arises purely from American research.

    That is not all. For a number of years now the Soviet Union has been carrying out an extensive programme covering high energy lasers, particle beam weapons, kinetic energy weapons, and all the associated paraphernalia for rapid progress towards a major expansion of its capability against ballistic missiles. It has begun to develop a new and significant ability to transport into space the massive equipment which would be necessary for a defence system beyond the atmosphere. It is also working to improve its ability to detect and track ballistic missile targets.

    What have we heard from the Russians about such activities? Until now, we have heard virtually nothing. It is only the persistent disclosure by the West of the scale of Soviet research that has forced them belatedly to admit their own involvement in these areas. Even now, they have refused to acknowledge its true extent.

    That discussion, too, is taking place upon the basis of the Camp David four points agreed between President Reagan and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. One of those four points, of the highest importance in this context, is that the strategic defence initiative should be pursued in full conformity with existing treaty obligations.

    The importance of that has been expressly reaffirmed by the US Government. Secretary of State Shultz has confirmed, too, that their position is based upon a restrictive interpretation of the ABM treaty. President Reagan has made it clear that if success in research suggests further steps are desirable the US will be ready to consult its allies and discuss and negotiate on them with the Russians.

    Each one of those points is a vital component of the Western position to which we and other European Governments attach high importance. Discussions of the kind suggested should be devoted to reaching agreement on how existing treaties apply to new technologies developed since they were signed.

    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in New York, it is desirable for both sides to engage in an attempt to clarify ambiguities. We hope that they can seek a firm basis of understanding, while research programmes continue over the years, on what is and what is not permissible in the way of research.
    The latest Soviet ideas relate to strategic and intermediate nuclear forces.

    They are a response to earlier US proposals. For many months we have urged the Russians to abandon their megaphone diplomacy—to stop relying on minority opinions in the West as a substitute for serious negotiations with the Americans— and to put forward their own ideas in detail. This they have now done, and it represents a tribute to the steadfastness of the alliance in pressing our case.

    I shall not go into detail on the Soviet offer. I certainly endorse the judgment of NATO Defence Ministers that it is one-sided and self-serving. The West will never accept a Soviet definition of strategic nuclear forces which attacks the very core of alliance defence policy and preserves Soviet advantages in areas vital for our security.

    I acknowledge, however, some positive elements in the proposals on which we can build, such as the proposals for significant cuts in the number of weapons systems and warheads, the prospect of independent agreement on INF, separated from the artificial linkage which the Russians have created with other aspects of the negotiations, and some recognition that UK and French forces are not an appropriate subject for bilateral negotiation between Moscow and Washington.

    Mr. Gorbachev has also made a formal offer to the British Government of direct talks on nuclear forces and arms control matters. In the Prime Minister’s reply delivered yesterday, she welcomed the prospect of a deeper dialogue. We agree that it is important for European Governments to talk to each other about the issues affecting the future of our continent. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that our position in respect of our own forces remains the same. There are essential conditions to be fulfilled if we are to review our position. We must first see radical reductions in the super-power arsenals without any significant change in Soviet defensive capability. We have made it clear that in those circumstances we should be ready to look afresh at the whole question.
    We are ready and willing in future contacts to explore with the Russians the wider aspects of arms control, including the need for increased confidence and greater stability in the East-West relationship.

    In her reply to Mr. Gorbachev’s message, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed that this dialogue on the wider aspects of arms control should be pursued by the ​ Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Shevardnadze, and me. I hope that he will be able to take up my invitation to visit this country before too long. Meanwhile, the US-Soviet negotiations in Geneva will continue to be the right place for arms control talks on nuclear weapons.

    The United States Government have very recently put forward fresh proposals involving deep cuts in offensive weapons. These build upon their earlier approach. They respond to concepts in the Russian counter-proposals on which progress might be made, while rejecting other obviously one-sided features to which I have referred. The latest American proposals reaffirm NATO’s willingness to halt, reverse or modify its deployment, provided that reductions can be agreed on the basis of principles to which all allies subscribe. The Government have given their full support to this new United States move.

