UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Andrew Adonis – 2021 Speech in the House of Lords on Genocide

    Andrew Adonis – 2021 Speech in the House of Lords on Genocide

    The speech made by Andrew Adonis (Lord Adonis) in the House of Lords on 23 February 2021.

    My Lords, my noble friend has just made an enormously powerful speech, and two points in particular will impress themselves on the House. The first is that the Government’s position in saying that it should be for the courts to decide whether a genocide is taking place but not giving them any powers even to offer an opinion on that fact is a recipe for inaction. It is a recipe for inaction in one of the worst causes imaginable because we are talking about genocide. It is a striking fact that, historically, the British Government have never declared a genocide to be in progress before it has been completed. We have to wrestle with the legacy of history. We did not do it in respect of Stalin; we did not do it in respect of Hitler. We have afterwards taught our children in schools about the horrors of genocide against the Jews and against many other races which those dictators and others carried through, so we should learn the lessons and seek to stop genocides in future.

    The second powerful point made by my noble friend is that part of the reason why we should go down the route which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has so convincingly laid out for us is not simply to reveal a genocide that is currently in progress—or may be; that is to be determined, but there is very good circumstantial evidence which should be tested and courts are good at doing so—but to limit the further extension of that atrocity while it is happening. We should do that rather than doing what may well happen, which is that in 20 or 30 years’ time, when people may talk about Xi Jinping in the same way as they talk about Stalin and Hitler, we ask: what are the lessons and why did we not learn them at the time?

    The course proposed today seems not only deeply moral but relevant in terms of our own capacity to avoid greater horrors and problems that we ourselves will have to face. The noble Lord referred to a red line that he has; we should be much more worried about the red wall which we face in respect of Xi Jinping. That will have to be addressed over time, and it is much better that we get the measure of it earlier rather than later. Surely the lesson from such dictators in the past is that there was a moment when it was possible to stand up to them and find a way through that did not involve extreme action. We could all look at it in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I had a good-natured exchange last time about what he sees as the great weakness of the Foreign Office. It has not always been weak. My great hero is Ernie Bevin because he stood up to Stalin after 1945 and we did not have to repeat the horrors of another full-scale war. There is plenty of combustible material in respect of China that could lead to war in future. We have only to look at what is going on in Hong Kong and Taiwan, let alone what is going on inside China itself. These matters are weighty. My noble friend said that some votes matter more than others. One reason for that is the consequences of action and inaction, and there is no bigger set of issues than those that we are addressing today.

    The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that the Minister, for whom we have a high regard, had been handed a poisoned chalice. We are very glad to see that he is still well on the Government Front Bench and will be in a condition to reply to this debate at the end. However—if I may use a Chinese analogy—in trying to persuade us not to agree to this amendment, what the Minister has done is offer us a very Chinese artefact: a paper tiger. He has made all kinds of imprecations as to what might happen if we agree to the amendment. Apparently, the constitution is going to be ripped up forthwith, which we are doing by the back door—what a large back door; an extraordinary number of people appear to be walking through it in remarkable unison. We were told that the amendment would somehow go against the wishes of the elected House. On the previous amendment, where the Minister told us not to be seduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, he said that there was a resounding majority in the other place, which was why we should not insist on it. Not only was the majority when the Commons voted on the first of these amendments only 15 but, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly said, there was not a vote on the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Alton; there was a resounding silence on it from the House of Commons. We should therefore resoundingly ask the House of Commons resoundingly to resolve its silence; that is our duty in respect of the amendment before us.

    On the second element of the paper tiger the Minister put forward, he said, in establishing his red line, that the Government would not agree to expand the jurisdiction of the courts to assess the existence of genocide. But we are a parliamentary democracy. It is not for the Government to say whether the courts should assess whether genocide has taken place. It is for Parliament to legislate on whether the courts should have that power.

    The Minister gave us a constitutional lecture on the separation of powers. It is not for the Government to tell the courts what they will and will not consider. That is for Parliament, making the law, to determine. It does not matter what the Government’s red line is; the issue is what Parliament’s red line is, and we do not know that yet, because the House of Commons has not had the opportunity to give its opinion. This House has given its opinion twice, which is unusual, since, normally, in ping-pong, we start to become faint-hearted and susceptible to the arguments about the role of this House and all that. Unusually, this House has had larger majorities as we have considered this matter again. I suspect there will be a very decisive majority at the end of this debate, too. I strongly urge all noble Lords who sympathise with the arguments, but are in doubt about what they should do, to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because that will ensure this has the best possible consideration by the House of Commons.

