UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Migration at the CBI

    Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Migration at the CBI

    The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 26 April 2004.

    Immigration and politics do not make easy bedfellows. They never have. We need few reminders of what can happen when the politics of immigration gets out of hand.

    Let us also be very clear. Those who warned of disaster back in the 1960s and 1970s if migration was not stopped, who said Britain would never accept a multi-racial society, have been proved comprehensively wrong.

    On the other hand, there is no doubt that on the doorstep, in local communities, immigration has suddenly become very high on the agenda. Why?

    It is not, incidentally, an exclusively British issue.

    This is a worldwide phenomenon. Immigration has dominated elections in countries like Denmark, Austria and Netherlands in recent years. Le Pen rose to prominence in France. In Australia and New Zealand, it has been a central question, sharply dividing the main parties.

    Migration flows across the world, with increased opportunities to travel and globalisation, drives the issue.

    And beneath the surface, we all know as politicians, certainly on the centre left, what we fear: that concern slips into prejudice, and becomes racism. But we cannot simply dismiss any concern about immigration as racism.

    In part, what has put immigration back up the agenda – with public concern at its highest since the 1970s – is that there are real, not imagined abuses of the system that lead to a sense of genuine unfairness.

    There were real problems with asylum; some immigration procedures have clearly been at fault; some rules, introduced for entirely legitimate reasons, have been subject to systematic and often criminal fraud. Many of these systems simply need bringing up to date.

    Then there are high profile examples of the absurd – not many in number but very damaging in terms of impact – like radical clerics coming here to preach religious hate; people staying here to peddle support for terrorism.

    The combination of all these things – with the reporting of them not exactly calculated to douse the flames of concern – lead to a crunch point. That is where we are now.

    The vast bulk of the British people are not racist. It is in their nature to be moderate. But they expect Government to respond to their worries. They can accept migration that is controlled and selective. They accept and welcome migrants who play by the rules. But they will not accept abuse or absurdity and why should they?

    So now is the time to make the argument for controlled migration simultaneous with tackling the abuses we can identify; and then, longer term, put in place a system that gives us the best guarantee of future integrity in our migration policy.

    That is why we have begun a top to bottom analysis of the immigration system, how it operates, how it can be improved, how it can agree migration where it is in our country’s interests and prevent it where it isn’t. One thing already is clear: the overwhelming majority migrate in and often out of Britain fairly and in accordance with the rules. But there are areas of abuse and we can and should deal with them.

    We are putting in place a strategy – globally, nationally and locally – to ensure migration works for Britain today and in the future.

    We will neither be Fortress Britain, nor will we be an open house. Where necessary, we will tighten the immigration system. Where there are abuses we will deal with them, so that public support for the controlled migration that benefits Britain is maintained.

    Our strategy has a number of interlocking elements:

    (1) A recognition of the benefits that controlled migration brings not just to the economy but to delivering the public and private services on which we rely.

    (2) Being clear that all those who come here to work and study must be able to support themselves. There can be no access to state support or housing for the economically inactive.

    (3) We will continue to tackle abuses in the asylum system, including through the legislation currently before Parliament which will establish a single tier of appeal and clamp down on asylum seekers who deliberately destroy their documents and lie about their identity.

    (4) Action on illegal immigration through the introduction of ID cards and millions invested in strengthening our border controls in ports and airports across the world: and heightened enforcement in the UK too.

    (5) Celebrating the major achievements of migrants in this country and the success of our uniquely British model of diversity. But alongside that an explicit expectation that rights must be balanced by responsibilities. That there are clear obligations that go alongside British residency and ultimately citizenship – to reject extremism and intolerance and make a positive contribution to UK society.

    (6) An acknowledgement that there is no longer a neat separation between the domestic and the international. In a world of global interdependence our policies on migration cannot be isolated from our policies on international development or EU enlargement.

    Facts

    But I want to start today with some facts – for too often the debate about immigration is characterised by a vacuum of reliable information which can all too easily be filled by myth. To give just one example a recent MORI poll found that people estimated the proportion of ethnic minorities in Britain as 23% when the real figure is a third of that at 8%.

    So fact one; the movement of people and labour into and out of the UK is, and always has been, absolutely essential to our economy.

    Visitors from outside the European Union spent £6.8bn in the UK in 2002 and those from within the European Union billions more. Overseas students spend over £3bn on fees and goods and services a year on top of that.

    Indeed according to the Treasury, our economic growth rate would be almost 0.5% lower for the next two years if net migration ceased. Lower growth means less individual and family prosperity, and less revenue to spend on public services.

    And the economic contribution of visitors and migrants is nothing new. At crucial points over the past century and beyond we have relied on migrants to supply essential capital to our economy and plug the labour gaps when no others could be found.

    When the Bank of England was founded, for example, in 1694 – 10 per cent of its initial capital was put up by 123 French Huguenot merchants who had already transformed Britain’s textile and paper industries.

    In the mid 19th century, more than 900,000 Irish immigrants settled in England – and became a mainstay of our armed forces – 30% by 1830.

    157,000 Poles came to Britain immediately after the second world war, soon followed by the Italians – all filling essential gaps in a labour market – in our mines and steel mills and brick works.

    And they were followed in the 1950s and 1960s by workers from the West Indies and South Asia who found jobs in electrical engineering, food and drink plants, car manufacturing, paper and rubber mills and plastic works, fuelling the post-war economic boom that backed up MacMillan’s claim that “we’d never had it so good”.

    And then since the late eighties and nineties it is IT and finance professionals from the U.S., India, the EU and elsewhere who have driven London’s growth as the financial centre of the world in a highly competitive global market for financial services.

    As CBI Director Digby Jones says in today’s FT “using controlled migration to help reduce skill gaps and stimulate economic growth in geographical areas that might otherwise have problems is nothing more than common sense”.

    And never forget those migrants from the Commonwealth and Eastern Europe who gave more than just their labour.

    138,000 Indian soldiers served the British Army on the Western Front in the first world war. Thousands of Polish airmen flew alongside the RAF during World War Two. And it was Polish mathematicians who helped break the enigma code.

    So each decade brings its own particular needs, its own skills gap and our immigration system too must keep respond to these gaps in a targeted and controlled way.

    Which brings me to my second fact. This country is already highly selective about who is allowed in to the UK to work, study or settle. Almost 220,000 people were refused entry clearance by our posts abroad in 2002 – more than treble the number in 1992. Thousands more were turned back at airports by airlines working with IND’s network of liaison officers.

    Those wishing to work or study in the UK or to marry a UK national must show that they are able to support themselves without access to state funds. And they must satisfy our overseas embassies that they will leave the UK at the end of their stay.

    Employers wishing to employ a worker from outside the EU must demonstrate that they have advertised that position in the UK and failed to attract a suitably qualified British applicant before they are given a work permit.

    The number of low-skilled workers that are allowed into the country from outside the EU remains small compared to other countries and is controlled by strict quotas – all of which we will now cut significantly following the expansion of the EU.

    My third fact is that in international terms the UK is not a particularly high migration country. Even today. We have lower levels of foreign-born nationals as a proportion of our total population than France, Germany or the US.

    And the same applies to our work force. Only 8% of our work force is foreign born compared to 15% in the US and almost 25% in Australia.

    Indeed, trends in net migration to the UK over the past two or three years have been in line with those of our European neighbours like Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands and significantly less than for Spain, Ireland, Australia or the US – where migration increased by 50% in the 1990s.

    So those who say migration is out of control or that the UK is taking more people than other countries are simply wrong. As are those who suggest that we exert no control over who comes here.

    Those who do come here make a huge contribution, particularly to our public services. So, fact four: far from always or even mainly being a burden on our health or education systems – migrant workers are often the very people delivering those services.

    Take the nursing staff from the West Indies recruited by then health minister, Enoch Powell in the 1960s. By 1968, there were almost 19,000 trainee nurses and midwives born overseas – 35% of whom were from the West Indies and 15% from Ireland. Now, a quarter of all health professionals are overseas born.

    Or consider the 11,000 overseas teachers now working in schools in England. Or the 23% of staff in our HE institutions are non-UK nationals – that’s 33,530 out of 143,150.

    Our public services would be close to collapse without their contribution.

    And there is an important fifth fact. Migration is not all one way. Britain is a nation of outward migration as well as inward migration. Over the past two centuries millions of Britons have left the UK to seek work in America, Canada, Australia and further afield.

    There are for example 200,000 UK passport holders living in New Zealand alone and UK applicants account for almost a quarter of employment visas issued each year by the New Zealand government. The UK remains the largest source country for skilled migrants to Australia.

    UK nationals form the third most important group of immigrant workers to Canada – behind only the USA and Mexico in 2002 and hundreds of thousands of people from the UK live and work in mainland Europe.

    Many of these workers will return to the UK. Others will stay on and marry local residents. Between them they will send back millions of pounds in remittances – contributing not just to the economic prosperity of their host country – but to the UK too.

    So these are the facts. Population mobility and migration has been crucial to our economic success, migration levels in the UK are in line with comparable countries, we are already selective about who comes into Britain and many that do are essential to our public services.