    The talks are still at the beginning of what may turn out to be an extended process of negotiation. It would be unrealistic to expect detailed agreements to emerge from the meeting between the President and Mr. Gorbachev, but if the will to seek agreement is there, that meeting could set the negotiations on a new path. It is the Government’s profound hope that they will be the first purposeful, determined steps towards balanced arms reductions. We shall continue to ensure that our objectives, and our concerns, are fully reflected in the Western position.

    When they meet in Geneva, President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev will be taking part in the first US-Soviet summit for seven years. That is the culmination of a steady process of dialogue between East and West. Britain has played an active and, at some stages, a vital role. We have been able to make this contribution because we are a loyal member of NATO, firmly committed to the defence of Britain, and playing a central political role in Europe. We are proud that we have helped to create an historic opportunity to begin again the long and testing journey towards better understanding and greater trust between the two giants of East and West.

    I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev a productive and successful first meeting.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Press Conference with US President Donald Trump

    Below is the text of the press conference between Theresa May, the Prime Minister, and Donald Trump, the President of the United States, in London on 4 June 2019.

    This week we commemorate the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of those who gave their lives for our liberty on D-Day, 75 years ago.

    As leaders prepare to gather here from across the world, it is fitting that we begin with a celebration of the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States – enduring partners who stood side by side on that historic day – and every day since.

    For generations, at the heart of the transatlantic alliance has been our shared democratic values, our common interests and our commitment to justice.

    It is that unity of purpose that will preserve the deep-rooted ties between our people and underpin our nations’ security and prosperity for the next 75 years and beyond.

    So I am very pleased to welcome the President of the United States of America on this State Visit to the United Kingdom.

    For the past two and a half years the President and I have had the duty and privilege of being the latest guardians of this precious and profound friendship between our countries.

    As with our predecessors, when we have faced threats to the security of our citizens and our allies, we have stood together and acted together.

    When Russia used a deadly nerve agent on the streets of our country, alongside the UK’s expulsions the President expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers – the largest contribution towards an unprecedented global response.

    And, in Syria, when innocent men, women and children were victims of a barbaric chemical weapons attack, Britain and America, along with France, carried out targeted strikes against the regime.

    Since we spoke about NATO during my first visit to the White House we have maintained our support for this crucial alliance.

    Thanks in part to your clear message on burden-sharing, Donald, we have seen members pledge another $100 billion, increasing their contributions to our shared security. And I’m pleased to announce that NATO will soon be able to call on the UK’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and F-35 fighter jets to help tackle threats around the world.

    Today we have discussed again the new and evolving challenges to our security, our values and our way of life.

    We share the same view about their origin and our objectives in meeting them.

    But – like Prime Ministers and Presidents before us, and no doubt those that will come after – we can also differ sometimes on how to confront the challenges we face.

    I have always talked openly with you, Donald, where we have taken a different approach – and you have done the same with me.

    I have always believed that cooperation and compromise are the basis of strong alliances, and nowhere is this more true than in the special relationship.

    Today we have discussed again the importance of our two nations working together to address Iran’s destabilising activity in the region and to ensure Tehran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon.

    Although we differ on the means of achieving that – as I have said before, the UK continues to stand by the nuclear deal – it is clear we both want to reach the same goal.

    It is important that Iran meets its obligations and we do everything to avoid escalation which is in no-one’s interest.

    Recognising our nations are safer and more prosperous when we work together on the biggest challenges of our time, I also set out the UK’s approach to tackling climate change, and our continued support for the Paris Agreement.

    And we also spoke about China, recognising its economic significance and that we cannot ignore action that threatens our shared interests or values.

    As we have deepened our cooperation on security – including our joint military operations, and our unparalleled intelligence-sharing – so our economies too are ever more tightly bound together.

    Every morning 1 million Americans get up and go to work for British companies in America. And 1 million Britons do the same for American companies here.

    Our trading relationship is worth over £190 billion a year and we are the largest investors in each other’s economies – with mutual investments valued at as much as $1 trillion.

    Mr President, you and I agreed the first time we met that we should aim for an ambitious free trade agreement when the UK leaves the EU.

    And from our positive discussions today I know that we both remain committed to this.

    I am also sure that our economic relationship will only grow broader and deeper, building on the conversations we had and the ideas we heard from UK and US businesses when we met them earlier today.

    Tomorrow we will sit down in Portsmouth with our fellow leaders to reaffirm the enduring importance of the western alliance and the shared values that underpin it.