    I will make one final point about the red line and the red wall. The issues we face are extremely grave. If you read about the conversation between President Biden and President Xi Jinping, although there is a determination to have decent bilateral relationships, there is no clear meeting of minds between those two great powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly said, it would be disingenuous of Her Majesty’s Government to pretend that there in respect of the United Kingdom, too.

    Many noble Lords may read a thing called China Daily, which we have circulated free to us—the propaganda sheets of the Chinese Government. China Daily’s account of that conversation should leave one in no doubt about what Xi Jinping said. According to its interpretation, he said:

    “China hopes the US respects China’s core interests and cautiously deals with matters related to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Xinjiang, which are China’s domestic issues concerning the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

    On the opposite page, in a remarkable story headlined “Reporting the truth about China”, there is a whole series of assertions and lies about what is going on Xinjiang, including the claim that there are no events that are out of order taking place there, that the re-education camps are to improve the employment prospects of the Uighurs and nothing more, and that in the BBC facts have been “twisted” and the situation

    “has been angled to give a certain, preconceived message.”

    Of course, since we last debated this issue, the BBC has been banned from China and Hong Kong.

    That brings us back to the need to have a clear assessment of what is going on, attracting and weighing evidence. That is the fundamental purpose of this amendment. When this matter was last considered by the House of Commons—in the strange procedure that did not actually allow a vote to take place on the key issue—Greg Hands said:

    “Fundamentally, it is right and proper that Parliament takes a position on credible reports of genocide relating to proposed free trade agreements rather than, in effect, subcontracting responsibility to the courts to tell us what to think.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/21; col. 219.]

    Parliament is not subcontracting responsibility to the courts. On the contrary, it is asking eminent judicial figures and the courts to report on and expose the facts, so we know what is happening. Once those facts have been exposed, it is for Parliament and the Government to decide what action should follow. But we will not get that action unless we have the facts. This is a circular process: we need the facts; we need proper inquiry; we need measured judgments made on them just so that Ministers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, can make balanced judgments in due course.

    We do not want, in 20 or 30 years’ time, to have to spend time in our schools teaching our young people about the genocide in China in the 2020s that we did nothing to resist, involving what could be terrible consequences in terms of the relationships between the great powers, because we were not even prepared to consider whether a genocide was taking place.

  • Helena Kennedy – 2021 Speech in the House of Lords on Genocide

    Helena Kennedy – 2021 Speech in the House of Lords on Genocide

    The speech made by Helena Kennedy  in the House of Lords on 23 February 2021.

    My Lords, of course it is rare for this House to resist the opinion of the other place, and to do so again is deeply unusual—but there is a very good reason for doing so on this occasion, and we know what that reason is.

    Certainly, on the last occasion in the other place, we saw a regrettable piece of sharp practice, which has been described by others, where the powers that be knitted together two amendments from this House, thereby diminishing the Commons vote. I am sure there was a great deal of back-slapping about who invented that wheeze, but it was unworthy on a subject as serious as this.

    It is clear that there was, and remains, a huge clamour of voices, up and down this country and around other parts of the world, calling for this amendment to be passed—because it concerns an issue of profound moral obligation. We are signatories of the genocide convention and people of our word, and we are proud of this. It is worth remembering that we said, “Never again”.

    My father’s generation, which is probably that of the fathers of virtually everybody in this House, fought in the Second World War, and he came home from war battle-worn and haunted by what was revealed when the gates of Auschwitz and other camps opened, having seen the evidence of the barbarity that had been perpetrated. He and others like him of our parents’ generation asked themselves thereafter about the horrors and whether they could have been prevented if there had been greater activity, in the 1930s and the years of the war, around what was taking place. Was there a point at which the Nazis could have been stopped in their hellish determination to extinguish a whole people? I wonder what my father would say now.