    But precisely because stopping migration altogether would be disastrous for our country and economy, it is all the more vital to ensure the system is not abused. There are real concerns; they are not figments of racist imagination; and they have to be tackled precisely in order to sustain a balanced and sensible argument about migration.

    Asylum

    Nowhere has that challenge been greater than in relation to asylum.

    We have a long heritage of welcoming those who are genuinely in need of our protection and this must continue.

    In 2002, I was proud to recommend for a Knighthood the remarkable Nicholas Winton, who saved nearly 700 Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia. We offered these children refuge in the UK. There are now around 5000 ‘Winton children’ – descendents of the original refugees – living in the UK.

    The East African Asians who fled Uganda in the 1970s have contributed immeasurably to British society and in just 30 years have become one of the most economically successful migrant groups this country has ever seen.

    In both these cases, the evidence of persecution was all too clear, the case for asylum overwhelming.

    But since the early 1990s, the nature and volume of asylum claims to the UK has changed radically.

    It became increasingly apparent that our asylum system was being widely abused. The UN Convention on Refugees, first introduced in 1951, at a time when the cold war and lack of cheap air travel made long-range migration far more difficult than it has become today, has started to show its age.

    Significant numbers of economic migrants have been arriving in the UK, destroying their documentation and then trying to claim asylum – often by pretending to be from a different country to that from which they have actually come.

    Some have invented stories of persecution, bought ready made off so-called immigration advisers.

    By doing so they were undermining the integrity of our asylum system and making life far harder for the genuine refugees who really needed our help. So while application numbers increased, the numbers actually granted asylum remained a relatively small proportion – just 6% in 2003.

    Difficult though it has been with some of our supporters, we had to tackle this abuse.

    So, we have changed asylum procedures and laws so that, for example, those trying to claim asylum from countries which are manifestly safe, like Slovakia, Bulgaria or Jamaica, can now only appeal against a refusal once they have left the UK. We have introduced stricter border controls, operating in France, soon to be extended along the coast of Europe.

    We have tightened the rules on benefits so that they only go to those who claim asylum as soon as possible after arriving in the UK, and introduced much tougher controls on legal aid so that it is restricted to legitimate advisers – to weed out the cowboys who were preying on vulnerable migrants.

    Already these measures have had a massive effect.

    Over the last 18 months, asylum applications have fallen by more than a half, from almost 9,000 in October 2002 to 3500 in December 2003 – the lowest since 1998. Asylum intake in 2003 fell four times as fast in the UK as in the rest of Europe.

    The backlog of asylum cases awaiting initial decision is at its lowest level for a decade – half what it was in 1997. Eighty per cent of asylum applicants now get an initial decision within 2 months – compared to an average of 20 months at the beginning of 1997.

    Our new legislation on asylum will tighten up further still, overhauling the appeals system which allowed unfounded applicants to play the system for months on end, and clamping down on those who destroy their documents and create an new and fraudulent identity in order to claim asylum. And we have asked the NAO to audit the figures in order to confirm that the fall in asylum is genuine.

    Immigration abuse

    But once we sort out the asylum system, we must also continue to root out abuse of our broader immigration system.

    Though it remains the exception rather than the rule, there are very real examples of abuse in particular countries or with particular schemes, which the public, quite rightly expects us to deal with.

    So our strategy against illegal immigration aims to strengthen our borders and prevent abuse by those who enter the UK legitimately but then attempt to stay on illegally

    Our borders are now more secure than they have ever been.

    100% of freight is now searched for clandestines as it passes through Calais. And a new agreement with the French allows us to screen passengers before they leave France – resulting in 9,827 people being turned back at Calais last year.

    We have established a new network of airline liaison officers, who work with airlines to turn back inadequately documented or suspect passengers – in 2003 33, 551 people were prevented from travelling to the UK.

    We’ve stepped up enforcement to tackle illegal working – and doubled frontline enforcement staff in the past 2 years.

    And we are changing our internal laws and safeguards too.

    We are putting in place tighter rules to restrict migrants’ access to benefits and social housing. Migrants will not be able to access social housing unless they are here legally and are working.

    No-one will be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the enlarged EU simply to claim benefits or housing. There will be no support for the economically inactive.

    And let me be clear: the same goes for migrants from elsewhere in the world. Whether they come to work in our hospitals or in our banks, they must be self-sufficient.

    In particular, they will not be able to access local authority housing unless they are here legally and working.

    And we are tightening up certain migration channels which we suspect may have been abused in the past. So by the end of the year students from overseas will only be given permission to come here to study if they choose institutions on an accredited list. And we are consulting on a requirement for colleges to notify the Home Office if any student fails to attend the course they have come to the UK to study.

    To prevent bogus marriages, we will create a new requirement that third country nationals have to apply to certain, designated registry offices before they can marry in the UK. And we are looking at whether Registrars need greater powers to refuse to marry those people they believe are trying to use false marriages to abuse the migration system.

    All of this will be kept under close review through the stocktakes I am holding, which are looking at a number of other areas as well: abuse of temporary employment routes; how we can improve enforcement and removal of illegals; the rules in relation to immigration appeal rights and settlement in the UK; the collection of good and up to date data; and the ability to switch between immigration categories.

    But perhaps the most important significant new measure on the horizon is the ID card.

    Yesterday, David Blunkett published the detailed draft legislation which will pave the way for the phased introduction, from 2008 of a national identity card – first on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports and driving licenses, then once key conditions have been met, and after Parliamentary approval, on a compulsory basis.

    For the first time, employers and those regulating access to public services will have a secure, fraud-proof way of testing whether a potential worker or service user is legally in the UK and eligible to work or access services.

    As population flows into and out of the UK and across the EU grow the case for such a card grows ever more irresistible. As the barriers to the free movement of people and goods go down across Europe – bringing huge benefits for individuals and business – it becomes more important than ever that each of us is able, unambiguously to prove that we are who we say we are.

    Accession / Eastern Europe

    The move from a Europe of 15 countries to a Europe of 25 with a population bigger than that of the North American Free Trade Area is to be warmly welcomed not feared. Already, 100,000 British jobs are linked, directly and indirectly, to the export of goods and services to the new member states.

    As the world around us changes, so too must our immigration strategies and framework.

    When Spain joined the EU there were scare stories about economic migrants. Now, because of the way Spain has thrived in the EU, 300,000 UK citizens live there.

    As we approach 1 May, there are similar scare stories about the movement of workers from Eastern Europe.

    As ever, it is essential that we get behind the myths and misinformation and really look at the facts.

    From 1 May, people from the ten accession countries will be able to travel freely and to take up self-employment opportunities in every member country of the EU – not just the UK. No country will be able to turn back residents of Poland or Lithuania or any other accession country at their border. In this we are no different from any of our European neighbours.

    In practice, thousands of workers from Eastern Europe – around 100,000 of them – are already living, working and studying perfectly legally in Britain.

    The UK unemployment rate is half that of France and Germany and is dramatically different than at the time of the Iberian enlargement in 1986 when unemployment was 2 million higher than it is today.

    There are half a million vacancies in our job market and our strong and growing economy needs migration to fill these vacancies.

    Some of these jobs are highly skilled, some are unskilled jobs which people living here are not prepared to do. Some are permanent posts, others seasonal work.

    Given the facts we faced a clear choice: use the opportunities of accession to help fill those gaps with legal migrants able to pay taxes and pay their way, or deny ourselves that chance, hold our economy back and in all likelihood see a significant increase in illegal working and the black economy as Eastern European visitors attempt to get round arbitrary restrictions.

    We chose the former.

    To take account of the new shape of the EU we will significantly reduce the quotas of non EU low-skilled migrants coming in to fill labour shortages in the agriculture, hospitality and food-processing industries – to take into account the impact of EU free movement of workers from May 1.

    A diverse Britain

    Those coming to the UK from the new member states will find a nation much more diverse than the societies they have left behind.

    London, for example, where over a quarter of the population is foreign born has become perhaps the most diverse city in the world, with over 300 languages spoken.

    Another example is Oldham – where David Blunkett and Trevor Philips are this afternoon talking to local groups about the opportunities and challenges of today’s diverse communities.

    Britain as a whole is immeasurably richer – and not just economically – for the contribution that migrants have made to our society.

    Our literature, our music, our national sporting teams – all bear the indelible impact of centuries of migration.

    British race relations has in general been a quiet success story. We’ve avoided ghettos and Jim Crow laws or anguished debates about religious dress codes.

    Successful migrant populations have moved onwards and outwards over the generations. From the East End to Golders Green; from Southall out to leafy Hertfordshire. Harrow and Croydon are now as racially mixed as Lambeth or Southwark.

    But there is still some way to go and progress is patchy.

    Whilst the workforce of our immigration and probation services for example matches the ethnic breakdown of the population as a whole, that’s still a long way from being true for the police service or our judiciary.

    And whilst children from Indian or Chinese backgrounds out perform their white peers at school- those from Pakistani homes still lag behind.

    In tackling under achievement and exclusion we need an approach which understands the specific challenges facing particular communities and which works with those communities to develop solutions – with the voluntary sector playing an invaluable role.

    Rights and responsibilities

    So: the UK will continue to welcome migrants who come and contribute the skills we need to for a successful economy.

    But migration is a two-way deal: there are responsibilities as well as rights.