    And as we look to the future – in the years and in the generations ahead – we will continue to work together to preserve the alliance that is the bedrock of our shared prosperity and security – just as it was on the beaches of Normandy 75 years ago.

  • Penny Mordaunt – 2019 Speech at Land Warfare Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Penny Mordaunt, the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Land Warfare Conference on 4 June 2019.

    D-DAY

    In a few days’ time the nation will pay tribute to those who fought on D-Day. From Portsmouth’s Southsea Common to Bayeaux Cathedral…we will stand in silence recalling the incredible operations off the coast, in the air and on the beaches of Normandy.

    When we commemorate those events this week what will be in our thoughts? Will it be the landing craft, or the reconnaissance planes, or the supply ships. No. Our focus will be on the veterans, and all who made that immense endeavour possible.

    From the civilians who came together at a moment’s notice to build the Mulberry Harbours… wrap up small arms components and sew ID badges…

    …to the merchant sailors that swelled our naval force…and enabled the critical transport of men and supplies….

    …to the mighty endeavour of that 62,000-strong British element of the 21st Army Group who charged up the beaches

    …and those who made the ultimate sacrifice in those dark days.

    It was, according to Churchill, “the most difficult and complicated operation that has ever taken place”. It was so called ordinary people doing extraordinary things. It is the testimony of those who were there that will captivate us in the coming days. People like Bill Fitzgerald, just eighteen years old, as he along with his comrades stormed those beaches. Then as now it is the people who made the difference. And in defence, if we do not put our people first we will fail to generate and maintain the capability that we need. And we will have broken that covenant between the state and our communities and those who step up to protect them.

    As I speak the men and women of our armed forces are working across the globe …combatting terrorism …working with allies and partners to build up the resilience of fragile states… …delivering humanitarian aid to those most in need… …standing up for our values of democracy, tolerance and justice and achieving great things.

    I want to put on record my congratulations to Brigadier Celia Harvey who was selected today to be the Deputy Commander Field Army as a Major General. The third Female Army Major General 2* and the first female reserve 2*. My congratulations to her.

    LIVING WAGE FOR OUR ARMED FORCES

    We often say what an amazing job they do, because they continually provide us with opportunities to say so. We must take care of them. While they are serving and after they have served.

    That is why we will shortly consult on protecting against repeated investigations and litigations against our veterans and AF personnel into historic operations outside the UK. Actions which are not motivated or serve justice, and also consult on paying higher levels of compensation for those injured on combat operations, or to the families for those who have been killed.

    Nor should any solider, sailor, airman or women be asked to serve our country and not be sufficiently rewarded. The armed forces are exempt from the living wage, as they are in effect, on call 365 days a year, but I am determined to ensure the lowest paid members of the armed forces are lifted to ensure that none of them are below an acceptable salary to live well on. We are undertaking work to determine what a living wage looks like for those who can be called on day or night.

    They should get a living wage.

    That is what I will be arguing for in the decisions on this year’s pay review, and it will be a spending priority for me. It is the right thing to do, but I also recognise that the decision to serve is not motivated by money.

    People are motivated by what they will be doing and what that achieves in the world and the values that underpin it: protecting, serving, doing your duty for your country.

    Central to that is to understand what the Army is for.

    That sounds a simple question, but it is one that I am often asked, including by members of the British Army themselves. How can we build connections with our communities, how can we have a strong narrative to recruit if we cannot say what our purpose is.

    The reality is, the world is changing and the threats increasing from a diverse range of sources. As earlier speakers have said, Cyber attack is now the new normal. Between 2016 and 2017 NATO saw such attacks on its infrastructure increasing by 60 percent. Whether the origin is Russia, China or North Korea…or from hacktivists, criminals or extremists…the cyber threat can bring down our national infrastructure and undermine our democracy.

    All the while, we’re having to deal with the hybrid dangers as nations increasingly employ proxy actors to carry out aggression and intimidation at arms-length but now below the threshold of armed combat.

    Whatever the correct response to these new forms of aggression, in many cases their deterrence relies on a credible threat of hard power. And the reality is wars are still won or lost on land. We need to seize and hold territory endures and yes, the future may look very different in years to come, but meantime, while armour is relevant it must be capable, and we must be competitive.

