Blog

Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2019 Press Release on Commitment to Peace in Kosovo

Below is a press release issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 31/10/2019.

Statement by David Clay, UK Political Coordinator at the UN, at the Security Council briefing on the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).

Thank you, Mr President.

I’d like to begin by thanking the Special Representative and his team for his statement and for their continued commitment to Kosovo’s developments, as laid out in the comprehensive reports on the activities of the UN’s mission in Kosovo. And I would also like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Ivica Dacic and Ambassador Vlora Citaku for their intervention this afternoon.

Mr President, we welcome the focus in the report on the government of Kosovo’s commitment to respecting human rights, ensuring equal access for minority communities, improving transparency and strengthening the rule of law. We take note of the progress made in this reporting period, including the reopening of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, efforts to standardise judicial practice across Kosovo, progress in the prosecution of war crimes, the return of displaced persons and the identification of missing persons, the adoption of child protection legislation and the the first report on respect for human rights.

There remains, however, more to do. We urge Kosovo to redouble its efforts to address the high level of corruption and organised crime and to work to strengthen its judicial system. We welcome the important work of UNMIK and EULEX to this end. As regards to the fight against crime, we agreed it is legitimate and necessary for the Kosovan police to operate across Kosovo, including in the northern municipalities in accordance with the law.

This council should welcome the arrests of individuals suspected of involvement in smuggling and organised crime, both Kosovo-Albanian and Kosovo-Serb, as was the case during the recent Kosovo police operation. But noting the concern expressed by the Special Representative regarding the arrest of two UNMIK officials during this operation, it is also important that international personnel carrying out their duties should be treated in accordance with international law, just as they must adhere to their mission’s mandates and codes of conduct. I welcome SRSG Tanin’s briefing this afternoon on the outcome of UNMIK’s internal view on this incident. We will consider these findings carefully.

Mr President, we welcome the progress made by the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office over the last few months. We urge Pristina, Belgrade and the members of this council to cooperate fully in the interest of achieving justice for victims. And we call on both Pristina and Belgrade to press ahead with domestic domestic prosecutions for historic crimes. The interests of all victims and their families must be at the centre of judicial proceedings. Efforts to locate missing persons and the provision of support to survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, regardless of their ethnicity.

We particularly welcome the joint declaration of representatives of religious groups in Kosovo in support of survivors of sexual violence. The United Kingdom is committed to supporting victims and preventing sexual violence in all its forms, as shown during Her Royal Highness the Countess of Wessex’s recent visit to Pristina, during which she focused on support for survivors from all communities.

With regard to the Kosovo elections on the 6th of October, we echo the European Union Election Observation Mission’s statement. The elections were calm and well administered and the Central Elections Commission worked with dedication, professionalism and transparency, although we continue to be concerned by reports on the level of pre-election intimidation in some Kosovo Serb areas. We have been following the reports of staff suffering ill health at the National Counting Centre. We await the outcome of the investigation. We must not allow this incident to sow suspicion and distrust.

Mr President, Kosovo has voted for change. We call on the party leaders to work diligently to form a new, stable government to tackle the pressing issues facing the country. The UK expects this new government to uphold and strengthen the rule of law, to improve inclusivity in a multi-ethnic state and to commit itself to strengthening regional security.

Dialogue with Belgrade must be a priority. We call on both Belgrade and Pristina to remove obstacles to its resumption. Pristina must remove tariffs and Belgrade must stop its de-recognition campaign. For dialogue to succeed, both sides must refrain from provocative rhetoric and actions. We welcome Kosovo’s completion of two more common crossing points, but we regret that the implementation of many other aspects of the Brussels agreements remain unaddressed by both parties. The people of Serbia and Kosovo have much to gain from the resumption of talks and a comprehensive, sustainable, implementable deal to their mutual and lasting benefit.

Mr President, the twentieth anniversary of the NATO intervention fell during this reporting period. This was an important moment for reflection. We remember the victims on all sides of this conflict and remind ourselves of the reasons for this intervention. We renew our commitment to building good, neighbourly relations so that peace can be safeguarded for future generations. The Kosovo of today is almost unrecognisable from the Kosovo media reported on across the world in 1999. We thank the members of this council, UNMIK staff, the European Union, NATO, the OSCE, K4, the Kosovo Special Prosecutor’s Office and, most importantly, the government and institutions of Kosovo for their ongoing pursuit of Kosovo’s progress and developments.

In closing, Mr President, the UK pays tribute to the work of the special representative and his team and we look forward to continuing to support them in their endeavors.

Thank you very much.

January 7, 2020
Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2019 Press Release on UK Security Council Presidency

Below is a press release issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 01/12/2019.

Press release as the UK takes over the presidency of the Security Council from South Africa on the 1 November 2019.

The UK will put ordinary citizens at the heart of its Presidency of the Security Council, as it takes over from South Africa as the President of the United Nations Security Council, today (1 November).