    British residency and eventually citizenship carries with it obligations as well as opportunities.

    The obligation to respect our laws, for example, and to reject extremism and intolerance. There can be no place for those who incite hatred against the very values this country stands for. And we will take firm action against those who abuse the privilege of British citizenship to do so.

    The obligation to pay taxes and pay your way. To look after your children and other dependents.

    The obligation to learn something about the country and culture and language that you are now part of – whilst recognising that there never was and never can be a single homogeneous definition of what it means to be British.

    There are responsibilities too on government. To protect you from exploitation and harassment, for example. To stamp out prejudice and discrimination. To provide healthcare and other essential services when you are legally here and paying your way.

    Getting the balance between rights and responsibilities isn’t always easy – for individuals or for government.

    This government has had to take difficult choices:

    The first new race relations legislation in 25 years – but some tough new laws to prevent abuse or our asylum and immigration systems too.

    Interdependent world

    I have commented many times before of the increasing links between domestic and international policy, and this is no exception. We can and should take all the measures necessary to control immigration in the UK. But we need to examine the linkages with our international policy which has a crucial role to play.

    First on peace and security. Wars and internal instability still ravage too many nations and place huge burdens on neighbouring countries, dwarfing asylum applications to the UK. There are, for example, 450,000 refugees in Tanzania alone.

    The UK is supporting the efforts of African countries, and particularly South Africa and the Africa Union in bringing peace to the region, from Burundi to the DRC.

    And we are fully engaged with the UNHCR in its work with refugee populations, including through the new resettlement gateways where we take small numbers of refugees direct to the UK from conflict zones.

    Secondly, we should recognise the increasingly important role of remittances. More than £50 billion globally flows every year from migrant workers in developed countries back to their families and friends in developing countries.

    In terms of international financial flows, this is second only to foreign direct investment, and about double the value of official aid flows. Millions of families worldwide are dependent on these transfers for everyday needs such as food or their children’s education.

    Remittances are however, no substitute for official aid and for developing the partnerships with developing country governments that will enable them to deliver services to the poor. The UK has increased aid to the poorest countries dramatically, with aid to Africa reaching £1 billion in 2005.

    Lastly it is important that all countries take account of their migration policies on the poorest countries. Many countries have real problems staffing their public services, especially in Southern Africa where death from HIV/AIDS can be the most significant cause of attrition. The UK has already adopted an International Recruitment Code of Practice to ensure that when our hospitals recruit for nurses we do not deplete the health services of other countries.

    Conclusion

    So over the coming months, we will do two things at once: make the argument for controlled migration as good and beneficial for Britain; act to root out the abuses that disfigure the debate and bring the system into disrepute.

    This should not become a party-political issue. That would do real damage to national cohesion. It is above all an issue to deal with, not exploit. But all people of good sense and moderation can agree the way forward. These are challenging and fast moving times, but there is no reason to abandon our values or lose our confidence. We all have responsibilities: Government to put in place the policies and rules that make migration work for Britain; migrant communities to recognise the obligations that come with the privilege of living and working in Britain; the media in giving as much attention to the benefits of migration and successes of diversity as to the dangers and fears; local authorities and community groups in working for integration and cohesion on the ground. And ordinary decent British people – including generations of migrants themselves – to keep faith in our traditions of tolerance and our historic record of becoming stronger and richer as a result of migration and diversity.

  • PRESS RELEASE : First Clean Energy Jobs Fair held at Port of Tyne [December 2025]

    PRESS RELEASE : First Clean Energy Jobs Fair held at Port of Tyne [December 2025]

    The press release issued by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on 11 December 2025.

    Energy Secretary and Minister for Industry attended first Clean Energy Jobs Fair at the Port of Tyne in North East England.

    • Energy Secretary and Minister for Industry attended first Clean Energy Jobs Fair at the Port of Tyne in North East England 
    • Up to 15,000 extra clean energy jobs expected in the region in the next five years  
    • Follows the government’s Clean Energy Jobs Plan to recruit and upskill workers needed for clean energy mission 

    Over a hundred schoolchildren and students have attended the government’s first ever Clean Energy Jobs Fair today (Thursday 11 December), co-hosted by the North East Mayor, Port of Tyne, and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. 

    Following the government’s Clean Energy Jobs Plan, the first ever national plan to train and recruit workers needed for the clean energy mission, the jobs fair brought together local businesses, universities and colleges to show students the thousands of opportunities available.  

    The Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Minister for Industry Chris McDonald and North East Mayor Kim McGuinness attended what is expected to be the first event in a series across the country. 

    The North East is a major clean energy hub, with Blyth launching the country’s offshore wind industry 25 years ago and the east coast carbon capture cluster expected to directly support 2,000 jobs in the region. 

    Industry and local colleges are already collaborating to train up the next generation of workers in the North East. Newcastle College’s Energy Academy runs subsea and renewable energy training, while Middlesbrough College has partnered with BP to train operators for roles in carbon capture and hydrogen. 

    It comes as Great British Energy has today opened its £300 million supply chain fund to ensure critical components used in offshore wind – from blades to turbines to transmission cables – are built here, supporting jobs in Britain. 

    Minister for Industry Chris McDonald said: 

    Young people in the North East will benefit from the career opportunities of a lifetime in our fast-growing clean energy industry, without needing to leave their home. 

    From engineering to research and construction roles – I could see businesses and local colleges and training providers come together to highlight these jobs of the future.

    North East Mayor, Kim McGuiness said:   

    We are making the North East the home of the green energy revolution so we’re delighted to welcome the Energy Secretary and Minister for Industry to our region today so they can see our work in action. 

    We’ve brought together students with skills providers and employers, showing the wide range of green energy opportunities available here in the North East. We’re funding innovation, infrastructure and skills right across the region to provide thousands more jobs in green energy – up to 24,000 by 2035.  

    We have seen today that young people are excited about their future in this thriving sector – there’s a buzz in the air which is great to see.

    Ashley Nicholson MBE, Chief Business Officer at the Port of Tyne said:  

    We’re proud to showcase the North East’s growing renewables cluster and the opportunities it offers to young people and those looking to retrain. 

    The Port of Tyne is driving the region’s green energy revolution through the 230-acre Tyne Clean Energy Park, backed by over £150 million of investment in world-class infrastructure and a strong track record of project delivery.  

    This momentum is creating a powerful platform for offshore renewables, innovation and new jobs, cementing the North East as a centre of excellence for clean energy.

    Earlier this year the government announced that five new Technical Excellence Colleges will train the next generation of clean energy workers, as part of government’s drive for two-thirds of young people to be in higher-level learning. 

    Backed by record government and private sector investment in clean energy such as renewables and nuclear, the clean energy economy is sparking a boom in demand for good industrial jobs in all regions and nations of the UK – with 31 priority occupations such as plumbers, electricians, and welders particularly in demand. 

    For young people, these jobs can offer higher levels of pay- with entry level roles in the majority of occupations in clean energy paying 23% more than the same occupations in other sectors. 

    Darren Davidson, UK Vice President for Siemens Energy said:  

    Siemens Energy is proud to support the Clean Energy Jobs Fair and help inspire the next generation of talent. Building skills for the energy transition is vital, and events like this show the exciting opportunities ahead. I first began my own journey in the energy sector, as an engineering apprentice, in Newcastle. Today, there’s never been a more exciting time to work in the industry.

    Jamie Lindsay, Senior People Services Manager at RWE said:  

    RWE is proud to support the first Clean Energy Jobs Fair and highlight the range of opportunities across the North East’s growing clean energy economy.  

    We’re creating long-term, high-quality jobs across the UK – from wind technicians operating off the Grimsby Coast to the apprentices, engineers and project teams driving clean energy growth across the UK.  

    Everything we do is powered by our people, and inspiring the next generation to pursue clean energy and STEM careers is essential to our sector’s success.  

    Today’s event is a valuable chance to help young people understand the route to these rewarding careers and showcase the skills and opportunities shaping the workforce of tomorrow.

    Professor Andy Long Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive, Northumbria University, and Chair of Universities for North East England (UNEE) said:  

    The North East has a proud industrial heritage and is now leading the way in clean energy innovation.   

    Across Universities for North East England, we’re committed to equipping the next generation with the skills and knowledge they need to seize the exciting opportunities in the sector.  

    By working closely with industry partners, we’re ensuring our graduates are ready to drive forward the region’s clean energy sector and build successful careers in these vital, well-paid jobs that will power our future.

    James Young, Chief Strategy and Compliance Officer at JDR Cables said: 

    JDR Cable Systems were delighted to attend the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s Clean Energy Jobs Fair at the Port of Tyne.  

    JDR have a proud history of supporting careers in our sector through Apprenticeship and Graduate Programs to help shape the skilled workforce required for the energy infrastructure of the future.

    Charles Shepherd, Managing Director at Shepherd Offshore said:  

    Shepherd Offshore was proud to attend the Clean Energy Job Fair at the Port of Tyne. It was another excellent chance for us to meet young people in the region looking to learn about a possible future career in the offshore and renewable energy industries.  

    This event aligns with our company values of development and ensuring that future generations in our region can look forward to employment opportunities along the River Tyne Corridor.