    We have not been.

    Challenger 2, has been in service without a major upgrade since 1998. During this time the United States, Germany and Denmark have completed two major upgrades, whilst Russia has fielded five new variants with a sixth pending.

    Warrior, is even more obsolete, and is twenty years older than those operated by our key allies. Since Warrior’s introduction in 1988 the United States and Germany have conducted four major upgrades and Russia has invested in three new variants.

    So we must invest in our warfighting division, and it is critical we honour the commitments we made in the SDSR 2015 to maintain a world-class divisional war fighting capability, through upgrades and new vehicles, equipped to win wars in the information age…with advanced sensors and automated search, tracking and detection systems.

    At the same time, I am keen that we shouldn’t overlook the advantages of more joint ways of working. Look at the successes of the Joint Helicopter Force which brings all battlefield helicopters under a single command.

    Why can’t we do something similar with robotics and unmanned vehicles across all the services…by building a hub overseen by Joint Force Command? Not only will we be able to work better with industry and have a more integrated approach, but we will also be able to plug into what the rest of government is doing too.

    At DFID in my previous job I did a huge amount of work on drones, new designs able to lift heavy payloads, and get medicine and supplies into conflict zones and solve many headaches that humanitarians were facing. We boosted creativity through challenge funds and setting up an innovation hub. I think we should be doing more of this in Defence and supporting growth.

    In that way to we can create a common mission with the country that is wider than defence: The security and prosperity of the UK, that is what we are for. That is how we will serve our country. And those who put themselves forward to serve are special people.

    MAKING THE MOST OF TALENT

    There is more that we need to do to avoid people dropping out of the recruitment and training pipeline. Currently, for every eight applicants one soldier enters training. Just last year that figure was 12 applicants for every soldier. So we’ve made some good progress but we must do better.

    I am challenging the army to reduce that ratio to six to one. It’s also worth reflecting that, once a candidate passes the assessment centre we still lose up to seven per cent of applicants before they commence training. I want us to re-engage with these individuals that have dropped out. Individuals who felt a call to serve. Why did they leave? Was the army not for them? Have they considered another service? Have they considered a career on the civilian side?

    If we are serious about bringing up all our forces to the required strength then we must pursue every register of interest.

    And we also need to do more to encourage our people to remain in the forces –when they’re thinking of leaving or have reached the end of their current contracts. We already allow people to transfer between different services…offering quicker recruitment and rapid promotion to those with unique talents. But to say we haven’t really sold this is an understatement. We need to make sure that is not just feasible but positively encouraged.

    It makes sense when the British taxpayer has invested so heavily in a person that we make best use of that person in the service of their country.

    FULL VALUE OF DEFENCE

    We have to maximise every efficiency.

    But in making our pitch to the treasury we also need to talk about the full value of Defence. And that’s not just about jobs in industry, supply chain and services , or export sales, or inventions, or defence engagement which we often mention. It’s also about social mobility, and the fabric of our society.

    The Army is a place of great opportunity. You take people from all walks of life. You give them a sense of purpose, belonging and family. Indeed, you give them a home away from home and imbue them with those precious values of courage, discipline, integrity, respect for others, loyalty and selfless commitment. As Army Gunner and drummer Hussein Sadiq put it: “I ended up finding that the Army’s core values reflected my own.”

    But the Army does something even more than that. It fires ambition. The British Army has a long and proud history of discovering exceptional character and talent in people which nobody else could see or be bothered to look for.

    Rebecca Smith from Grimsby was at rock bottom and sleeping rough. She took a decision to walk into an Army careers office. She became a vehicle mechanic within the (REME) and rose rapidly through the ranks to corporal as a Challenger 2 expert. Having been recognised for her exceptional leadership talent she was recently commissioned from Sandhurst and is now on her young officers’ training course…returning to the REME as a second lieutenant. Her previous hard times are now a distant memory.

    The British Army has taught many to read and write, academic and practical skills, enabling huge numbers of people to have the tools they need to be active citizens.

    And just as I want defence to do more on the UK prosperity agenda I want us to do more on social mobility agenda too. At a time of rising knife crime and prevalent gang culture in some parts of the UK, the Army’s ethos can make a real difference to young people. It can offer hope.

