Category: Speeches

  • Rishi Sunak – 2024 Statement on the Iranian Attack on Israel

    Rishi Sunak – 2024 Statement on the Iranian Attack on Israel

    The statement made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 13 April 2024.

    I condemn in the strongest terms the Iranian regime’s reckless attack against Israel. These strikes risk inflaming tensions and destabilising the region. Iran has once again demonstrated that it is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard.

    The UK will continue to stand up for Israel’s security and that of all our regional partners, including Jordan and Iraq.  Alongside our allies, we are urgently working to stabilise the situation and prevent further escalation. No one wants to see more bloodshed.

  • Graham Stuart – 2024 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    Graham Stuart – 2024 Resignation Letter to the Prime Minister

    The resignation letter sent by Graham Stuart to Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 12 April 2024.

    Text of letter (in .pdf format)

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2024 Speech on Ukraine’s Reconstruction

    Nusrat Ghani – 2024 Speech on Ukraine’s Reconstruction

    The speech made by Nusrat Ghani, the Minister for Europe, in Greece on 11 April 2024.

    Good afternoon – and thank you for inviting me to say a few words.

    Over two years ago, when the first tanks thundered towards Kyiv, Putin would have felt invincible.

    But events since have shown how foolish he was.

    Foolish enough to underestimate Ukraine’s bravery.

    Foolish enough to think his military’s incompetence would go unnoticed.

    And foolish enough to doubt the West’s resolve to stand so firmly behind Ukraine.

    The twisted lies Putin spreads to justify the invasion and mask his failures cannot hide a simple truth.

    He believes he can take territories and re-draw borders, when he wants, where he wants…

    …and he believes he can get away with it every single time.

    Well, not this time.

    Ukraine must win. Why? Because our collective security is at stake.

    A defeat will invite more aggression. A victory will deter it.

    The question is not whether we have the ability to achieve this – Ukraine has shown it can defend itself. The question is whether we have the will to see it through.

    By defending Ukraine, we defend the values in the UN charter we all subscribe to. The values which have allowed us to prosper.

    Respect for sovereignty is not just about maintaining lines on a map. It is about having the freedom to choose how we want to live.

    All countries have that right – and Ukraine is fighting to uphold that right for all of us.

    The UK was privileged to play its part in welcoming Ukrainians forced from their homes. But they have a right to return and we collectively have an obligation to enable them to do so.

    Putin wants them out because that is how he can destroy, displace and devalue Ukrainian identity and culture.

    We cannot hand him what he craves.

    We must also honour the legacy of Navalny and his unwavering commitment to Russian democracy. I applaud Yulia’s courage and resilience.

    Her foundation will continue Navalny’s fight, and that remains the best tribute to his enduring vision.

    So, how can we restore freedom, prosperity and democracy in Ukraine?

    I would like to highlight the three key ways in which the UK is helping to rebuild its economy.

    First, by committing financially. Over the last two years, we have provided nearly 6 billion dollars of non-military support.

    We are boosting its fiscal firepower. Last month, we worked with the World Bank to speed up and increase the size of loans.

    As a result, the UK and Japan are providing one and a half billion dollars to help with immediate pressures.

    We and our G7 partners have also been clear – Russia must pay for the damage it has caused. We will pursue all routes through which Russian assets can be used to support Ukraine.

    Second, by harnessing the power of the private sector. The World Bank judges recovery will require almost half a trillion US dollars.

    Daunting as it sounds, it is achievable if we tap into the capital, creativity and expertise of businesses.

    The Ukraine Recovery Conference in London last year mobilised international partners, including the private sector, raising a staggering 60 billion US dollars of support.

    We of course have further to go – but it was a clear indication of what we can achieve together.

    Last year, I also personally oversaw the creation of a war-risk insurance scheme to protect and encourage UK businesses supporting Ukraine.

    Finally, we are helping by stimulating Ukraine’s trading industry. Before the invasion, it was a leading exporter of food, grains, steel and much more.

    There is no reason why that should not be the case once again.

    So, the UK is undertaking a series of trade missions to strengthen long-term cooperation and galvanise investment into Ukraine.

    Make no mistake. This is the defining struggle of our generation. The make-or-break moment is this year.

    The costs of failing to support Ukraine now will be far greater than the costs of repelling Putin.

    That is why we must devote our hard-worked resources and precious time to this collective endeavour.

    There is so much to do and so little time to do it.

    I’ll just finish on what President Zelensky put so well:

    When asked what will bring the end of the war, we used to say “peace”.

    Now, we say “victory”.

    Thank you.

  • David Cameron – 2024 Statement on Vladimir Kara-Murza

    David Cameron – 2024 Statement on Vladimir Kara-Murza

    The statement made by David Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, on 11 April 2024.

    Two years on from Vladimir Kara-Murza’s arrest on fabricated charges, I urge the Russian authorities to release him immediately on humanitarian grounds.

    A committed human rights activist striving for a democratic Russia, and an outspoken critic of the war in Ukraine, Mr Kara-Murza was considered a threat by the Kremlin. Putin locked him up in a bid to silence him.

    We must call out Russia’s callous disregard for his declining health. The victim of two separate poisoning attempts prior to his imprisonment, Mr Kara-Murza is now being subjected to degrading and inhumane conditions in prison, clearly designed to further damage his physical and mental well-being. He has been refused the urgent medical treatment he so desperately needs.

    Through diplomatic interventions at the highest levels, financial sanctions targeted at those behind his poisoning and imprisonment, and by raising his case on the international stage, we are sending a clear message that the UK will not stand for this abhorrent treatment of one of our citizens.