    Michael James, Head of Operations & Maintenance, North Sea Link at National Grid said: 

    Apprenticeships are a significant part of building a skilled workforce for the future. We offer hands-on experience, technical training, and a clear pathway into a rewarding career as part of National Grid. 

    From working at our North Sea Link interconnector to today at the Clean Energy Jobs Fair, we see first-hand how our apprentices bring fresh ideas and energy to the team while gaining invaluable expertise.  

    Investing in apprenticeships is good for business, vital for the communities we serve and a key part to realising the aims of the Clean Energy Jobs Plan.

  • Philip Duffy – 2025 Statement on Cleaning Up Kidlington Waste Dump

    Philip Duffy – 2025 Statement on Cleaning Up Kidlington Waste Dump

    The statement made by Philip Duffy, the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, on 11 December 2025.

    The brazen criminality at Kidlington has appalled all of us at the Environment Agency. Our local teams have been at this site working with partners to reduce harm and minimise risks while we pursue those responsible.

    This week, new information on the risk of fire was received from the Fire and Rescue Services and the Police and a decision made to clear the site as soon as possible on a wholly exceptional basis. The EA and our local partners are now working through the most effective way to manage this work.

    We will update the public on progress with that as soon as we are able. We are determined that waste criminals will see justice for this serious offending.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Statement on the Jimmy Lai Conviction

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Statement on the Jimmy Lai Conviction

    The statement made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2025.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will first address the horrific attack that took place yesterday at Bondi Beach in Sydney. Across the UK, and across the world, people have been shocked and appalled by this vile antisemitic terrorist attack, targeting Jewish families who were celebrating on the beach on the first day of Hanukkah. New South Wales authorities have confirmed that 15 people have been killed, in addition to one of the two gunmen, and 27 people remain in hospital. It is a devastating loss of life, including a Holocaust survivor and a little girl just 10 years old. It has also now been confirmed that one of the victims of the Bondi attack was a British national, bringing this tragedy even closer to home. We have offered support to the family following their tragic loss. I have offered my Australian counterpart, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the United Kingdom’s full support in Australia’s response, and the Prime Minister and His Majesty the King have both shared their condolences.

    Hanukkah should be a time of celebration and joy, yet Jewish people are again confronted with vile acts of hatred simply for being Jews, with further distress for our British Jewish communities just a couple of months after the Manchester synagogue attack on Yom Kippur. We stand in solidarity with Australia’s Jewish communities and with Jewish communities here and across the world as they continue to mark Hanukkah, and we stand in solidarity with the Australian people. Our thoughts are with all those affected. We must continue and increase work to root out antisemitism in all its forms, here and abroad, because we will never let hatred win.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now turn to today’s verdict in the trial of Jimmy Lai. Today, Hong Kong’s courts ruled that Jimmy Lai was guilty of foreign collusion under the national security law, which Beijing imposed on the city five years ago. They also found him guilty of conspiring to publish seditious materials. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He has been targeted by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression. This was a politically motivated prosecution that I strongly condemn. Jimmy Lai now faces the prospect of a sentence that, for a man of 78 years, could mean the rest of his life in prison. I call again for Jimmy Lai’s immediate release. On my instruction, the Foreign Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to underline our position in the strongest terms. My acting consul-general was present at court today to bear witness.

    For many in this House and for the large diaspora community living in the UK, it is heartbreaking that such a violation of a British man’s rights could occur in Hong Kong, because the Hong Kong of Jimmy Lai’s childhood was a city where a 12-year-old boy seeking opportunity could go on to build a business empire and then a media platform. It was a city of freedom, and that freedom brought great prosperity. When the joint declaration was signed by the United Kingdom and China in 1984, both nations declared their commitment to that prosperity. Our countries agreed that Hong Kong’s uniqueness—its high degree of autonomy; its executive, legislative and independent judicial power; and its rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of association—was the foundation of its success, and that those things were to be enshrined in law.

    For many years, Hong Kong was the embodiment of the commitments made in that joint declaration. The city, the economy and, most importantly, the people thrived. It was a remarkable, shining example to the world of what Hong Kong’s people, and co-operation between the UK and China, could achieve. Indeed, it is partly because of our important history with Hong Kong—economic as well as political—that China remains our third largest trading partner today.

    In 2020, however, China began to break the commitments in that declaration. Hong Kong’s free media spoke out, and they were punished for it. In June 2020 China breached the joint declaration by imposing its national security law on the city. It was a law imposed on Hong Kong to silence China’s critics, and one that undermined Hong Kong’s autonomy and threatened the rights that China had once freely committed to upholding. It was not long before the new law was applied and Jimmy Lai was arrested, along with other advocates of democracy, free speech and freedom of assembly.

    This British citizen—this businessman and journalist; this father, husband and grandfather—has endured five years of incarceration. Meanwhile, his supporters around the world have campaigned tirelessly for justice. I pay particular tribute to Jimmy’s son, Sebastien Lai, who has endured such pain and shown such determination and dignity in fighting for his father and for the wider rights and principles at stake. I know that many honourable colleagues have had the privilege of meeting this determined man, who has endured so much to take on his father’s mantle, speaking up where his father cannot.

    The Government have continually and repeatedly raised Jimmy Lai’s case with China at every opportunity, urging the authorities to agree his release, yet the Hong Kong authorities continue to refuse us consular access to our citizen—a 78-year-old man whose health is suffering. Jimmy Lai remains imprisoned, despite international calls for his release and concerns regarding his health; despite UK Ministers raising our concerns directly and privately with Hong Kong and Chinese officials; and despite our repeated requests for consular access, the most recent of which was submitted on Thursday. Once again, I call for Jimmy Lai to be granted full access to independent medical professionals to assess his health and ensure that he receives adequate treatment.

    Today’s verdict is sadly not a surprise, but no state can bully and persecute the British people for exercising their basic rights. We have seen how the Hong Kong authorities have tried to use the national security law to target even those living on British soil for speaking up. The UK has repeatedly called for the national security law to be repealed, and for an end to the prosecution of all individuals charged under it. It remains imperative that the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities end the deliberate targeting of opposition voices through arrest warrants and bounties in the UK and elsewhere.

    The safety of the Hong Kong community in the UK is a top priority for this Government and, as the Prime Minister has recently said, protecting our security is non-negotiable—it is our first duty. This Government are unequivocally clear that China poses a series of national security threats to the United Kingdom. That is why we have taken further steps and tougher measures to defend our democracy by disrupting and deterring threats from China and other state actors, including upgrading sovereign technology; removing Chinese-made surveillance equipment from sensitive sites; drawing up new legislation modelled on counter-terrorism powers to tackle state threats; rolling out new training to police forces across the country on tackling state threats and protecting individuals from transnational repression; and continuing to support the Hong Kong British national overseas route, which has welcomed over 200,000 Hongkongers to the UK. As part of the earned settlement consultation, the Home Office has confirmed that Hongkongers will retain a five-year settlement route in the UK.

    China has not upheld its commitments to the people of Hong Kong, but we will. Jimmy Lai chose to remain in Hong Kong to speak up for what was right, and he is currently paying the price. For the sake of Jimmy Lai and his family, but also for the people of Hong Kong, for the joint declaration we signed and for the rule of law, we will not relent on this. Joined by nations across the world, we call again for the immediate release of Jimmy Lai. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Wes Streeting – 2025 Speech on the Winter Preparedness of the NHS

    Wes Streeting – 2025 Speech on the Winter Preparedness of the NHS

    The speech made by Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2025.

    The NHS’s national medical director says:

    “This unprecedented wave of super flu is leaving the NHS facing a worst-case scenario”.

    This is backed up by the data. On any given day last week, an average of 2,500 patients were in hospital beds—a 55% increase on the week before, and almost double the number from 2023. One hundred and six flu patients are in intensive care, compared with 69 the previous week. There are 1,300 more staff off than in the week before, and the number of calls received by NHS 111 last week was 446,000—8% higher than at this time last year.

    It is clear from both the NHS and UK Health Security Agency data that there is a real risk for the NHS and for patients, and it is at this moment of maximum danger that the British Medical Association has chosen to go ahead with Christmas strikes, when they will inflict the greatest level of damage on the NHS.

    The BMA said this dispute was about pay, but we gave doctors a 28.9% pay rise. Then it said it was also about jobs, so I offered a deal to halve the competition for jobs to less than two applicants per post. It is now clear what these strikes are really about—the BMA’s fantasy demand for another 26% pay rise on top of the 28.9% doctors have already received. I also offered to extend the BMA strike mandate, so it could postpone this action and go ahead once flu has subsided. The fact that it also rejected that offer shows a shocking disregard for patient safety. Since this strike represents a different magnitude of risk from previous industrial action, I am appealing to ordinary resident doctors to ignore the BMA strike and go to work this week. Abandoning patients in their hour of greatest need goes against everything that a career in medicine is meant to be about.

    The entire focus of my Department and the NHS team is now on getting the health service through the double whammy of flu and strikes. We have already vaccinated 17 million people, which is 170,000 more than last year, and 60,000 more NHS staff. We have invested in 500 new ambulances, 40 new same-day emergency care and urgent treatment centres, and 15 mental health crisis assessment centres. The NHS will also be recalling resident doctors to work in emergency situations, and we will not tolerate the dangerous attempts to block such requests that we have seen from the BMA in the past.