    The genocide convention is about preventing atrocities, not waiting to count the bodies in mass graves to see if the tally is great enough—or waiting until the multiple crimes against humanity reach a level where, somehow, a bell rings. All the evidence received directing us to this most grievous of crimes points to genocide. You only have to hear the testimony of Uighur women, as I have, to register really deep alarm about them having children removed from them or being deracinated and stripped of their language, their culture, their religion and the family they love, placed in institutions a bit like borstals to whip them into line. You would also register alarm about them watching their husbands being taken off to forced labour camps or to disappear forever—and them being sterilised, prostituted and raped themselves. Their personal testimonies are so moving, and there is also the external photographic evidence of destroyed mosques and burial grounds. I have rehearsed that again —you have heard it before—because we must not forget what we are talking about here. The Uighur people are experiencing human degradation, torture and ways in which the human identity is taken from them.

    I listened as others spoke about the courts, and I want to clarify some things for the House. Of course, the International Court of Justice is the court for the determination of serious crimes of genocide. There are two international courts that can potentially deal with genocide: the International Court of Justice is where plaints are laid by one nation against another, which is different from the International Criminal Court. The problem with the former—which is the traditional court where matters of this gravity would be dealt with, when a nation is conducting itself in this way—is that, after World War II, a small group of nations were given special status on the Security Council, and they have special powers and can exercise a veto. China is one of those powers, and we know that it would veto any plaint laid against it at the International Court of Justice. I will make it clear: that route to justice is therefore blocked.

    The International Criminal Court should not be confused with that; it is where individuals are tried for grievous crimes, but the nation to which those individuals belong has to be a signatory to the Rome statute. China is not a signatory, so that route to justice is also blocked in relation to genocide. This turns us all into bystanders, and that is the problem.

    When asked to declare a genocide, our Government says, “This is not a matter for Parliament; we can have debates and committees about it, but it is a matter for a competent court.” Of course, that means that we do not act at all; it is a recipe for inaction, which is why today’s debate and those that have gone before—as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said—will come back if we do not decide today because most Members of Parliament, and many of the people up and country, feel that inaction in the face of genocide is not a position this nation can take.

    We have very competent courts, and there are few courts more competent than our higher courts. Creating a procedure which lets a court determine whether there is sufficient evidence is the line that I would be arguing for today, but we are forced to present an alternative because we are meeting such resistance from government.

    So we are looking for a compromise. The compromise presented to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is a principled one. It would create a judicial committee made up of the great judges who sit in this House. Their expertise would be drawn on in examining evidence and seeing whether it met legal thresholds. There is huge skill which we in the common law build up over years of experience as practitioners and then in the judiciary. It involves a particular kind of independence of mind that is inculcated over many years.

    Let me assure the House that it would not be a conviction if that committee made a determination. It would be making a determination of whether the evidence had reached the standard. It would not prevent a referral to the International Court of Justice, should a time come where that became possible—maybe my prayers will be answered, and the Security Council and the United Nations will be reformed, but I think that we will have to wait a while for that.

    The amendment would mean that our elected Parliament could make a decision that steps had to be taken by our Government. We have a whole range of possibilities as to what those steps might be such as the expulsion of ambassadorial staff or targeted sanctions. We now have Magnitsky law, where we can go after individuals, refusing them access to the assets that many of them have in Britain or imposing visa bans on their coming here. Such measures could be taken against Chinese party leaders, the governor of Xinjiang province, the superintendents of labour camps or the Minister of Justice or his equivalent. That move by this country to create Magnitsky law has led many others to do the same, including the European Union, Canada and the United States. Japan is now thinking of introducing targeted sanctions. We were in the lead in taking those steps and creating legal change to give teeth to international law. That is what we should do today by not sitting passively and allowing a genocide to take place.

    It has been suggested that the amendment interferes with our constitution. I remind this House of our many debates where we have discussed the constitutional arrangements in this country and delighted in the fact that, by having an unwritten constitution, we have the capacity to create change when change is needed and the flexibility that is not available to many who have entrenched constitutional arrangements. There is no inhibition on our making the changes that were suggested in the original amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

    We vote with frequency as Members of this House. It is an enormous privilege, as we always remind ourselves, to be in this House as people who are not elected. Our privilege should never be abused. However, some votes in Parliament have more meaning and weight than others because they say so much about our values and principles as a nation. They speak to the people that we are. I therefore urge noble Lords here and all those not in this House to vote for this amendment. It calls on courage, integrity and determination and will call upon them from Members of the Commons thereafter if we pass it. I strongly urge it, because this is one of those matters where we are being put to the test as to what we stand for. I urge noble Lords to vote for this amendment.