    Russia’s depraved treatment of political prisoners must end.

  • Stuart Andrew – 2024 Speech at SportAccord

    Stuart Andrew – 2024 Speech at SportAccord

    The speech made by Stuart Andrew, the Sports Minister, in Birmingham on 8 April 2024.

    Good afternoon. I would first like to start by thanking the President of SportAccord, Ugur Erdener, for hosting.

    It doesn’t feel like it is already two years since this wonderful city, alongside the wider West Midlands region, hosted the record-breaking Commonwealth Games.

    Hosting Sport Accord today – alongside all the other amazing events that Birmingham has planned – just demonstrates the power of sporting events.

    The power to bring people together, to instil pride in communities and to have an impact long after the final whistle.

    I want to thank you all for the important work that you do with your organisations to promote sport at every level.

    We know that sport contributes to physical and mental wellbeing, reduces loneliness and provides economic benefits.

    The UK has a fantastic reputation as a host of major events, and we must use these to inspire future generations.

    I, like many others, was inspired by the success of the Lionesses at EURO 2022 and the FIFA World Cup 2023.

    And DCMS honoured their success with £25 million of government funding for the Lionesses Futures Fund,designed to increase access for women and girls.

    The UK Government remains committed to building our reputation for hosting major events, and it is important that we continue to host sporting events that inspire the next generation and build lasting memories.

    We have some magnificent sportspeople, and world-leading experts, who organise and deliver these events to be enjoyed across the globe.

    I saw first hand at the Rugby League World Cup the unique impact that sporting events can have on communities – using sport to reach people across the UK.

    This includes not only the mega events we have in the coming years, such as the Rugby World Cup 2025, the men’s and women’s T20 Cricket World Cups in 2026 and 2030, UEFA EURO 2028 across the whole of the UK and Ireland, and of course the European Athletics Championships in Birmingham in 2026 – but also events like the West Midlands Urban Sports event in Wolverhampton later this year.

    Today I am proud to announce the significant economic and social benefits delivered by the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games at ‘one year on’.

    An incredible 6.9 million people engaged with this event in 2022, including spectators, athletes, volunteers and employees. The event delivered approximately £1.2 billion Gross Value Added to the UK economy, with nearly half that in the West Midlands alone, creating thousands of jobs in this region.

    In addition, the Games has contributed nearly £80 million in social value, with well over £150 million more expected to be generated longer term. This is a result of the skills and apprenticeships delivered through Games programmes, alongside community use of Games facilities at the revamped Alexander Stadium and the wonderful Sandwell Aquatics Centre.

    I am also delighted to see the £70 million ‘Commonwealth Games Legacy Enhancement Fund’ continuing to reinvest in projects for communities across the region – including in support of Sport Accord.  This fund provides a welcome boost to ensure the Games legacy continues to be felt in this region and beyond for many years to come.

    It is clear that mega sporting events can have truly transformational impacts on individuals, communities and host nations, and it is vital that we continue to support them in the years ahead.

    As we look to the future, I am extremely excited to build our pipeline into the 2030s and beyond. Our revised UK hosting strategy sets us on that clear path.

    It is so important to make sure that as we look to the future, we are innovative. I am grateful to all the work of those here today in making that happen.

    I wish you all the best for a successful event over the coming days.

  • James Cartlidge – 2024 Speech at the Military Robotics and Autonomous Systems Conference

    James Cartlidge – 2024 Speech at the Military Robotics and Autonomous Systems Conference

    The speech made by James Cartlidge, the Defence Minister, in London on 8 April 2024.

    Good afternoon, everybody. So I’m the Minister for Defence procurement in the UK, I don’t have a speech as such, and what I mean by that is I haven’t got one written by the Civil Service. When I was a Treasury Minister, before I got this job, I went to a conference a bit like this about AI. And there were four Secretary of States speaking at this conference, and what neither of them knew was that they all had the same gag when they started, which is they read their speech, the first paragraph and guess what? As if it had been written by Chat GPT. Once you get to the fourth iteration of that is not as funny as it was the first time. So this hasn’t been written by Chat GPT, this is me because I’m very passionate about this issue because I think autonomy in defence is an amazing opportunity.

    And I’ll explain why but first of all, congratulations to my hosts. Thank you for inviting me because this happens to coincide with a very important day. Today the Ministry of Defence we’ve launched officially our new procurement system, which I’ve put forward. It’s called the Integrated Procurement Model. Now, just to put that in context, when I got this job last April, after Alex Chalk became Lord Chancellor, I replaced him as Minister for Defence Procurement, we were in the middle of a vote in the House of Commons and as I was walking around the lobby voting, my colleagues were coming up to me and they all congratulating me. And each of them in the same phrase would say, but by the way, you’ve got Ajax. So this job is sort of synonymous with one particular project, and I think from day one, I knew we needed to reform procurement. And when I announced the new procurement model on the 28th of February I was very clear that whilst this is about responding to all the concerns that have been brought up over the years, with programmes like Ajax but not just Ajax, Nimrod there is many of them going back over many years’ time.

    The most important reason to reform procurement is much more fundamental than any of those reasons or to do with any of those programmes. And it is simply this that if we as a country, and our allies, as well, are to compete in the future with our adversaries with the way they are investing in defence and technology, we have no choice but to reform procurement. And one of the reasons why I think this new model hopefully will actually take effect not just being launched, but as you will know it has become cultural within MOD, which is something we’ll be working on, it’s fair to say.