    Defence has so much to offer, in our armed forces and our cadet units, but also in the fantastic organisations that sit in our communities alongside us. I have been so struck in particular how Military Preparation colleges have enthused those who other education establishments fail to inspire. They have encouraged study and physical fitness, self-confidence and self-worth, a sense of duty and service. And they have given some youngsters options where they had none.

    I believe it is time to use the skills and lesson learned at these colleges and elsewhere in the Army to address this national blight of gangs and weapons on our streets.

    Today I wish to announce, in support of the Ministerial Taskforce on Serious Violence, that my Department will be holding a summit involving Military Preparation Colleges and those working to divert young people away from gangs and violence. We will bring all that we have to offer to this issue.

    Courage is inspirational.

    We will never forget what the Army accomplished on D-Day seventy-five years ago. It still inspires us still today. An achievement which founded not on having the most powerful weapons but on having people equipped with extraordinary courage, ingenuity and determination.

    Today’s Army shares those qualities and our people are going out of their way across to globe to make a difference…protecting innocents…lifting people out of poverty…and providing hope for others from Estonia to Afghanistan, from Iraq to South Sudan.

    Yet, as we look into the future, an age in which the dangers are changing and growing, we will depend on our people more than ever.

    So we must look after them, like never before.

    That is my priority.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Comments on D-Day Commemorations

    Below is the text of the comments made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 5 June 2019.

    The Normandy landings 75 years ago were a moment of historic international cooperation.

    And it is right that at the heart of today’s commemorations are the veterans who fought to secure the liberty and the peace that we now enjoy.

    The global challenges we face today are different in their origin and nature. But as we confront new and evolving threats to our security it is more important than ever that we continue to stand together in upholding our shared values and way of life.

    That’s why the UK has this week committed our Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and F-35 fighter jets to support the efforts of NATO forces to preserve the security and collective defence of our allies.

    As I host leaders from around the world today to mark this significant moment in our shared history, we will together reflect on the continued importance of the western alliance for all our countries’ security and prosperity.

    And as we unite to pay tribute to those whose bravery and sacrifice on the beaches of Normandy marked a turning point in the Second World War, we will vow never to forget the debt we owe them.

    Their solidarity and determination in the defence of our freedom remains a lesson to us all. And we will continue to stand up for the values of democracy, justice and tolerance that so many died to preserve.

  • Allen McKay – 1985 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Allen McKay, the then Labour for Barnsley West and Penistone, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1985.

    I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), and especially his comments on Sunday opening. Although there is need to get rid of the anomalies of the present Sunday trading law, a free-for-all would hurt and insult many people and organisations. When the Prime Minister spoke today about choice, she did not take into consideration all the people who would have to work in the shops, sweep the streets run the transport facilities to take people to the shops, or the police. What choice will they have? If we were to make Sunday a normal trading day, all the facilities would have to be available on a Sunday.

    There is a limit to how much people can spend. There is only so much money to go round, whether it is spent during the week or on a Sunday. More money will be needed to service the facilities, so unit costs and the cost of living are bound to increase. We must study people’s choices before we introduce insulting legislation. I hope that when the Government introduce the legislation they will give Conservative Members the opportunity to vote according to their consciences and their constituents’ wishes.

    There is a great deal in the Queen’s Speech that I can support. The Queen’s Speech states:

    “My Government will continue to work for progress in arms control and disarmament negotiations”.

    It would have been better had the word “negotiations” been left out. It would then have referred to “arms control and disarmament”. That would have shown a more positive attitude, because negotiations can go on for ever.
    I support the proposition:
    ​
    “My Government will give full support to the Commonwealth, and play a constructive role at the United Nations.”

    In relation to famine and other disasters, it would be better if the Government put their money where their mouth is. We should increase our overseas aid to the amount of GNP that we promised years ago to the United Nations. There are many ways of providing overseas aid. I have spoken to people from overseas who said that we should not send them grain or food but should buy goods from them to create a flow of money in their area. In return, they would buy from us and pay back their debts. There is a case for rescheduling their debts so that they can provide facilities. We should buy their commodities.
    We must seriously consider wiping out some of the debts owed to the world banking system. That does not mean rescheduling the debts and lending more money, because that merely increases the interest payments that they have to make. The United Nations must seriously consider wiping out some of the debts so that those countries can start again. I was always told when I made bad mistakes that I should rub them out and start again to see what I could come up with the next time.