    I am proud of the way that the NHS team has pulled together through strike action in the past, and I know they will move heaven and earth to keep patients as safe as they can this winter. I am just appalled that they are having to do so without the support of their colleagues in the BMA.

    Stuart Andrew

    This winter, a serious flu wave and rising respiratory syncytial virus infections are pushing the NHS to its limits. Flu admissions, as we have heard, are up 55% in a week, and RSV cases are rising, especially in older people. However, the Government have failed to prepare, as we pointed out earlier in the year.

    In July, the Health Secretary accepted Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advice to expand the RSV vaccine to over-80s, but that expansion seems to have been quietly dropped. Flu vaccine uptake remains dangerously low, with fewer than 30% of some key groups vaccinated. Most worryingly, that includes NHS staff, who are going off sick because of flu, adding to staffing pressures. Delayed discharges are worsening: 19,000 more bed days have been lost this year. Still there is no winter discharge plan, no new funding and no clarity—and today, yes, resident doctors confirmed further strike action this week, which will add pressure to a system already under significant strain. That is why we would ban strike action, but at the same time this Government are literally making it easier for unions through their Employment Rights Bill.

    When the NHS is under this level of pressure, families deserve the reassurance that care will be there when they need it, so I ask the Secretary of State: will he now publish the Government’s plan for managing winter pressures, including on delayed discharges and emergency care? Given that he is worried about a double whammy of rising flu cases and a strike, what extra resources is he providing, and if he is not, where is the money coming from? What action will he take to ensure RSV vaccine access for older people, and what will he do to raise flu vaccine uptake in vulnerable groups, particularly in NHS staff? Families are frightened, and some are already grieving. This crisis was not inevitable, but the Government’s failure to prepare has made it much worse.

    Wes Streeting

    I will ignore the political nonsense about banning strikes and clamping down on trade unions. I will, however, take on directly the charge that we have not prepared for this winter.

    We have delivered over 17 million flu vaccinations this season—hundreds of thousands more than this time last year—and 60,000 more NHS staff than last year are also getting their jab. We are on track to deliver the 5 percentage points increase in flu vaccine uptake in healthcare workers, as set out in our urgent and emergency care plan. On children and young people, half a million two to three-year-olds have been vaccinated, which is the same as last year, and 3.6 million school-age children have been vaccinated, which is up 100,000 on last year. We will be going back to schools to do repeat visits in areas where uptake in schools has not been as high as we would like. For care home residents, flu vaccination uptake is 71%. We are on track to meet the RSV vaccination uptake target for 2025-26 in the published urgent and emergency care plan, so we are doing a lot on the vaccination front to prepare.

    In fact, on winter planning more generally, we started earlier and did more than ever to prepare for this winter. We had stress-tested winter plans trust by trust. Local NHS leaders ran scenario-based exercises, including managing surges in demand and responding to virus outbreaks to test and strengthen their winter readiness plans, which are now being put into action. We have strengthened access by boosting GP access to keep people well and out of hospital. Through advertising campaigns, new online access routes and more GP practices open for longer hours over the Christmas period, we are making sure more people can be seen closer to home. That matters, because when people can get help early from their GP, they are less likely to end up in A&E.

    We are also going further to improve our urgent and emergency care performance this winter. That is set out in our urgent and emergency care plan. We are investing almost £450 million into UEC this winter, meaning: 500 new ambulances on the roads; expanding same-day and urgent treatment centres; providing targeted support to the most challenged trusts; creating capacity and keeping flow moving by sharing weekly data with trusts; encouraging the use of alternative community services; and streamlining in-hospital discharge processes to get patients discharged more quickly from hospital when it is safe to do so, including joining up the NHS and social care, where relationships between health and social care have been improving year on year. If I think about where we are this year compared to last year, there has been sustained improvement. A lot done; more to do.

    Of course our job is made harder by strike action. That is why the Government are doing everything we possibly can to get the NHS through this winter. I just wish we were doing it with the BMA, rather than against the BMA.

  • Chris Elmore – 2025 Speech on Human Rights Day

    Chris Elmore – 2025 Speech on Human Rights Day

    The speech made by Chris Elmore, the Foreign Office Minister, in London on 10 December 2025.

    Good morning.

    It’s great to see you all today.

    The UN’s theme this year – “Human Rights, Our Everyday Essentials” – couldn’t be more timely.

    And it really resonates with me after my visit to Jamaica to see the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa, just five short days ago.

    We often speak about our basic human rights and needs in jest, but meeting a seven year old boy – who will be eight-years-old on the 28th of December – in Jamaica last week, whose home was destroyed by Hurricane Melissa and whose only Christmas wish was a working toilet, brought home to me the stark reality of millions around the world living without these essentials, whether through disaster, poverty, conflict or political oppression.

    Hurricane Melissa was devastating, and I pay tribute to the Government of Jamaica and its people for their extraordinary response and resilience in the face of such hardship.

    Today we reflect on how human rights are at the heart of our daily lives and when I talk about human rights, I also mean democracy and the rule of law.

    The three go hand in hand.

    Yet today, more and more people threaten to roll-back our hard-won freedoms.

    That’s why our commitment to human rights – here at home and around the world – matter.

    Not just because it’s morally and legally right, though of course it is, but because it’s in our shared interest. They allow us as individuals, as communities and as societies to thrive and prosper.

    As an MP, I’ve seen people campaigning for fairness, equality and safety.

    From local charities helping the homeless, to residents campaigning for clean air, to families hosting thousands of Ukrainian refugees.

    This is civic engagement at its best – people exercising their rights to speak out, to organise, to assemble, and to live free from discrimination.

    But it’d be a mistake to think that human rights are there just to protect our freedoms.

    Because they also serve our national interest, our security, our growth and our long-term prosperity. 

    Respect for the rule of law gives businesses confidence.

    Economic and social rights help create a healthy, educated workforce.

    And the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom of religion or belief and expression keep us safe.

    Security and prosperity cannot be achieved without guaranteeing human rights.

    How we protect rights must also evolve to reflect the challenges of the 21st century.

    We believe in the European Convention on Human Rights.

    It helped create a neighbourhood of countries with a strong record on human rights, directly contributing to the peace and security Europe has enjoyed since the second world war.

    It has also delivered real benefits for British people – a full inquest for the families of the Hillsborough victims, the abolition of corporal punishment in schools, and the right for gay people to serve in our armed forces.

    So of course, the UK remains committed to the Convention.

    At the same time, we also believe that it must evolve to face the challenges of the day.

    As the Prime Minister has said, we need to modernise how it’s interpreted in the context of irregular migration.

    And that work is already underway, with the Deputy Prime Minister in Strasbourg today meeting other Justice Ministers to take it forward. 

    But laws and conventions only matter if they make a difference to real lives.

    And right now, across the world, too many lives are under attack.

    • Palestinians assaulted in olive groves in the West Bank.
    • Women in the DRC raped with impunity.
    • Prisoners tortured in Damascus.
    • Children killed by missiles in Ukraine.
    • And crimes in Sudan so appalling that they can be seen from satellites in space.

    These are outrageous examples of tragedies, entirely inconsistent with international human rights and humanitarian law, and they are unfolding as we speak.

    They remind us why we must act.

    Doing nothing will only normalise impunity, making everyone, everywhere less safe.

    That is why FCDO funds partners in Syria to document atrocities and build evidence to achieve accountability.

    That is why we work with leaders like Nobel Laureate Dr Denis Mukwege on a survivor-centred approach when addressing sexual violence.

    And that’s why the Foreign Secretary, who sends her apologies today, is personally determined to end impunity for sexual violence in conflict, pursue peace in Gaza and the West Bank, and drive urgent action in Sudan.  

    But we cannot do this alone.

    Today as we mark the end of 16 days of Activism to End Gender-Based Violence, it is clear that we all have a role to play.

    Over the last two weeks, my officials have met activists and organisations working to stop violence against women and girls in Sudan and elsewhere.

    We want to do everything possible to help amplify their calls for justice and change and it makes me immensely grateful for the work you do.

    Not just in responding to these issues but in raising their profile, keeping the pressure on us to act, and holding us to account to do so.

    That’s why I’m concerned that civil society is under attack in so many countries because of repressive legislation.

    I want to pay particular tribute to courageous human rights defenders and advocates around the world, putting their lives in danger day after day to fight for what’s right.  

    I’m honoured that some of them are with us today, and I look forward to hearing from them shortly.

    Now, last year my predecessor set out the FCDO’s approach to human rights and governance.

    I’m proud of the progress we’ve made since then and I will build on this excellent work.

    We’ve strengthened the rule of law worldwide by offering free legal expertise in over 50 countries.

    We’re holding war criminals to account, including for war crimes committed in Ukraine. 

    We helped set up the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group which supports the Ukrainian government in delivering justice.

    We’re supporting the establishment for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, and I am pleased that we formally endorsed its legal basis earlier this year.

    And we’re championing equal rights for all, including through the Deputy Prime Minister’s powerful global campaign to ensure every child grows up in a safe, loving family environment.

    Yet there is still so much to do.