    The reason for that is because if we don’t reform procurement, our adversaries will just move too far away from us. And so I wanted to first of all set out what this reform is all about. Because it’s heart is technology, and for me, the most important part of that is around uncrewed systems and also all the technological advances that come with that and the systems that they depend upon. So fundamentally, it’s not about platforms is as you know, it’s about systems, it’s about architectures, about software.

    And so there’s five key features of the new system. And now the first one is fundamental. It’s called an Integrated Procurement Model for a reason.  You’d be aware that in 2021, we announced a new integrated operating concept for the UK Armed Forces, but in announcing that and recognising the reality of modern warfare is an integrated battlespace. We maintain what’s called a delegated procurement model ie. primarily having three frontline services procuring what we describe as bottom up basis whereas to me, if you want an integrated approach, you have to integrated  procurement.

    And so the first point is to have joined up approach to procurement in practice. The bête noire is what we call over programming, this phrase over programming means that essentially, the armed forces are trying to procure more stuff than there is management capacity to buy or frankly, capacity in DE&S and elsewhere to deliver and so the way we have controlled spending in recent years is you move programmes to the right, delay so that literally to control cost. And it’s not unique to MOD, it’s typical of big capital projects. They cost taxpayers a lot of money but it’s a particular issue in defence, because if you delay programmes they become more expensive and question marks that come out about the future those programmes.

    And so one thing I want to see more of is by taking a joined up approach that is pan-defence, you are more likely to make your priorities based on the most important reason which is the threat we face and procuring in a joined up fashion. Okay, so a good example we’re currently working on our munitions plan for the munitions we purchase as a UK MOD over the next 10 years, particularly to replenish our stocks, following the significant gifting to Ukraine. The best way to do that is pan-defence. If we just said to the single services, what do you each need? We end up with an outcome that had a third, a third a third. But to me, that shouldn’t be the priority, the priority is the threats we face as a country and what we need to counter it and I’ll just finish on that point because we’re here to talk about autonomy.

    The best example of that joined up approach is drones actually. So we’ve actually had some fantastic, military entrepreneurs in the MOD we’ve seen within the frontline command some fantastic experimentalism. That has led to some really cutting edge capabilities in the uncrewed space, some of which has been used in Ukraine, as you’ll be aware of.  The problem is, once you take those to the next level, procuring those systems to become part of an integrated force that can be effective in battle, at that point, you do need to have a more integrated approach.

    We cannot just rely on the theory of 1,000 flowers that 1,000 flowers will bloom, as you will know, you have to have common data standards, the ability of your capabilities to talk to each other and to the other services. So that is a really good example of where we need to now move into a more joined up phase which was a key piece of the Uncrewed Strategy that I announced earlier this year.

    The second part is checks and balances. Now, first of all, that’s about oversight. So we will have a new Integrated Design Authority to oversee these changes to make sure they actually happen in reality, if the procurement comes forward, and the requirements don’t enable whatever that system is to talk to the other services, it would be scored negatively, it’d be returned to wherever it came from. I mean, that’s in a nutshell, but I think there’s a really key part checks and balance which is my view as Minister for Defence Procurement, which is that to be as diplomatic as I can, my experience with this past year is that when the requirements come forward to you, the Minister, when the programme comes up to be signed off, shall we say there was something of an expectation that it will be signed off. Whereas I take a slightly different view. And to me, the most important part of this second aspect of checks and balances is what I call the creation of a second opinion.

    Genuinely kicking the tyres on programs at the beginning. So that you ask the right questions and you get the right answer. Because there has been history, which is totally understandable, institutional, as in the UK defence I’m sure it is the same in other countries, in fact I know it is as I have discussed some of my colleagues and my counterparts in other countries, is this sort of what we call the platform presumption. We’ve got the mark five and after ten years we can have the mark six, seven, etc. But what if that’s not the right solution for the threat that we face?

    And so the second opinion… we are very luck in the MOD, we don’t just have the military. We have amazing scientists in the Dstl. We have DE&S with all their interface with industry, which is now being strengthened with something called the DE&S gateway. We basically have this repository of data and information that is extraordinary. And so I want to have a position where when that procurement begins, that big programme, you don’t just have the military assessment of the requirements that you need. You have the challenge of the other experts that we have in our institution, the Dstl and so on telling you how technically viable that is. So for example, that key question, should it actually be an uncrewed system? And this is not a minor subject of conversation.

    We’re talking about fundamentally questioning some assumptions about the capabilities that we presume we’ll probably be procuring in the future and I suspect the military evidence for wargaming from Ukraine, will show that increasingly we are going to be vulnerable, and that we need to do what other countries have started to do, I  have just seen that the the US has just announced they have cancelled a major programme and that would have been crewed and that will now be uncrewed, it was a major reconnaissance programme FARA.

    So the third point is about exportability to checks and balances all joins up with exportability, the FT covered this today, when I was talking to them really saw this as a standout feature, and I think that’s fair, because, again, going back to the first day of the job, you get your first submission, which is what the Civil Service give you as a piece of advice. And first one I had on procurement had about a sentence about exportability in fact, the letter to the Chief Secretary that went with it recommended to procure it. And awaiting my sign-off was that it it didn’t mention prospective benefits of exportability and I think this should be ingrained in acquisition from the beginning.

    And there’s two key reasons for that. The first one is what is the main problem at the moment in defence it’s the resilience of our supply chain, because we had great success with NLAW in Ukraine. We picked up the phone and said give us more of those, okay, if you’re willing to wait years. You’ve got to have that continuous maximum level of aggregate demand, right? Continuous supply chains. That’s why you need to drive exploitability but the other part of it is a bit subtle, but is really key in procurement. I’m always asked the hypothetical question, would your new approach have avoided the Ajax problems. Physically impossible to answer obviously, since we’re not in the period of having a time machine. Which is the if you if you have to consider international requirements, my view it is a good counterbalance to being that terrible phrase overly exquisite, ie having lots of very bespoke requirements. It doesn’t guarantee it  but it’s more likely that. There tends to be a vector between international demand and your ideal domestic UK production. And if you can minimise that, you’ve got a pretty good product because it means you get it into line with the UK and then export it to protect your supply chain.