    I also support the protection of environmental sensitivity. We made mistakes with the Wildlife and Countryside Bill by passing it too quickly. Some of the environmental provisions need strengthening. I live in a rural area and appreciate what could be done for rural areas.

    The protection of animals used for scientific purposes is an admirable proposal. I hope that when the Bill is introduced the issue will not be fudged and that there will be no covering up of the subject of animal experiments to get it out of the way and off the Government’s back for a while. It is a matter to which Governments will have to return time and again, because there is a massive lobby outside the House. People have a conscience about what is happening now that it has been brought to their attention. The Government should take the issue on board and not fudge it.

    There is no mention of an energy policy in the Bill. Why not? It is time that we had an energy policy. It is suggested that, at the present rate of usage, oil and North sea gas will run out by about 2010. I have recently spoken to the chairman of British Gas. He recognised that by about 2010 the Gas Corporation would have to produce an alternative system for making gas from coal. It perfected the lurgi system. It is a modified form of the old German system and I believe is working and sells to some American states and Scandinavian countries. To supply the amount of gas that is consumed at present through the use of coal, 100 million tonnes will be needed, yet the NCB is suggesting that the industry will be geared to produce only 90 million tonnes. Indeed, Ian MacGregor is on record as suggesting that 71 million tonnes may be the figure to aim at.

    In a talk with us, the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board gave notice that within the next eight years he will be wanting decisions or advice from the Government as to what he should do about the replacement of the present coal-burning power stations. Those stations will need to be replaced in 12 to 15 years.

    Is the decision to be in favour of nuclear fuel? As I have already said, it will take 100 million tonnes of coal to produce the gas that is at present consumed, and the coal industry is now geared to produce only 90 million tonnes. ​ In those circumstances, where will the coal come from? Who is to supply the CEGB? If the coal is not available, it will have to be nuclear fuel. Have the Government an energy policy that they have not yet told us about? Is it their intention to go flat out for a nuclear energy policy? The Government should come clean on that issue.

    If there is to be a solid fuel programme, are we to have the fluidised bed system? If so, decisions will have to be made in the next few years. I suggest that, because of the environmental issues, we shall have to adopt the fluidised bed system. Are the Government prepared to tell the House what type of energy policy they intend to adopt after the next eight years? It is ridiculous that the NCB, the CEGB and the gas industry should not be able to come together to produce a formalised and proper energy policy.

    With regard to unemployment in my constituency, the area used to depend upon the main manufacturing industries which made Britain rich for many years—fishing and textiles and, in my area in particular, steel and coal. Those industries formed the basis of the wealth of the Yorkshire and Humberside region, which is now suffering.

    The closure programme in the mining industry has already cost Yorkshire and Humberside 18,500 jobs. In my constituency, 1,800 jobs are scheduled to go. That is in addition to the problems that we shall have as a result of the control of public expenditure, which the Prime Minister mentioned.

    We already have the abolition of the South Yorkshire county council. Barnsley, as the county town, will suffer the greatest, after the four south Yorkshire authorities. Not only has Barnsley lost 1,800 men from the mining industry; it will lose hundreds more because of the abolition of the county. The spending power that has existed in the township of Barnsley will also be lost, because the people working for the county will no longer be there. Either they will have lost their jobs or they will have been dispersed among the four other authorities. The township will be left with all the county buildings, for which it used to get rates, but those rates will no longer be available because the buildings will be empty.

    There is another problem on the horizon resulting from the miners’ strike. The NCB pays its rates not on buildings but on production. There will be no money next year from that source because there was no production. It is all very well for the Government or the Minister to say that there will be compensation; but the compensation comes a year after the event. Therefore, there will be a great dip in the amount of rates that Barnsley will receive until the next year arrives.

    The Government need to show a flexible approach to the problem so that the financial problems can be equalised over two years. It can be done, because farmers have that facility, but no one in industry has the facility of equalising tax returns over two years. What is to stop the local authorities having their financial problems equalised over two years? Controls on public expenditure will mean cuts in education, hospitals and health facilities.