  • Liz Truss – 2021 Speech to the NFU

    Liz Truss – 2021 Speech to the NFU

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 23 February 2021.

    Thank you, Minette.

    It is great to be here to talk about the new doors this government is opening for farmers through free and fair trade.

    We all know that the last year has been hard, especially for our farmers and food producers, but we are also seeing the signs of new opportunities.

    Earlier this month, I virtually visited with my Board of Trade the Foyle Food Group, the largest single dedicated beef processor in the United Kingdom, which has spearheaded exports into the United States.

    Their recent shipment from Northern Ireland marked the first time we have been able to export UK beef there for over 20 years.

    Foyle now supplies high-quality British meat to leading retailers, restaurants and butchers across the world, from Japan to Canada.

    Such deals support the jobs of Foyle’s 1,300 staff and the over 5,000 farmers it works with.

    These are the sort of opportunities I want to see more British food and drink producers taking advantage of.

    And today I am going to talk about how we will make that happen.

    The fact is we have been held back for nearly fifty years by an anti-innovation approach that did not serve the interests of British farmers.

    We have had high tariff walls with the rest of the world, whether it be up to 26% on beef going to the American market, or a 150% tariff on Scotch Whisky to India.

    We have been held back by bans on our products, like the US lamb ban or India’s red tape around apples and pears.

    But now we have an opportunity as independent trading nation to set our own tariffs and to deal with these issues which have held us back.

    And We are seizing our freedom to deepen our trade worldwide from the Americas to the Asia-Pacific, where fast-growing economies are set to dominate global demand over the coming years.

    This is where the real opportunities lie for Britain and our farmers.

    As for our European neighbours, we were always clear that in leaving the European Union, there would be processes to be undertaken and, of course, the EU remains an important market.

    Both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Defra secretary are working to ensure these processes work.

    And from 1st March, Lord Frost will be leading on the UK’s relationship with the EU – and he is committed to resolving trade issues to make sure we have smooth access to that market.

    What we are also doing is preparing the ground for our farmers and food producers to capitalise on the global economy’s enormous untapped potential.

    By the end of this decade, 66% of the world’s middle-class consumers are expected to be found in Asia. And they are hungry for top-quality food and drink, where they know where that food comes from and how it was produced.

    We know that prices for lamb and beef are higher in Asia than Europe, and that the United States is the world’s second largest importer of both beef and lamb.

    I want our farmers and food producers to be able to seize these opportunities.

    I recently visited Saputo to see their Cathedral City and Davidstow cheese being produce, using Cornish and Devon milk and paying higher prices to local farmers.

    Their neighbours – Rodda’s clotted cream – is sold from Japan to Australia, and Welsh Lamb is sold across the Gulf in Qatar and the UAE.

    I want more farmers and food producers to be able to have these sorts of opportunities and go global.

    Embracing fast-growing markets will ensure we always have somewhere to sell our food and drink, will be resilient to any future economic shocks, and will help maximise the potential of our exports.

    Take our meat exports for example, which are worth nearly £2.1 billion last year. That number is catching up on the £3.5 billion per year paid in agricultural subsidies.

    We can make sure we use the whole animal and achieve “carcase” balance, as there are many cuts not popular in the UK but command high prices around the rest of the world.

    What I want to see is a long-term sustainable future for British farming, based on high standards, competitiveness, and productivity, which satiates the growing demand for our world-class produce.

    And by embracing free and fair trade, we can lead the world in food and drink and boost British farming like never before.

    Fundamentally, I believe that British food and drink has so much to offer.

    Our production standards are second to none – from food and animal welfare to the environment.

    Our produce is synonymous with quality, which is why farmers proudly put the Union Jack on their pack.

    And then is the Red Tractor mark, which assures consumers that high standards are followed from farm to fork. I saw how much that meant when visiting Somerset’s Wyke Farm, with NFU President Minette Batters.