    So the third point on exportability it is already something I’m pushing. So on the New Medium Helicopter procurement. We’ve got a strong weighting for exportability. The fourth point is about empowering industrial innovation. Now this is really where you guys particularly come in those from industry here something I’m keen to see much more often I hope you’ve been aware of this that we are doing more and more engagement in industry at a classified level.

    So the industry can understand our requirements much earlier in the process. And in turn, we can pick up the feedback from what’s happening in the real world. And I hope that what’s happening with all these people talking is very interesting. So I’ll give you a good example, the most uplifting experience I’ve had as a Minister for Defence Procurement was last October when I went see a UK company developing a drone being used in Ukraine. While I was there, they were receiving feedback from the frontline. And they were then spirally responding to that within days.

    Now when we used to have people coming in and saying Minister this thing is going to be delayed another 27 years or whatever. And you see that sort of spiral development in the flesh. It’s quite something to behold especially because the capability is highly effective and costs a tiny fraction of the thing I was talking about that’s going to be delayed many years, we start to really think about whether you’ve got the right approach for procurement and it is quite revolutionary what is happening.

    So I always have a situation where the UK industry feels close to MOD. It doesn’t mean close as in the bad way of being close it’s a really rich relationship based on this feedback with the data from the frontline  and from Ukraine and so on, and what is becoming possible what is becoming necessary and rapid development of products on the back of it.

    And the fifth and final one is about having spiral development by default. Spiral development wonderful phrase as the FT said to me yesterday, it’s actually really sort of very common place in the corporate world. The phrase is not commonplace in defence and that’s where the change needs to be made.

    What does it really mean? So we say well, if you want to go get 60 to 80% of your requirements instead 100%. Instead, of having IOC and FOC long standing ways of measuring your progress, we just want to add minimum deployable product. Basically, you measure the effectiveness of the product, the point at which it is able to be used, and I think that’s a really good way of measuring.

    So we talked about the military, I have got written answers and I look at them at them if this is crazy. That were my opponents asked me the IOC and FOC all of our programmes, and quite a few of them are in use. They’re being used and we’re saying they’ve only been achieved IOC if they’re being used by military but there’s quite a good example in our missile systems.

    And I think it just shows the point that that’s because we’re focusing on the perfect thing to achieve. Where we want to get into service quickly and spiral upgrade it. It does happen, but it’s not cultural. That’s the key point we want to become the cultural assumption in Defence because there will be programmes like nuclear submarines, which will not conform to this approach. By definition, they’ll still take many years, absolutely necessary. Highly unlikely so there is still going to be a big programme which is an exception sitting outside the norm but the fact is, from today through the new procurement model in defence, we have time limits – three years for software, five years for hardware.

    So I said in my speech to the House, on our Mobile Fires Platform which is our engineering artillery capability. It will be procured within five years, which in many ways didn’t sound that quick but it is as you all know compared to what’s gone on before on our major platforms etc.

    Just to say and so what does this mean for uncrewed and robotic systems and so on. And I think this approach I’m outlining is all about technology. We have this thing called the Equipment Plan. What I mean is we have 10-year programme, right, which everyone is focused on. And yet, we are told that the same time that we could be at war in two or three years, we’re in a pre-war environment. And we’re still focused on this platform iteration model. Well, we’re gonna get more ships. Now those ships will take nine years to build, but you know, we’re just gonna get more ships. That’s what we need to do for the country. Whereas to me, always have to do is why this is so important. And why you’re meeting today, we’ve got to focus increasingly on how you make your existing platforms and people and capabilities more lethal, more survivable.

    And also the platform you’re building out in the water and in the air, in a couple of years. That’s where the focus in my view needs to be. And if you do that, it is conceivable that some of the acquisition you presumed to be doing later in the Equipment Plan you believe to happen.

    Now I can appreciate this is not conventional thinking but that’s actually what’s happening in Ukraine. So it’s telling us we need to start focusing on what sort of weapons we can bring forward rapidly, what sort of weapon systems what sort of IT systems to support them. There will be capabilities we have today, which we will use if we were in conflict imminently where there are it upgrades, software AI, that will make them more lethal and more survivable.

    So I think to me, that’s a big part of the focus. That doesn’t mean you don’t still have the longer programs that take time to do that. It’s just again, where’s your cultural focus? Because I would put it to you now , where do we think the focus still is institutionally in defence? That’s a fair question. And I think that has to shift and it’s starting to shift.

    I will finish on this broader point about where to next move on uncrewed. I actually think this is an amazing opportunity. When people say to James, brilliant, it’s just, it’s never gonna happen in practice. Too good to be true. It is happening in practice. I talked about the drone company. There’s many other examples where we have SMEs who are coming forward with really cutting edge stuff and rapidly, particularly software companies. Obviously, this sort of approach is standard in software. Constant upgrade. We all know that sometimes it’s incredibly irritating, especially with a legacy laptop or IT system.

    But it is standard practice in much of industry and we need to adapt it into the culture and DNA of defence.