Key issues due to be discussed during the UK’s Presidency will include chemical weapons, Yemen, Syria, Somalia and Libya, and an open debate on reconciliation, which will include a focus on the role of civil society and religious leaders in reconciliation. In line with its focus on the importance of people, the UK will be inviting a number of members of civil society to brief the UN.

H.E. Karen Pierce DCMG, the Permanent Representative and Ambassador for the UK Mission to the United Nations in New York, said:

“During our Presidency, the UK wants to focus on the effect of problems in international peace and security on ordinary citizens. The issues before the Security Council include the targeting of hospitals, the use of chemical weapons and rape being used as a weapon of war. All too often the perpetrators walk free, and the leaders that let it happen remain in positions of power. We want to use our Presidency to promote practical steps to establish the facts of what is happening on the ground and address impunity, and highlight the costs of impunity, including the impact on millions of people around the world.

That’s why we will be giving a voice to those people affected by conflict, persecution and discrimination through those we invite to brief the Council. We will raise issues around the importance of respect for international law, religious persecution, attacks on media freedom and women, peace and security. We will also be looking at some of the components of sustainable solutions to conflict through our open debate on the role of the reconciliation processes and our support of the Rules Based International System with the UN at its heart.”

January 7, 2020
Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2019 Press Release on Co-operation Between UN and African Union

Below is a press release issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 01/11/2019.

Statement by Ambassador Jonathan Allen, UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, at the Security Council briefing on cooperation between the UN and regional organisations – African Union.

Madam President, the United Kingdom attaches great value to the role of the African Union (AU) in preventing and mediating and resolving conflicts on the African continent. And this is an important element not only of our collective work of the Security Council, but also of the United Kingdom’s own bilateral strategic partnership with the African Union.

We are proud to provide national support for African Union priorities in this area, including the Continental Early Warning System, electoral observation missions, peace support doctrine development and pre-deployment training for African troops and police contributing countries. And we very much commend the determination of United Nations Secretary-General and Chairperson of the African Union to reinforce the partnership between the UN and the AU on peace and security. And let me pay tribute, personally and specifically, to the valuable work of the UN office to the AU under the leadership of SRSG Tetteh, and of course, her counterpart here at the United Nations, Permanent Observer Fatima Mohammed, who both, I think, do excellent work for their organisations.

Madam President, the United Nations-African Union Partnership in Peacekeeping and in Peace Support Operations continues to develop. The United Kingdom supports, in principle, access to UN assessed contributions for future AU-led peace support operations on a case by case basis and subject to certain key conditions. A key consideration in any future council decision on this issue is the African Union’s own commitment to fund 25 percent of the costs of its own peace support operations. This is an important symbol of African determination to take ownership of African-led solutions to conflict on the continent. Robust financial reporting arrangements, clear joint planning and coordination structures and strong compliance frameworks for human rights compliance, international humanitarian law and conduct and discipline will also be key.

And may I at this point express my disappointment to find that posts dealing with just these issues in the UNSOM discussions this year were not supported by members of the Africa group in the Fifth Committee. So we encourage the Secretariat and the African Union Commission to continue their work on these important technical areas.

Madam President, at the Niamey meeting of the 8th of July, Member States agreed that detailed proposals for effective division of labour between the AU and African subregional organisations would be developed. We very much welcome this. An enhanced partnership between the United Nations, the African Union and sub-regional organisations will be crucial in supporting progress on issues such as continued implementation of the South Sudan Peace Agreement – and let me here echo the words of my colleagues about our visit to Juba this month under the leadership of the South African President of the Council and, of course, our American colleagues. I think we left Juba with a clear agreement that we needed to stick to the 12th of November timeline; that all parties needed to compromise for the good of the people of South Sudan; that the United Nations – and I think the African Union with it – the Security Council expressed their commitment to being part and to monitoring the implementation of any outstanding tasks after a transitional government were formed; and, of course, our determination to take action against spoilers.

Let me also say how important that partnership was in Sudan’s transition to civilian governance – and the African Union was strongly supported by this Council through the events of this summer – and, of course, for a sustainable political settlement in Somalia.

On Libya, I would welcome very much an increased African Union role on Libya, as we discussed when we were in Addis. And it’s extremely important, as our German colleague has pointed out, that the African Union is fully represented as part of a key part of the Berlin process. But I would also just highlight the key role that other regional organisations play, including, of course, the League of Arab States – and I’ve no doubt the Kuwaiti ambassador will be mentioning that – and the European Union for that matter.

Madam President, closer coordination between the United Nations, African Union and sub-regional organisations should also support earlier and more effective action to prevent slow burning political crises developing into conflicts, with each leveraging their comparative advantage. And I think this is entirely consistent with the summit with the African Union’s initiative to silence the guns by 2020 and the focus that the Secretary-General and indeed this Council has put on conflict prevention.

We particularly recommend greater collaboration on Cameroon, where inclusive discussion and follow-up on the recommendations the national dialogue are urgently needed to maintain momentum towards peace.