    Their boss Richard Clothier is now seizing what he calls the “huge opportunities for British products”.

    The UK is already finding huge success in the global market, exporting nearly £24 billion in food in 2019.

    That year, our exports grew by over three times more to the rest of the world than they did to the EU.

    We exported £1.7 billion of dairy last year, and more red meat despite the challenges of Covid, as well as being Japan’s second biggest supplier of malt, which shows that Britain can lead in those high-value markets.

    We should be in the business of adding value – that will level up the country by supporting high-paid jobs for the more than four million people working in our food and drink industries.

    These jobs range from farmers across the UK to caterers, manufacturers, and retailers reliant on their produce.

    Altogether, there’s a contribution £120 billion to our economy. But there really is potential for so much more.

    We want it to take it to the next level by learning from the success of other great agricultural exporting nations.

    New Zealand shows what is possible. Its farmers now account for nearly 30% of the value in the world’s dairy market, despite producing less than 3% of the world’s milk.

    And there is no reason why we cannot match this sort of success. Our future lies in producing high-quality, high-value products with known provenance.

    This entire Government is absolutely committed to making this happen, from the PM down.

    Our farmers need access to new markets around the world. We know that exporting supports higher pay and more productive jobs, but at the moment only one in five of our food manufacturers export.

    We want to unleash the potential of many more businesses, which is why we are today announcing the “Open Doors” export campaign for British food and drink.

    As the PM has said, we want our farmers and food producers to be at the tip of our spear driving into new markets.

    We will work in lockstep with friends and partners like the NFU, the AHDB and the Food and Drink Federation to deliver tailored support on the ground for these farmers and food producers.

    They will have what they need to succeed through special masterclasses, mentoring and more.

    And we also have UK Export Finance unlocking funds to help farmers and producers invest in new facilities, processing plants or machinery.

    They provided £4.4 billion in support last year to British business and can cover exports with insurance so farmers and food producers can trade with confidence.

    That is why I say: now is time to grow your business through exporting now, earning more money to invest in jobs, communities, and your future.

    And we will do more to level up the UK by supporting farmers in every region and nation through our negotiations, from deepening access for Cornish dairy to recognising iconic products like Melton Mowbray pies or cutting tariffs on Scotch Whisky.

    By removing the barriers holding back our farmers, we will support jobs, improve productivity, and cement our position as global players in the marketplace.

    Because ultimately more trade means more higher-paying rural jobs and more prosperous rural communities.

    We will also seize the opportunity to do things differently as an independent trading nation. We will champion high standards and liberal rules of trade, rather than consign ourselves to decline through protectionism.

    I have already launched our new simpler and greener UK-led Global Tariff regime and negotiated deals with huge consumer markets like Japan, locking in more for our farmers than what we had before.

    My good friend George Eustice is showing our readiness to innovate with his consultation on gene editing. It looks at harnessing nature’s resources to help us better tackle the challenges of our age.

    This shows how important it is to embrace new ideas and techniques, rather than close ourselves off from progress.

    My department will continue to work alongside Defra to remove trade barriers, opening new doors worldwide.

    What we need now is for British farmers and food producers to step through those doors to take on the opportunities which are out there.

    British food is showing it can compete in global markets, and that freer trade plays to our strengths – which include our high production standards.

    However, what cannot be right is for our farmers to face unfair competition that undermines the high-standards way we produce food and drink.

    I want to be clear, we are not going to lower our food standards in any trade deal we sign. I will never sign a deal that is bad for British farming.

    We have a range of tools – from tariffs, to quotas to safeguards – to protect farmers from unfair competition.

    And we have kept the agriculture industry close to our negotiating approach through our Trade Advisory Group, which includes organisations like the NFU, like Cranswick, and through regular engagement with farmers and the devolved administrations.

    We also listened to the NFU by establishing the Trade and Agriculture Commission, ably led by the excellent Tim Smith.

    Next week, the Commission will produce its report showing the steps to take to be an innovative champion of high standards and free and fair trade, and help map the future of British farming.

    We have put the Trade Ag Com on a statutory footing to boost scrutiny of trade deals and put British farming at the heart of our trade agreements.

    We have put the Trade & Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing to boost scrutiny of trade deals and put British farming at the heart of our trade agreements.