    We’re not talking just be clear about Urgent Operational Requirements. This is where you are literally not just on the cusp of more why situation you are preparing to go out to wherever and there are things you need to do to your vehicles to your kit, iterations that means you can withstand whatever that threat is. This is different to that. This is about having taking advantage of the pace of innovation that’s out there. The UK could have much more survivable and meaningful capability within a relatively small amount of time, cost-effectively, which should be stressed.

    So I think it’s incredibly exciting people that are involved in this industry. I think that we are on the cusp of a significant pivot to much greater use of uncrewed systems. I mean, it’s made me think that’s an obvious thing to say. Some debate on if uncrewed overhyped or underhyped. I have the privilege of knowing what’s happening in theatre, but also Just imagine what it could do, in the hands of a top tier military. The point I’m making is really developing cohesively integrated battlespace, it could do incredible things, it can add mass.

    My colleagues, my parliamentary colleagues will stand up in the House and they want us to commit to more ships more personnel, more aircraft etc. But how will the traditional platforms cope going forward?  Whereas we can bring out new drones, new ground effects and in particular in maritime relatively quickly, it’s already happening. We all know what’s happened in the Black Sea. That’s an incredible strategic victory for Ukraine, which is unfortunate, underplayed because of the coverage understandably for what is happening on land, but it is an incredible effect they’ve achieved as a country of UK we are very well placed literally the best placed country other than Ukraine to learn the lessons from what is happening in this very day and has been happening in that battle space in the uncrewed systems and you know, we need the maritime capability coalition with Norway we need the drone coalition with Latvia.

    This is learning lessons in real time. There is no better test lab than that. We as a country have got to take that opportunity to drive proper embracing of uncrewed systems and all standard systems, the stuff that goes with it dealing with electronic warfare, which is all pervading in Ukraine, as you all know, means that our armed forces can fight the fight that is going to happen today. And if we do that, I think we build prosperity for our industry and greater security for our people. Thank you very much for your time.

  • David Cameron – 2024 Speech on the Future Role of the NATO Alliance

    David Cameron – 2024 Speech on the Future Role of the NATO Alliance

    The speech made by David Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, on 3 April 2024.

    Great to be here, in this house that has many memories for me as you can imagine, when I think of all those European Councils, where I spent late nights and early mornings, and it’s very good to be back.

    Seventy five years. NATO is 75 years old. I am 57 years old. But I hope there’s more than just the symmetry of that that I bring to this discussion. I played my part in NATO’s development and am very proud I chaired the Cardiff Summit in 2014, when I think at that stage, just 3 countries met the 2% spending floor, not ceiling, floor, and now we’re in a situation where over 20 countries out of 32 meet that target and NATO is stronger.

    I always feel that NATO wasn’t something I had to learn about or understand: I grew up with it. I was born and brought up between Greenham Common, where the cruise missiles were stationed, and Aldermaston, where our nuclear programme was centred. The first countries I visited as an adult were the Soviet Union and Eastern Union. So I never needed reminding or understanding of the vital importance of NATO in our national life.

    And it’s been extraordinary, having supported it all through its quiet years – years in which some people whether it had a functioning brain – I never lost faith in NATO. I’ve always set the faith in NATO and it’s great to be celebrating its 75th anniversary. And the 75th anniversary when it is so much stronger today than it has been for years.

    And today of course, at the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting we welcomed Sweden for the first time as a full participant. And to bring 2 countries, Finland and Sweden, into NATO, both so highly capable militarily, so financially strong, so knowledgeable about the region, and their military obligations definitely makes NATO stronger.

    Why is NATO so successful? What is next for NATO? What will truly determine its success or failure in the years ahead?

    Why so successful? You’d have to back to 1948 and something Ernest Bevin said, he said: ‘decisions we take now will be vital to the future peace of the world’. That was absolutely prophetic and right. At the heart of NATO’s success is the incredible simplicity of Article Five: an attack on one is an attack on all is something all participants and all people could understand.

    And of course, it was combined with that sense when it was founded of a clear and growing threat. And Most of NATO’s life has had a clear threat; we certainly have that today. Its success is clearly based on its continued expansion.

    What is next for NATO? While it’s clear NATO is not a participant in the conflict in Ukraine, the outcome of that war what happens in Ukraine is, in my view, absolutely vital to the future of Ukraine, and that is why one of the reasons why Britain so strongly supports Ukraine struggle.

    I was meeting earlier with the Slovak Foreign Minister and I pointed out something that not a lot of people know, that my closest relative who was in politics, Duff Cooper, who resigned in 1938 because of the Munich Conference and the decision to dismember Czechoslovakia. To me what we face today is as simple as that. We have a tyrant in Europe who is trying to redraw borders by force. You can appease that approach or you can confront that approach, which is undoubtedly the right thing to do, to confront.

    And that is what we’re doing by giving Ukraine such strong support. I see with Ukraine 2 futures that are open to NATO, to Europe and countries like Britain: there is a future where we support Ukraine, where Putin does not win in Ukraine, where Ukraine recovers its territory and is capable of having a just peace.

    That future is an incredibly bright one for Britain, for Europe, for NATO – it’s a future where NATO will be strong, everyone will see the strength of its alliance, everyone will recognise Ukraine should be and will be a part of NATO, NATO’s capability will grow and people will see that we in the West are capable of standing up to a threat of this magnitude.

    But there is another future, for NATO, the West, Britain and that is one where we allow Ukraine to fail and Putin to succeed; and the celebrations will be held in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and North Korea. That is a very bleak future: not only because I believe other European countries would be at risk but I think all around the world people will look around and wonder how willing to stand up for our Allies, how reliable we were as an Ally.