    And that’s why I’m pleased that the UK has been re-elected to serve on the UN Human Rights Council for the next two years, giving us the chance to share our experiences with others.   

    Now, while this is a significant opportunity, I know that many of you are concerned about cuts in our foreign aid budgets.

    So I want to reassure you that we’re determined to find new innovative ways to support change on the ground, working ever more closely with local actors, focusing on impact, and publicly reporting what we do.

    And all of this will be backed by a strong diplomatic network of Embassies and High Commissions who will continue to champion these agendas around the world.   

    And we’ll use our influence in the multilateral system to keep human rights at the heart of its work while making sure they remain the foundation of all that FCDO does.

    Because it is only when human rights are protected that everyone has the chance to live with dignity and freedom. And that freedom being understood.

    Thank you all.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2025 Locarno Centenary Speech

    Yvette Cooper – 2025 Locarno Centenary Speech

    The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, on 9 December 2025.

    Thank you very much, your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, let me welcome you to the Foreign Office, as we commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the Treaty-signing from which these great rooms derive their name.

    Je suis desolée, que – contrairement a mon predecesseur – Austen Chamberlain, I am unable to preside over today’s events in fluent French.

    But thank you to Dominique for that introduction and to the Swiss Mission in London for co-hosting today’s event.

    And let me also welcome the Mayor of Locarno, here today to represent the ‘City of Peace’ where the Treaties were negotiated one hundred years ago.

    And I’m pleased to say that we are also joined by representatives of other countries that signed the Treaties in this room in 1925, as well as our friends from other nations who share a common interest in the search for peace on our continent, and a resolution to conflicts across the globe today.

    So this afternoon, I want to commemorate the signing of the Locarno Treaties, and to reflect on what the Spirit of Locarno can teach us about responding to the rapidly changing security challenges facing our world today.

    Looking back at the coverage of the Treaty-signing from 1925, I was struck by how modern some of the discussion felt. There was even what we would nowadays call a ‘spin row.’ It seems that exclusive filming rights for the ceremony were sold to the Gaumont Company and the British media were furious. And even worse, in an attempt to protect that exclusive deal – over-zealous Foreign Office officials called for police to remove press photographers from the courtyard below us.

    The result was that, in the three weeks after the ceremony, there were four separate debates in Parliament about the filming row – and just one about the military consequences of the Locarno Pact.

    But beyond all the noise, it’s clear from every contemporary account of the Treaty ceremony that the unmistakable sense there was among all of those present about the weight and importance of what they were trying to achieve, and the duty that they owed to the peoples of Europe to succeed.

    Every delegate spoke about the cause of international unity. Seven years on from the end of the Great War, the memory of the millions lost and the debt of peace owed to them weighed heavily on all involved.

    Millions of people like Lieutenant Eric Henn, who – in the summer of 1914 – had come second in the entrance exams for a place here at the Foreign Office. But instead of starting his new job in this building, he volunteered to join the army. He shipped out to France in 1915, and was killed just a month later.

    All that potential, stolen too soon. And for his mother and father, their only child lost. In 1925 millions of parents were in that same situation, still mourning their lost sons and daughters. Which explained why men and women standing in this great room a hundred years ago openly wept when the French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand quoted a letter that he had received after the Locarno Conference.

    It said: “Allow the mother of a family to congratulate you. At last, I shall be able to look at my children without apprehension, and love them with security.”

    King George V wrote in his diary that night: “I pray this may mean peace for many years. Why not forever?”

    Of course, forever was not to be.

    We could spend hours debating how far the flaws in the Treaties led to their demise – the weakness of the guarantees of Polish and Czech sovereignty, the limited institutional underpinnings, or lack of resilience within the signatory nations.

    But as contested as the letter of the Locarno Treaties still is, we should not forget that it was the spirit of the common endeavour that in 1925 was so striking and that matters still. And we should not forget how brave and radical it seemed at the time.

    As the award speech at the Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony stated the following year, and I quote, “If we are to appreciate fully what these statesmen accomplished, we must not overlook the violent nationalistic opposition in their own countries which several of them had to overcome to push through the peace programme.”

    A group of political leaders choosing to pursue peace and unity, and recognising that partnerships with nations abroad made them stronger and more secure at home.

    And that is the spirit that matters just as much today, at a time of huge global instability, in a world where we face ever more complex hybrid security threats.

    The most acute of which for us right now lies in Russia’s war against Ukraine.

    It has been nearly four years since Vladimir Putin led his illegal invasion into Ukraine.

    Unprovoked.

    Unjustifiable.

    And unforgivable.

    In the period since, Ukraine has been subjected to drone and missile strikes day-in, day-out targeting civilians.

    While Russia has embarked on an appalling campaign to abduct Ukrainian children and ‘re-educate’ them to adopt pro-Russian views.

    But each time, the Russians have underestimated Ukraine and underestimated their friends.

    No one wants this war and the suffering and destruction it has wrought to continue.

    Least of all Ukraine.

    That is why the attempts by the US and President Trump to broker a ceasefire and pursue a sustainable end to this war are so important.

    It is why just over the road in 10 Downing Street yesterday, the Prime Minister hosted President Zelenskyy alongside E3 counterparts to talk about the prospects for peace.

    And yesterday, I met Secretary Rubio and others in Washington D.C. to discuss the negotiations and the path towards an agreement.

    An agreement which must be just.

    Which must be lasting.

    And which must deter Russia.

    Not give them simply a platform to come again.

    And it must be acceptable to Ukraine.

    But while we have two Presidents pursuing peace, the Russian President has continued to escalate the war with drones and bombs.

    Russia’s aggression and security threats go far beyond Ukraine. We’ve seen sabotage in European cities. Reckless breaches of NATO airspace. Relentless cyber-attacks. A full spectrum campaign. To test us. To provoke us. And to destabilise us.

    And that is why the UK has so consistently supported Ukraine in its efforts to resist Russian aggression.

    Because this is the right thing to do.

    Morally, and strategically.

    For Ukraine yes, but also because it is our security that is at stake too.

    But while those ceasefire discussions for Ukraine continue, I want to just take a step back and reflect on how the current security challenges that we and partner nations face relate back to the principles established through the Locarno Treaty 100 years ago.

    And I want to offer two reflections – firstly, on the transformed nature of security threats compared to a century ago, and how that means we need to respond.

    But secondly, on the changing partnerships and the renewed multilateralism we need if we are to confront the full range of shared threats we face.

    So first on the threats.

    Armed conflict is of course the threat uppermost in our minds as we think of Ukraine. Other traditional security threats have not gone away – from border disputes through to terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

    But novel and hybrid threats to our collective security have emerged which would have been inconceivable a century ago.

    From tampering with undersea communications cables to using biotechnology and AI as new kinds of weapons of war, those threats come in many different forms, and from many different quarters.

    Some of these threats are flagrantly visible – the spy ships in our waters, or the acts of violence, terror or sabotage in our cities.

    Some have not always been recognised for the threats that they pose, in particular on issues of economic security, for example the over-reliance of European nations on imports of energy from Russia or also on China for the critical minerals that we need.

    And across Europe we are witnessing an escalation in hybrid threats – from physical through to cyber.

    Designed to weaken our critical national infrastructure, undermine our interests or destabilise our democracies, all for the advantage of malign foreign states.

    Some of these threats have echoes a hundred years ago. Two years before Locarno in 1923, the Soviet Union coined the expression ‘Dezinformatsiya’ and set up their first office to deploy disinformation.

    But the term disinformation does not begin to capture the industrial scale approach from some malign actors today.

    A hundred years ago, state-sponsored disrupters may have relied on expertly forged documents or carefully planted stories to manipulate public opinion. Today’s technology gives them the ability to do that on steroids.

    And in 2024, evidence suggests that automated online traffic surpassed human activity for the first time, with some evidence of malicious bots accounting for more than a third of all messages.

    In the Moldovan elections, two months ago, we saw fake websites designed to be the spitting image of legitimate outlets fabricating policies for politicians they sought to discredit. Across Africa we see videos laundered through apparent news portals with false claims about the Ukrainian president and his wife, seeking to undermine support for Ukraine. And across Europe, we see Russian agencies responsible for vast malign online networks like Doppelgänger that seek to flood social media with counterfeit documents and deepfake material in English, German, and French, to advance Russia’s strategic aims.

    This isn’t about legitimate debate on contentious issues. We have wide-ranging debates, with strong views on all sides, on many things. But this is about state-backed organisations who seek to do us harm pursuing malign aims.

    So we should call this out for what it is – Russian information warfare. And we are defending ourselves.

    That is why we have built world-class cyber security, expert law enforcement and intelligence capabilities.

    Why, since October 2024, this government has sanctioned 31 different organisations and individuals responsible for delivering Russia’s information warfare.

    And why today I have gone further in exposing and sanctioning Russian media outlet Rybar, whose Telegram channel and network of affiliates in 28 languages reaches millions worldwide. Using classic Kremlin manipulation tactics, including fake ‘investigations’ and AI driven content to shape narratives about global events in the Kremlin’s favour.

    Masquerading as an independent body, Rybar is in fact partially coordinated by the Presidential Administration. And receiving funding from Russian state corporation Rostec and working with members of the Russian Intelligence Services.