    It will provide independent expertise when each free trade agreement is worked upon to make sure MPs are fully informed about what the trade deals deliver for farmers and food producers.

    I am unashamed to promote the brilliant food that we produce in Britain. I think we produce the best food and drink in the world, which is why I want it out there in key markets, served up in homes, restaurants and our own embassies from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

    In the past, British food and drink was too often the butt of jokes around the world, but now it is the top of everyone’s menu.

    That is thanks to all your hard work, your commitment to high standards and your openness to new ideas.

    So, let us embrace the opportunities of the future by reducing barriers to trade and flying the flag for high standards, quality and flavour.

    I do not just believe we can compete in the global market, I know we can compete and I know we can win.

    Together, let’s step through new doors and seize the golden opportunities that are out there.

    Thank you.

  • Alister Jack – 2021 Comments on Scottish Economic Figures

    Alister Jack – 2021 Comments on Scottish Economic Figures

    The comments made by Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 24 February 2021.

    Today’s figures reflect the challenges we continue to face as a result of this global pandemic.

    The UK Government has taken quick and decisive action to support jobs and businesses across all parts of the UK. Our £280 billion support package which includes furlough, business loans and self employed schemes have so far protected nearly one million jobs and 100,000 businesses in Scotland.

    This direct support is on top of £9.7 billion additional funding provided to the Scottish Government.

    We are also taking action to create new jobs and support economic recovery in Scotland. Investing billions as part of our Plan for Jobs, City and Region Deals, a new Shared Prosperity Fund and in the supply of vaccines which are important in lifting restrictions and reopening the economy.

    At the budget next week, the Chancellor will set out the next stage of our plan to support and create jobs in all corners of the UK.

  • Boris Johnson – 2021 Address to the UN Security Council on Climate and Security

    Boris Johnson – 2021 Address to the UN Security Council on Climate and Security

    The address made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 23 February 2021.

    For more than 75 years, this Security Council has been tasked with maintaining peace and security and it’s been difficult. We haven’t always agreed about how to achieve that goal.

    But one thing is absolutely clear to me: that we are committed to tackling threats to our security, and as you’ve heard from Antonio, and from Nisreen it is absolutely clear that climate change is a threat to our collective security and the security of our nations.

    And I know there are people around the world who will say this is all kind of “green stuff” from a bunch of tree-hugging tofu munchers and not suited to international diplomacy and international politics.

    I couldn’t disagree more profoundly.

    The causes of climate change we’ve got to address, but the effects as you’ve heard from Nisreen, and as you’ve heard from Antonio, in those speeches just now, are absolutely clear.

    Think of the young man forced onto the road when his home becomes a desert, one of 16 million people displaced every year as a result of weather-related disasters – weather-related disasters that are associated with climate change.

    He goes to some camp, he becomes prey for violent extremists, people who radicalise him and the effects of that radicalisation are felt around the world.

    “Think of the girl who drops out of school because her daily search for water takes her further and further from her family – and into the clutches of human traffickers and the international criminal gangs who profit from them.

    Or think of a farmer who has lost harvest after harvest to drought and then switches to poppies because poppies are a hardier crop, with the impacts that the opium crops have on the streets of all our cities, quite frankly.

    Or think of the impoverished and fragile nation whose government collapses when critical infrastructure is overwhelmed by increasingly frequent extreme weather – of a kind that sends shockwaves of instability around the world.

    Now if that kind of result, in terms of political, economic, humanitarian impact, if that was being triggered by some kind of despotic warlord or civil war, then nobody would question the right and the duty of this UN Security Council to act, and therefore this is not a subject we can shy away from.

    This isn’t by the way, like so many of the issues that I know you confront, Antonio, this isn’t some bafflingly complex diplomatic minuet, this isn’t some modern equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein question – can you remember the answer to the Schleswig-Holstein question, Antonio? I bet you can.

    People know the answer to climate change and they know how to tackle this crisis.

    And as Bill Gates put it in his new book, what we’ve got to do is go from 51 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year to net zero, so the increase in global temperatures remains at manageable levels. And as we do so we must support the most vulnerable and fragile nations that are feeling the effects of climate change, help them to adapt and to build resilience.