    And even, the absolute key to NATO of Article 5, Allies in Europe will start looking at each other and wondering how much they can really trust each other, when they said they were going to stand up for each other and oppose aggression. I think the biggest test for European nations is this issue of Ukraine and that is why it is my number one priority as Foreign Secretary and something that this government is giving so much effort and thought and resources to.

    But of course it’s not the only threat and it’s not the only issue that NATO has to face in terms of what is next. we face an incredibly dangerous and difficult and disputation relational world with so many conflicts. We have the instability in the Middle East instability in Africa, more conflicts in Africa than perhaps we’ve had for the last 40 years.

    And of course, we had a timely reminder last week with the issue of Chinese, the cyber attacks on great hardware blocks, that we face threats, not only in terms of the Russian threat, but also the threat that we face, instability to our South and in the Indo-Pacific reaching into our own region. NATO has a role to play in addressing all of those threats. The UK is determined to support all the NATO strategies in dealing with those threats.

    The final point I wanted to make is, what will determine the success or failure of NATO? There are some simple, Treasury-like technical answers to that: success will depend on more and more countries reaching 2% or more countries seeing 2% as a floor and not a ceiling and we have seen such great progress there.

    A large part of the answer will be how capable NATO is of modernising all our armed forces and making sure their compatibility interoperability. A lot of NATO success will depend on when we make Ukraine a member, with its professional and capable armed forces.

    But I would say the biggest determinant of success or failure goes back to what I said at the start: I grew up believing in NATO because it had a relevance to my life. If you came of age politically in the 1980s, you could see the importance of the solidarity that NATO brought, you could see the importance of the strong defence that kept Europe and Britain safe. But can we actually say that, about future generations, you haven’t grown up with that knowledge but have grown up in a different situation?

    And I think we have to win the argument for NATO all over again with a new generation. A generation that can see yes, the threat from Russia. We need to go back to a foundational argument, which is this, that fundamentally the greatness of NATO is that it allows countries to choose their own future.

    When I looked at my colleagues from Latvia, Lithuania Estonia, when I look at Radek Sikorski from people whose countries who chose to join NATO after the fall of the Iron Curtain, NATO membership is really what gave them the ability to make a choice about the sort of country they would be and the values they would follow.

    That’s an incredibly strong values-based argument that a younger generation can understand and see. I just think the one figure to back it up: when the Iron Curtain fell, Poland recovered its ability to govern itself and its economy was 3 times the size of that of Belarus; today it’s 10 times the size.

    There’s no reason why Ukraine is so many times poorer than Poland, very similar countries, very similar parts of the world. It’s the ability NATO gives to allow countries to choose to be democracies, to choose to have rights and to choose to have the rule of law, to adopt an open-market trading system and form those sorts of relations with other countries.

    That’s the argument I think we need to make today and that is the argument that can help us to win all over again the backing for NATO, that it will need, as we ask our publics to fund and support the defence budgets and NATO budgets, as we ask NATO to do more, not just in supporting what we’re doing in UKR but also supporting what we need to do in a more unstable and more unsafe words.

    So I feel more confident as a 57 year-old supporting a 75 year-old that I’m backing a winner: it’s been a winner for 75 years, it’s been it’s been the most successful defensive alliance in the history of the world and if we back it financially, and back it in its expansion and also back it with values-based arguments, there’s no reason it won’t continue have another 75 years of extraordinary success.

  • David Smith – 2024 Witness Statement to the Post Office Horizon Inquiry

    David Smith – 2024 Witness Statement to the Post Office Horizon Inquiry

    The witness statement issued by David Smith, the former Managing Director of the Post Office, on 11 April 2024.

    Witness Statement (in .pdf format)

  • Keir Starmer – 2024 Statement on the Death of Doug Hoyle

    Keir Starmer – 2024 Statement on the Death of Doug Hoyle

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 7 April 2024.

    Lord Doug Hoyle was Labour through and through. A distinguished parliamentarian and a tenacious campaigner, serving as both as Member of Parliament for Nelson and Colne, and then Warrington.

    He was greatly respected, being elected as chair of the PLP, before being elevated to the House of Lords.

    A Trade Unionist, co-founder of Labour Friends of Israel and Warrington Wolves fanatic, he had a long standing commitment to the Town, but above everything, he was a family man.

    We will truly miss him. All of our thoughts are prayers are with Mr Speaker, Catherine, Emma and his family.

  • Claire Coutinho – 2024 Speech at Chatham House

    Claire Coutinho – 2024 Speech at Chatham House

    The speech made by Claire Coutinho, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, at Chatham House on 12 March 2024.

    As Secretary of State for Energy Security, it’s my job to make sure that here in Britain we can keep the lights on.

    Putin’s invasion of Ukraine sparked the most severe threat to European energy security since the 1970s.

    But Britain’s energy supplies held up.

    Not only did we keep the lights on at home, but we also pumped fuel to our allies in Europe as they weaned themselves off Russian gas.

    The UK banned Russian fossil fuels, making sure we were no longer contributing to Kremlin coffers.

    We have led the world in driving Putin out of our energy markets once and for all, and I continue to encourage our allies around the world to do the same.

    But, most importantly, we must never find ourselves in that position again.

    From my time in this role, it is clear that we have entered a new era.

    An era in which energy can be weaponised against us.

    An era where our adversaries can inflict harm on British families and businesses through energy prices.

    If we cannot protect families and businesses from the threat of future shocks, then we are not really secure.

    So, we must be hard-headed and realistic about the future of our energy system.

    We must put national interest over narrow ideology, and give time for the country to make the transition.

    And, more than anything, we must take the necessary steps to protect British families and businesses by keeping energy bills down.