    We have also sanctioned Pravfond, attributed by Estonia as a front for the GRU. Leaked reports suggest that Pravfond finances the promotion of Kremlin narratives to Western audiences as well as bankrolling legal defences for convicted Russian assassins and arms traffickers.

    And our new measures will also hit Moscow-based ‘think tank’, the Centre for Geopolitical Expertise, and its founder Aleksander Dugin, whose work closely informs Putin’s calculations. And an organisation whose senior leaders are involved in Storm-1516, a malign influence network which produces content designed to create support for Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine.

    But it isn’t just Russia.

    Other countries are also enabling or ignoring this kind of undeclared action or cyber threats.

    And that is why today, with support from our international partners and allies, we are also sanctioning two of the most egregious China-based companies, i-Soon and Integrity Technology Group, for their vast and indiscriminate cyber activities against the UK and its allies.

    Attacks like this impact our collective security and our public services, yet those responsible operate with little regard for who or what they target.

    And so we are ensuring that such reckless activity does not go unchecked.

    And our message to those who would harm us is clear – we see you in the shadows; we know what you are doing, and we will defend ourselves and the international partnerships on which we depend.

    And it is those partnerships with our allies around the world that have enabled the steps we have taken today.

    The growing cooperation between teams in the UK, in France, Germany, Poland, Brussels and other countries that has led to these sanctions.

    Pooling expertise, understanding and evidence.

    And that’s what takes me to my second reflection on the collective Locarno spirit, and why multilateral action matters more than ever, but why it needs to modernise and adapt.

    Because faced with growing global instability, there is a tendency to talk of two clashing perspectives.

    One – that the era of traditional multilateral partnerships or collective commitments is over.

    That, as we move into the second quarter of the twenty-first century, only great power politics matters.

    Or alternatively, that at a time of global turmoil, we need to revert solely to the multilateral architecture built up since the Second World War as the only safe refuge, and dare not risk stepping outside it or asking it to change.

    Neither are true as an account of the world or as an account of UK foreign policy and our national interests today.

    The first ignores the lessons of history; that we are stronger if we tackle shared threats together.

    But the second ignores the realities of today, where longstanding institutions, important as they may be, can be too constrained or too slow to respond

    What we need instead in today’s world is to approach every challenge and tackle every threat by finding the most effective means of cooperation to get each job done.

    Creative diplomacy.

    Diplomatic entrepreneurialism.

    A new and reinvigorated and more agile form of multilateralism, adapting to the demands of the task. Drawing on our long-standing relationships and multilateral institutions but also adapting, reforming and building new partnerships too.

    That’s the approach the UK is taking. But it also reflects what we also see around us.

    Just look at the range of new and old groupings that helped to create the conditions for peace in the Middle East and the ceasefire in Gaza.

    In the last few months, we have seen the world come together to support the US-led peace process in Gaza.

    The 20-point plan drawn up by President Trump, working with mediators from Qatar, Türkiye and Egypt.

    All following the commitments made by the whole of the Arab League to isolate Hamas, the recognition of Palestine by the UK and dozens more nations at the UN, and a Declaration then endorsed by 142 countries.

    And a ceasefire agreement supported by over 25 nations at Sharm El-Sheikh, followed weeks later by a UN Security Council resolution to support implementation on the ground and provide the mandate to move forward.

    So that was leadership by the US, with new and agile partnerships for peace coming together from across the globe but underpinned by multilateral institutional agreement. It’s not multilateralism as we have always known it, but it is essential in today’s world and must be matched by further work to reform and adapt.

    But look at other examples. The E3 cooperating on the nuclear threat from Iran, or the vital work now underway that we are supporting in the Quad and at the UN to seek to secure a humanitarian ceasefire in Sudan.

    And the new deals that Britain has agreed with France on migration returns, and with Germany on tackling smuggling gangs, as pilots for broader cooperation in future.

    In each case, we see new partnerships of like-minded countries with the agency and will to secure rapid breakthroughs, supported by later, broader agreements, rather than having to wait for them.

    And nowhere does that matter more than on our collective response to that most immediate national security challenge that we face – that I have already talked about – on Russia and Ukraine.

    So there too, we have worked to strengthen and reinvigorate NATO – the cornerstone of European security. But we’ve also worked flexibly and creatively to bring likeminded countries together in Europe and beyond.

    Working with the US on the peace process. But also, thanks to the leadership the Prime Minister has shown, working with France to establish the Coalition of the Willing. More than 30 countries signing up – including all the original Locarno signatories – and not just in Europe, but beyond, because we all recognise the threat Russia poses.

    For too long, Europe has relied too heavily on US support to protect ourselves from the threats to Euro-Atlantic security.

    And we can do so no more.

    Europe must step up.

    Because it is fundamentally in our own interests. And because our continent, is, first and foremost, our responsibility.

    And because the Transatlantic partnership will be stronger and more durable if that burden is properly shared.

    And so earlier this year, the Prime Minister took the decision to boost defence spending up to 5% of GDP by 2035 – making difficult trade-offs in the meantime.

    But it’s also why we are deepening cooperation and partnerships on security around the world, including for example, our Carrier Strike Group. Conducting operations with partners beyond NATO across the Indo-Pacific, but then placed directly under the command of NATO on its return leg, reflecting still that centrality of NATO in all that we do.

    That is how UK will operate – agile and pragmatic partnerships for the sake of our national security, our shared interests, and the principles we champion across the world.

    So yes, that’s why I believe the centenary we mark today is so important. A vital reminder – that when we discuss the modern threats that we face, whether it be from information warfare to the shared risks to our economic security, to cyber security, border security and beyond – that the Locarno spirit is not a quaint relic of times long gone, but an essential lesson from history.

    A reminder that for us in the UK, the partnerships we build abroad make us stronger and more secure here at home.

    And to reinforce that, let me quote the words of German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann, spoken in this great room one hundred years ago after he added his name to the Treaties.

    He said, “One fact has emerged, namely that we are bound to one another by a single and a common fate. If we go down, we go down together; if we are to reach the heights, we do so not by conflict but by common effort.”

    And Doctor Stresemann’s words are as vital and as powerful now as they were one hundred years ago. He reminds us of the duty we all have – every person, every leader and every nation – to work together in the pursuit of peace, security and democracy, and to stand together against anyone who threatens that goal.

    That is our task today as surely as it was 100 years ago, and that is the Locarno spirit which we must now keep alive.

    Thank you very much.

  • Steff Aquarone – 2025 Comments on Saving Sheringham Bus Shelter

    Steff Aquarone – 2025 Comments on Saving Sheringham Bus Shelter

    The comments made by Steff Aquarone, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, on 9 December 2025.

    Sheringham residents did it.

    In the face of bullying and intimidation from Conservative-run Norfolk County Council, our community stood its ground – literally – in freezing temperatures to protect the heritage bus shelter.

    Last night, their grit paid off. Sheringham Town Council listened and voted to save the shelter.

    Now it’s time for Norfolk County Council to engage properly with residents and deliver the transport improvements this town has been promised – with the bus shelter front and centre.

    Throwing toys out of the pram isn’t an option!

    Community power wins again.

  • Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs

    Shabana Mahmood – 2025 Statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs

    The statement made by Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2025.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will make a statement on the Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs, the appointment of its Chair and panel, and the inquiry’s terms of reference.

    I know that, for many, this day is long overdue. For years, the victims of these awful crimes were ignored. First abused by vile predators, they then found themselves belittled and even blamed, when it was justice they were owed.

    In January, my predecessor asked Baroness Casey of Blackstock, who’s here with us today, to conduct a National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.

    With devastating clarity, Baroness Casey revealed the horror that lies behind that jargonistic term. It is vital that we too call these crimes what they were: multiple sexual assaults, committed by multiple men, on multiple occasions.

    Children were submitted to beatings and gang rapes. Many contracted sexually transmitted infections. Some were forced to have abortions. Others had their children taken from them.

    But it was not just these awful crimes that now shame us.

    There was also an abject failure by the state, in its many forms, to fulfil its most basic duty: protecting the young and vulnerable.

    Worse still, some in positions of power turned a blind eye to the horror, even covered it up.

    Despite a shameful lack of national data, Baroness Casey was clear that in some local areas, where data was available, and I quote:

    “Disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds” were “amongst the suspects”.

    Like every member of my community who I know, I am horrified by these acts.

    We must root out this evil, once and for all. The sickening acts of a minority of evil men – as well as those in positions of authority, who looked the other way – must not be allowed to marginalise – or demonise – entire communities of law-abiding citizens.

    What is required now is a moment of reckoning. We must cast fresh light on this darkness.

    In her audit, Baroness Casey called for a national inquiry.

    In June, the government accepted that recommendation.

    Today, I can announce the Chair of the inquiry and panel that will form the leadership of the inquiry, and a draft of the Inquiry’s terms of reference.

    The inquiry will be chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield.

    As many in this place will know, Baroness Longfield was the Children’s Commissioner from 2015 to 2021. She has devoted her life to children’s rights, including running a charity supporting and protecting young people, and working for Prime Ministers of different political parties.

    In recognition of her service, Baroness Longfield was elevated to the Lords earlier this year.

    At that point, she took the Labour whip, which, on taking up this appointment, she will now resign.