    And that’s what we’re doing. So last year [sic: 2019] we passed a law committing us, the UK, to achieving net zero carbon-emissions by 2050. And we’ve pledged to slash emissions by 68 per cent by 2030, that’s the steepest reduction for any major economy.

    Our climate finance commitments for the next five years, supporting the rest of the world to achieve this, stand at £11.6 billion. And, ahead of the COP26 summit we’re going to be putting climate change firmly at the top of the agenda for our G7 presidency as well.

    So my message to you all today is now the UN Security Council has got to act too.

    Because climate change is a geopolitical issue every bit as much as it is an environmental one. And if this Council is going to succeed in maintaining peace and security worldwide then it’s got to galvanise the whole range of UN agencies and organisations into a swift and effective response.

    “If we don’t act now, when will we act? That’s my question. When are we going to do something if we don’t act now?

    When changing sea levels are affecting our navigation around our coasts? Or when, as Nisreen said, when huddled masses fleeing drought or wildfire, or conflict over resources arrive at our borders?

    Whether you like it or not, it is a matter of when, not if, your country and your people will have to deal with the security impacts of climate change.

    So let’s do what this Council was created to do and let’s show the kind of global leadership that is needed to protect the peace, the security and the stability of our nations, of our regions and of our world.

    Thank you all very much.

  • Gavin Williamson – 2021 Comments on Catch-Up Education Funding

    Gavin Williamson – 2021 Comments on Catch-Up Education Funding

    The comments made by Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Education, on 24 February 2021.

    Our package of measures will deliver vital support to the children and young people who need it most, making sure everyone has the same opportunity to fulfil their potential no matter their background.

    I know that longer-term support over the length of this parliament will be vital to ensure children make up for lost learning. Our Education Recovery Commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, will be engaging with teachers, school and college leaders and families over the coming weeks and months to develop our longer term plans.

  • Boris Johnson – 2021 Comments on Catch-Up Education Funding

    Boris Johnson – 2021 Comments on Catch-Up Education Funding

    The comments made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 24 February 2021.

    Teachers and parents have done a heroic job with home schooling, but we know the classroom is the best place for our children to be.

    When schools re-open and face to face education resumes on 8 March, our next priority will be ensuring no child is left behind as a result of the learning they have lost over the past year.

    This extensive programme of catch-up funding will equip teachers with the tools and resources they need to support their pupils, and give children the opportunities they deserve to learn and fulfil their potential.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2021 Comments on Investment in Northern Ireland

    Brandon Lewis – 2021 Comments on Investment in Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 24 February 2021.

    I am absolutely delighted to sign the Heads of Terms for the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane City Deal. The UK Government has committed £105 million of capital funding to support and encourage economic development across the region, creating jobs, boosting opportunity and encouraging further inward investment.

    Today’s announcement is part of the UK Government’s commitment to developing and delivering a comprehensive and ambitious set of City Deals across Northern Ireland and delivering a stronger economy that works for everyone.

  • Jonathan Reynolds – 2021 Comments About Number of Universal Credit Claimants

    Jonathan Reynolds – 2021 Comments About Number of Universal Credit Claimants

    The comments made by Jonathan Reynolds, the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, on 23 February 2021.

    Britain is facing the worst economic crisis of any major economy because of this Government’s incompetence and indecision. As a result millions more families are struggling to get by on Universal Credit.

    Cutting Universal Credit by £20 a week – over £1,000 a year – will push children into poverty and leave out of work support is at its lowest level in decades at a time when unemployment is set to peak.

    Rishi Sunak must take action to secure our economy now by cancelling his economically illiterate cut to Universal Credit.

  • Chris Matheson – 2021 Comments on Boris Johnson’s Remarks About Journalists

    Chris Matheson – 2021 Comments on Boris Johnson’s Remarks About Journalists

    The comments made by Chris Matheson, the Shadow Media Minister, on 23 February 2021.

    For Boris Johnson to say journalists are ‘always abusing people’ probably says more about his own career.

    It is particularly troubling coming so soon after the Prime Minister stood by one of his ministers who attacked a journalist who was just trying to do her job.

    We know from Donald Trump that these kind of assaults on the free press are dangerous and designed to stir up distrust and division.

    Boris Johnson should withdraw these remarks and apologise.