    Because our country will only succeed in the decades ahead if we can source enough cheap and secure energy to power our nation.

    The people at the forefront of my mind when I do this job are those up and down the country who may be worried about turning on the heating.

    Or the small business who are worried about whether they can pay their staff.

    If people can’t afford the gas in their homes, or the fuel in their car, or their electricity bills, then even if we have enough supply, we are not secure.

    That’s why, in the last 2 years, the government has taken unprecedented steps to support people through the energy crisis.

    We spent over £100 billion protecting the economy and households across the country. The average household received £1,500 of support, halving their energy bill when the crisis was at its worst.

    We’ve given even more support to the most vulnerable households with our Winter Fuel Payments, Cost of Living payments and our home insulation programmes.

    We’ve eliminated the premium on pre-payment meters.

    We’re working with Ofgem to look at the fairness of standing charges.

    Our Pumpwatch scheme is making sure drivers will get a fair price at the pump.

    And we’re reforming the retail energy market to allow customers to benefit from the cheapest prices of the day which could save them up to £900 a year.

    But no-one can deny how hard the last few years have been.

    Whether it’s a business being unable to expand, or the tough choices that families have had to make at home – there has been a very human cost to the extreme prices that we have faced.

    But thankfully, we are turning a corner.

    From April, families will be paying their lowest prices for energy since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, with the average household bill set to fall by almost £250.

    But there is more to do if we want to make sure Britain’s energy is secure, reliable and crucially cheap, for decades to come.

    If we look back over the last 300 years, Britain has boomed because of our access to homegrown energy.

    The Industrial Revolution was made possible by British coal. Since the 1960s we’ve had North Sea oil and gas. And now, our windswept shorelines are increasingly powering Britain from Britain.

    But make no mistake, we are in a global race for energy.

    The growth in demand from emerging economies is soaring. In sub-Saharan Africa for example, there are 600 million people who have no access to electricity at all. That will change in the decades ahead and rightly so.

    In Asia, the construction of renewables and demand for fossil fuels is breaking new records.

    When it comes to energy and its supply chains, we need to be realistic about each source’s strengths and its weaknesses.

    The West cannot wean itself off Russian oil and gas, only to then be dependent on China for critical minerals.

    But Britain’s history, our expertise in energy, our geology, our infrastructure, our skills, mean that we have a competitive advantage.

    But we must not throw that away.

    That’s why we are doubling down on our offshore wind sector, which will provide us with cheap, clean, homegrown energy, replacing oil and gas as our North Sea reserves naturally decline.

    Our world-renowned Contracts for Difference auctions, introduced in 2014, weave together the [political content removed] principles of competition and enterprise to drive down costs for consumers.

    We have the first, the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth largest operational offshore wind farms anywhere in the world and we will go further thanks to our new auction round with the largest ever pot for renewables.

    But we also know that we will need a stable baseload beneath it, and that’s why I’ve announced the largest expansion to our nuclear programme in 70 years.

    Whether it’s large power plants, small modular reactors or the next generation of advanced modular reactors – we are building it.

    And we are being realistic about our need for oil and gas too.

    The Energy System Operator and even the Climate Change Committee acknowledge that in a net zero world, we’ll still need oil and gas for a significant amount of our energy.

    And that’s because it’s not absolute zero, it’s net zero.

    That’s why we need to be honest and pragmatic about what else our new energy system will need.

    A weather-dependent, renewables-based electricity grid means we will need to have flexible power for when the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine.

    Which is why we need to make the most of the main flexible power we have today: gas.

    There are no two ways about it. Without gas backing up renewables, we face the genuine prospect of blackouts.

    Other countries in recent years have been so threatened by supply constraints that they were forced back to coal.

    There are no easy solutions in energy, only trade-offs.

    If countries are forced to choose between net zero and keeping citizens safe and warm, believe me they’ll choose to keep the lights on.

    We will not let ourselves be put in that position.

    And so, as we continue to move towards clean energy, we must also be realistic.

    A renewables-based energy system needs backing up with power plants, which we can ramp up and ramp down when it isn’t windy or sunny enough.

    We are working hard to get new, cleaner technologies scaled up to deliver this flexible power. That might mean putting carbon capture technology on gas power plants or scaling up entirely new technologies like hydrogen gas-fired power when they are ready.

    We are doing everything we can to propel new and innovative designs to market, but we also acknowledge that we will need some tried-and-tested capacity until these kick in.

    For this brief window of time, that leaves us with unabated gas.

    Anyone who tells you that we can ‘just stop’ oil and gas is not just wrong, but naive.

    Imagine if we told people that we are going to shut down all petrol stations today because we think electric cars will be the norm in 2050. People would rightly tell us that we were insane. Their instincts would tell them that we cannot affect that kind of change overnight.

    And that’s true of our energy system too.

    Even the Climate Change Committee’s independent data finds that a power sector without unabated gas in 2035 would be, and I quote, “likely to increase costs and delivery risks”.

    And the Energy System Operator’s analysis suggests that a net zero power system will be achievable by 2035, but only with fossil fuels in reserve.

    We know that with around 15GW of gas due to come off system in the coming years we will need a minimum of 5GW of new power to remain secure. That might mean refurbishing existing power stations but will also mean new unabated gas power stations until the clean technology is ready.

    So, I say this to all our electricity generators here in the UK: renewables will play an ever-more critical role in powering Britain, but I will not risk our energy security by refusing to address the difficult short-term choices we need to make.

    The government will stand with you as you invest in building more gas power stations.

    And if investors are serious about reaching net zero without damaging the economy, or hiking bills for families, then they should stand with you too.