    There are also problems with the restricted drug list. I was very disappointed to receive a letter from the Secretary of State for Social Services stating that the drug Mukodyne will not be put back on the restricted list. The Secretary of State says that he has a number of advisers, but they are surgeons and people from universities. Have ​ they ever worked in a mining or heavy industrial area? Have they ever encountered the problems that are caused by chest diseases arising from the mining industry? Only the drug Mukodyne can give relief. My father died of pneumoconiosis, and for many years the only drug that would ease it was Mukodyne. In some cases there is no other choice than to buy the drug, and it now costs about £10 every time. It has to be paid by people who cannot afford it.

    Housing problems in my area have been caused by Government legislation. No new houses have been built. Repairs and modernisation have been carried out to a limited extent, but it is ridiculous that there are unemployed building workers in the private sector of the building industry and that the council has £21 million in the bank, in capital receipts, which cannot be touched. We have many houses in need of modernisation and repair, we have builders who are fully capable of doing the work, and we have the money with which to do it. Unfortunately, we have not the will of the Government to allow the work to be done.

    I am not against council house sales. I like people to buy houses that they can afford to buy, but there are times when people should not be able to do it. When people come to me and ask what they should do about buying a council house, I may say, “I will tell you why you should not,” or I may say, “You will be a fool if you do not buy.”

    The problem has arisen because of the sale of the middle band of the best of the housing stock—the prewar council houses that were solidly built and modernised later. It is those that have gone from the housing stock. They were the seedcorn of the housing investment programme. They would have been paid for in the next five or six years, and all that revenue would have gone into the housing revenue account to provide the means of building and maintaining the next generation of houses. Selling them at a discount has cost the authority £21 million. Taking the £21 million lost on council house sales and adding to that the £21 million in the bank that cannot be touched, a total of £42 million would have been available to continue the local housing programme.

    The authority has a special problem resulting from Government legislation. The National Coal Board owns vast housing estates which it would like to sell. They are in various states of repair, and the council or local authority is obliged to buy them. However, it has not sufficient funds to buy them, and even if it could buy them it could not repair them. That should be investigated.
    Abolition will also affect the cheap bus fare system around which the area has been structured. If hon. Members consider what is happening in the area, they will understand why I am asking for special assistance through the rate support grant. The sports centres were built where they are because one could reach them by bus and because the bus fare was relatively cheap.

    Because of cheap bus fares people went to town to shop, and local shops closed. Suddenly that will be reversed. People will have to pay higher bus fares, and although it will not be impossible to get into town, they will have less to spend because they will spend more on bus fares. Moreover, the sports centres which belong to the local authority will not pay their way because people will not be able to afford the bus fare to them and the entrance fee. That problem must be considered carefully and speedily.

    My local authority was led to believe that it would receive about £91 million in GREA, but it received only ​ £88 million. Nobody can tell the authority how much of that relates to the abolition of the county council, because the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided to use a new target system. While authorities could aim at a target and be penalised for spending above it, they are now penalised from the start. Therefore, as soon as the authority spends above the £88 million, although it is under target, it will be penalised. That could cause rate increases. Therefore, there will be increases in rates, rents, and bus fares, and no income from the NCB and other industries.

    Another omission from the Queen’s Speech relates to problems regarding the DHSS. We will fight a bonny battle for many weeks when the Fowler report appears as a Bill, and is debated in the House and in Committee. If anything in the Queen’s Speech is distasteful, it is the decision to interfere with—not reform—welfare benefits. Housing benefits, which are paid to thousands of people, will no longer be paid, and thousands will have it reduced. Family income supplement will be altered, and family benefit, which is now paid to the wife, will be paid to the husband. We shall examine that Bill closely and fight it tooth and nail because it is so distasteful.

    There is yet another omission from the Queen’s Speech which I shall again try to introduce in my own way—concessionary television licences for old-age pensioners. It is time that provision for that appeared in a Queen’s Speech. It is unfair that some old-age pensioners get a coloured television licence for 5p while the majority must pay the full licence fee. Old-age people’s organisations are willing to have the subsidy equalised, and that should be considered. I hope that that will he included in the next Queen’s Speech, if the Government have not gone to the country by then. I give my colleagues notice that when they come to power that should be part of the legislative programme in their first Queen’s Speech.