    Alongside her, I can also announce her two fellow panellists.

    The first is Zoë Billingham CBE.

    Zoë is a former Inspector at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, and currently serves as Chair of Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust.

    She brings deep expertise in safeguarding and policing, specifically in holding forces to account.

    The second panellist is Eleanor Kelly CBE.

    Eleanor is the former Chief Executive of Southwark Council.

    In 2017, she supported the survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attacks, and the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire of the same year.

    Together, the Chair and panel bring deep experience of championing children’s rights, knowledge of policing and local government, and, crucially, a proven track record of holding powerful institutions to account.

    Each individual was recommended by Baroness Casey.

    And her recommendation follows recent engagement with victims.

    The first thing the Chair and Panel will do, alongside Baroness Casey, is meet with victims later this week.

    Today, we also publish the draft terms of reference which I will place in the library of the House.

    Baroness Casey was clear this inquiry must be time-limited to ensure justice is swift for those who have already waited too long.

    For that reason, it will be completed within three years, supported by a £65 million budget.

    The inquiry will be a series of local investigations overseen by a national panel with full statutory powers.

    Baroness Longfield has confirmed that Oldham will have a local investigation.

    The Chair and panel will determine the other locations in due course.

    And no location will be able to resist a local investigation.

    These terms of reference are clear on a number of vital issues:

    The inquiry is focused, specifically, on child sexual abuse committed by grooming gangs.

    It will consider, explicitly, the background of offenders – including their ethnicity and religion – and whether the authorities failed to properly investigate what happened out of a misplaced desire to protect community cohesion.

    The inquiry will act without fear or favour, identifying individual, institutional and systemic failure, inadequate organisational responses, and failures of leadership.

    It will also work hand in hand with the police.

    Where new criminality comes to light, be that by the perpetrators or those who covered up their crimes…

    The Inquiry will pass evidence to law enforcement, so they can take forward any further prosecutions, and put more of these evil men behind bars.

    The inquiry must, and will, place victims and survivors at the forefront, with a charter setting out how they will participate and how their views, experiences and testimony will shape the inquiry’s work.

    As I have said already, the terms are in draft form.

    The Chair will now consult on them with victims and other stakeholders.

    They will be confirmed no later than March, when the Inquiry can begin its work in earnest.

    Alongside launching this inquiry, Baroness Casey’s audit contained a number of other recommendations, which the government accepted in full.

    As the inquiry begins its work, we continue righting these wrongs.

    I can announce today that I have commissioned new research from UK Research and Innovation to rectify the unacceptable gaps in our understanding of perpetrators’ backgrounds and motivations, including their ethnicity and religion.

    My predecessor wrote to all police forces calling on them to improve the collection of ethnicity data, and while the Home Secretary does not currently have the power to mandate that this is collected, I will rectify this by legislating at the earliest possible opportunity.

    The Department for Education is currently interrogating gaps in “children in need” data, identified in the audit, which seem to under-report the scale of this crisis.

    My Rt Honourable Friend the Education Secretary will soon publish the findings of an urgent review of this data conducted by her department.

    Across government, the audit identified that poor data sharing continues to put children at risk.

    As a result, we are introducing a legal duty for information sharing between safeguarding partners.

    We are creating a unique identifier for each child, linking all data across government.

    And we are upgrading police technology to ensure data can be shared across agencies.

    The audit also identified an absurdity in our legal system that saw some child rapists convicted of lesser crimes.

    As a result, we are now changing the law to make clear that children cannot consent when they have been raped by an adult, so perpetrators are charged for the hideous crime they have committed.

    While the law has protected abusers from the consequences of their crimes, it has too often punished victims. Some survivors were convicted for crimes they had been coerced into, continuing their trauma to this day.

    We are already legislating in the Crime and Policing Bill to disregard offences related to prostitution, and the Ministry of Justice is now working with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure they are resourced to review applications from individuals who believe they were wrongly criminalised.

    The National Audit identified further weaknesses in relation to taxi licencing.

    Abusers were applying for licences in areas where controls were lax, to circumvent protection put in place by local councils to tackle abuse.

    My Right Honourable Friend the Transport Secretary will soon be legislating to close this dangerous loophole in the regulation of taxis.

    The audit was clear that justice has not been done. Baroness Casey requested that a new national police investigation was required to bring offenders to justice.

    Last month the National Crime Agency launched Operation Beaconport, reviewing previously closed cases of child sexual exploitation.

    It has already flagged more than 1,200 cases for potential reinvestigation, more than 200 of which are high-priority cases of rape.

    The evil men who committed these crimes – and thought they got away with it – will find they have nowhere to hide.

    The audit finally called on the government to fund the delivery of its recommendations.

    Alongside investment in the Inquiry itself, I can announce today that a further £3.65 million will be committed this year to the policing operation, survivor support and research into grooming gangs.

    This work, Madam Deputy Speaker, is essential.

    But without truth, there can be no justice.

    Today, I have announced the Chair and panel of an Inquiry which will shine a bright light on this dark moment in our history.

    They will do so alongside the victims of these awful crimes, who have waited too long to see justice done.

    This inquiry is theirs, not ours.

    So I call on all those present to put politics aside, for a moment, and to support this Chair and her panel in the pursuit of truth and justice.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • Graham Plant – 2025 Statement to Norfolk County Council Meeting on Sheringham Bus Stop

    Graham Plant – 2025 Statement to Norfolk County Council Meeting on Sheringham Bus Stop

    The statement made by Graham Plant, the Norfolk County Council portfolio holder on Transport, at County Hall in Norwich on 8 December 2025.

    I’m glad you brought this up, because it’s been a it’s been on my desk for a little while now.

    We’ve been through a proper process to get to where we are with the Sheringham bus stop.

    We’ve worked hard with Sheringham community, including local schools, the town council, bus operators, the North Norfolk railway, the local museum and Sheringham in Bloom, to shape the travel hub.

    We carried out a full public consultation in May 2025 with two Open Day events. And I’ve got to tell you that this started in 2022 so it’s not something that’s just suddenly dropped on the doorstep.

    More than 500 people engaged with this, and our plans were revised following the helpful feedback received from a number of people, notably, a new look bespoke glass and steel bus shelter with additional green spaces and more seating.

    We have had many positive comments about the new travel hub proposals from residents and other key stakeholders, and people in the area are pleased with a significant financial investment in Sheringham and in ensuring the area is made safe and fit for the future, especially given that we have managed to up the national trend in terms of bus usage in Norfolk, and we’ve seen a 26% increase in bus passengers numbers over the past two years, which is phenomenal. Last Friday, Government announced even more money for Norfolk to encourage even greater use of busses. So schemes such as this to cope with both current and future demand are essential.

    The consultation ran from the second of May to the 26th of May. It was promoted and well received.

    Only 19% of respondents to the online consultation said they wanted the old shelter to stay.

    All statutory consultees were contacted directly about the consultation and about it being a heavy handed reproach approach and legality. Last week’s protesters forced their way onto a live construction site. This has saved the implications of both our workforce, the protesters and the general public and the immediate area. Therefore, we are quite within our rights to attempt to remove those who should not be on the construction site. We have followed all necessary legal advice and processes and have acted appropriately and proportionally. We have not physically attacked anybody or physically touched anybody in this process, but ultimately, the protesters have not listened to any requests for them to leave the site. We’re doing the work over winter so that it doesn’t affect the summer trade and a question about, why are we not protecting this shelter? It did go to Historic England and were asked to consider the listing of the bus shelter. In their response, where they declined to list the structure, they said that, given its late date, it does not exhibit the architectural interest and technical innovation seen in the most significant examples of the building time, and they give three other bullet points as well as to why it’s not been listed.

    We did decline TV interviews last week because I didn’t see any benefit to it, particularly given that the local MP, who’s also been involved very late in the process, very late in the process, I said it started in 2022 it’s been through several processes and the sharing of town council on many occasions. Not a word, nothing. But he did manage to come in at the very last minute and help these supporters of it.

    He also tried to do it on social media. I don’t do my politics on social media. He can write to me and I respond. That’s what I do with most people. They write to me and I respond.

    I’m sure they understand the benefits of the project. Now he’s carried out his own study of the plans, and he spoke to me as he spoke to the leader. We had a meeting last Wednesday morning, at 08:30 in the morning. And he even said in that meeting, delay it for five to ten days, and we’ll probably carry on with the project. But he wanted to give the people who were protesting enough time to protest and then let them go.

    This money has to be spent by March 26 it has to be in place if we don’t spend the money by March 26 then we lose the money. I’m not intending to lose that money. If I don’t spend it in Sheringham, I’ll spend it somewhere else. I will not lose the money. So from that point of view, I have several schemes across Norfolk that I can spend this money on the stop itself.

    It’s important to some people, not everybody, but it’s been through a proper process to find out how we are where we are. Unfortunately, if it continues, and I’m not going to strong arm people out of there, I will not do that, but I will spend the money elsewhere. Unfortunately, that also means that, because the bus companies have said it’s a dangerous stop in its current form, then they won’t be able to use that bus stop either. So we’ll have to find a different stop to use as well, which is unfortunate because it’s really quite close to the bus the railway station.