    There are two reasons why backing gas is not at odds with our world-leading net zero commitments.

    First, we expect all new gas power stations to be built net zero ready.

    That means companies must build power plants which are ready to connect to carbon capture technology or that can be changed to burn hydrogen instead of gas.

    This is not just a government expectation, it’s common sense for investors too, because they know that the government is serious about reaching net zero.

    But our position remains we must build these new power stations to ensure security of supply while the low carbon technology develops.

    And I fully believe that this country can be a global leader in CCUS. We have the right geology, the right infrastructure, and the right skills to be a world leader in carbon capture.

    That’s why the government is making a massive £20 billion commitment to this game-changing technology and why I am focusing on how to create a competitive CCUS market by 2035.

    Second, these gas power plants will run less frequently as unabated as we build more and more low-carbon generation and long-term storage.

    But while we are bringing other flexible sources online, we won’t take any risks.

    In the past 6 months we have been accused of rolling back on our net zero plans.

    So let me tackle this head-on: Britain is the poster child for net zero.

    We’ve halved our greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.

    Out of the top 20 largest economies in the world, nobody has done more than us.

    To give you an idea, the EU has cut emissions by only 30%, the US not at all, and China’s emissions are up by 300%.

    We’ve done that all whilst growing the economy and avoiding the riots and protests that we’ve seen abroad.

    And that last point is critical. There is no point in being world-leading in cutting emissions if your businesses end up moving abroad and your people are suffering from high energy costs.

    Frankly, there is no point in being world-leading at net zero, if nobody wants to follow your lead.

    That’s why we are putting investment first. Since 2010 we have seen £300 billion invested into green technology, creating jobs up and down the country.

    And in my past 6 months, I’ve delivered £30 billion of business investment into our energy revolution thanks to the negotiations and policies that we’ve put in place.

    And this is key.

    Global investors are choosing to back Britain.

    Britain’s story is one of endless innovation. We are perfectly placed to develop the technology and expertise to help developing nations with their own transitions.

    We have to be honest that this will be our biggest contribution to global climate change, more so than what happens with our own domestic emissions.

    Innovation, expertise and exports.

    That’s what the big energy economies, like the US, Canada, Norway, and Saudi Arabia are doing.

    I will make sure that whether it’s fusion energy, hydrogen or carbon capture we will both meet our net zero targets and that Britain will reap the reward for it.

    But we won’t reap the rewards if we’re not realistic about the time it will take to decarbonise our electricity grid.

    Our target to decarbonise the grid by 2035 has been set to allow time for first-of-a-kind technology to evolve, and for British supply chains to bloom.

    And that’s why just last week, the Chancellor announced that GIGA just got bigger.

    Our Green Industry Growth Accelerator now totals over £1 billion and will grow the supply chains for all the clean technologies that we need for the future.

    We are doing everything that we can to help our future technologies develop, with multi-billion-pound programmes, and capital allowances for clean investments in carbon capture, hydrogen, fusion energy and offshore wind.

    However, anybody sensible will tell you that these things take time.

    To pretend that you can do things overnight is a fundamentally dishonest position.

    Everything we do in energy must work to keep the cost of energy down whilst keeping the lights on.

    Yes, that means not taking chances with our energy system by ensuring it has everything it needs to remain resilient.

    And it means allowing the market to bring forward those next generation technologies that will strengthen our energy system and turn a profit for Britain so we can grow our economy.

    But it also means making sure our energy market prioritises the bill-payer.

    Bills are most peoples’ only experience of the energy system. It is through cost that people will judge our success, and that is why we are leaving no stone unturned to cut bills.

    This is what we must remember as we today launch the next step of our review of electricity market arrangements, or REMA.

    This is the biggest electricity market reform in a generation. It will mean cheaper bills, massive investment, energy security for decades, and cleaner energy as well.

    In this next round of consultation, we have kept zonal pricing on the table to explore it more thoroughly.

    This is a potential supply side reform which would encourage companies to build infrastructure closer to where energy is needed. It would mean our energy system would be smaller and more efficient, and less energy infrastructure would be needed overall – leading to lower costs for consumers.

    We’ve already seen it successfully used in other renewable energy powerhouses like Norway and Denmark.

    Alongside other options we are considering, it could mean £35 billion in savings over 20 years – that’s a saving of up to £45 every year for each household.

    But let’s be clear: every household, whether they are in Glasgow, Grimsby or Guildford, would benefit from market reform.

    This ambition – cutting bills for everyone – is exactly why we are keeping zonal pricing on the table.

    And that is why we are working hard to grasp the opportunities of renewables for consumers. With a smarter energy system, we can shave up to 11% off peak demand. It sounds technical, but that is a £50 billion opportunity for billpayers over the next 25 years.

    An electric car driver on the right tariff could charge overnight when electricity is cheapest, meaning that while they used to pay 17p per mile using petrol, they now pay 2p per mile. The same would apply to household energy bills.

    Our work on smart energy tariffs based on the cheapest price of energy in the day could save households up to £900 a year.

    And this will cut costs for businesses too.

    So, as we contemplate the challenges ahead, our strategy will follow common sense principles.

    Principles that reflect the reality that energy security is not just about having plentiful supplies, but affordable energy too.

    That Britain, with our history of energy expertise, is well placed to reap the rewards of creating the new energy technologies of the future if we manage that transition well.

    A hard-headed and realistic approach about our future energy system.

    Prioritising the national interest over narrow ideology.

    And taking the necessary steps to cut costs for families and businesses.

    That’s the approach I’ve outlined to you today.

    And that’s the way Britain will continue to lead the world towards a cleaner, cheaper and more secure future.