Close coordination between sub-regional actors, the African Union and the United Nations is also vital to resolve the political crisis in Burundi and make progress towards credible and inclusive elections in 2020.

Madam President, we and our colleagues on the African Union Peace and Security Council of course each have our own role to play in strengthening the UN-AU partnership on peace and security under chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. Our recent annual consultations in Addis Ababa but were a reminder of how valuable it is for us to discuss these issues and seek ways to leverage our comparative advantage.

And I can only agree with the Ambassador of Germany that it would be great to see even greater frankness, perhaps most importantly where we don’t agree, and a greater focus on actions that we can take together. So let me just say that I hope we can keep our channels of dialogue between our two councils open through the coming year, ensure that our consultations foster the development of even deeper and even more meaningful coordination and, of course, do more together to make a reality of peace on the continent of Africa.

I thank you, Madam President.

January 7, 2020
Foreign and Commonwealth Office – 2020 Press Release on Venezuela

Below is a press release issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 06/01/2020.

The UK continues to support Venezuelan interim constitutional President Guaidó and efforts toward a peaceful and democratic resolution to the crisis in Venezuela.

An FCO spokesperson said:

“The United Kingdom condemns the steps taken by the Maduro regime to forcibly block and frustrate the democratic process of the Venezuelan National Assembly on 5th January.

Their attempts to prevent the re-election of Juan Guaidó ignore the interests of both the country and its people, undermine respect for democratic institutions and principles, and the rule of law. The Assembly must be allowed to operate legally and to fulfil its responsibilities without fear or impediment.

The United Kingdom underlines its support for interim constitutional President Guaidó and his efforts to lead Venezuela towards a peaceful and democratic resolution of the appalling crisis the country is facing.”

January 7, 2020
David Steel – 1986 Speech on Libya

Below is the text of the speech made by David Steel, the then Leader of the Liberal Party, in the House of Commons on 16 April 1986.

No one can be in any doubt that the decision taken by the Prime Minister and her colleagues was very difficult. The argument that I wish to deploy is that, although it was very difficult, it was the wrong decision. In a sense, I am relieved that the briefings from the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday showed that there were senior Ministers who expressed doubts about the action that was taken and they included the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the chairman of the Conservative party and the Home Secretary.

The Leader of the Opposition quoted what the Secretary of State for Defence forecast with remarkable accuracy on his local radio station. Here I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. The Foreign Secretary said that he did not know of the decision when he met his European colleagues. That in itself is a comment on the way in which the decision was taken, and it will leave the Foreign Secretary extremely exposed among our European allies when he meets them in the future.

In arguing that the decision was wrong, the easiest way to come to that conclusion is to draw up a balance sheet of the gains and losses which have been incurred as a result of the action taken. The first loss is that a great many people were, unhappily, killed and that the act of revenge was out of proportion to the terrorist acts from which the United States suffered. It is a great mistake for the Prime Minister to slide, in her natural and right condemnation of Libya, into the assumption that all of the terrorist acts somehow have been inspired by Libya. Unhappily, that is not the case. They have come from other countries, too.

It is doubtful whether the action taken was legal under article 51 of the United Nations Charter. I do not think that there is much point in going on in a debate, but at best it is a narrow balance of argument. It is clear from the words used by the Prime Minister both yesterday and today that in giving her consent to the use of British bases she did not seek to limit the attack to military targets, but included the severe risks and results that we saw in the centre of Tripoli.

The second item on the debit side is, I believe, that the action has now exposed Britons both in Libya and Britain itself to further terrorist attacks. I think that the Prime Minister has misunderstood the nature of terrorism. Before you have a terrorist, you have to have a fanatic. In order to breed terrorism, you have to breed fanaticism. My great fear is that this action in the last 48 hours will breed more fanaticism, not just in Libya itself, but throughout the Middle East. That is a more accurate forecast.

Mr. Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)

With regard to breeding more terrorists, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could comment on the American action the week before in the gulf of Sirte when they crossed that line. Does he believe that that would breed more terrorism? Would he like to comment at some point on the comments made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who said that he would like to have seen British ships alongside the Americans, going across that line?

Mr. Steel

The hon. Member must not take out of context what my right hon. Friend has said. He has argued for the case to be taken to the United Nations and for collective action to be taken against Libya by the Western powers, and that is a view with which I agree. I shall return to the question of the gulf of Sirte in a moment.

The third item on the debit side is that we have angered our allies. This is a time when European unity is important. We have 11 fellow members of the European Community, and not one of them has supported the view that we have taken on this matter. Several of them are rather closer to the situation than we are.

I was at a meeting with the Italian Defence Minister, Mr. Spadolini, in Sicily when the fleet began the exercises which led to this attack. I know that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are aware that no one would doubt Mr. Spadolini’s commitment to the NATO Alliance, but, as a result of the stationing of NATO bases on Sicily, and throughout the mainland of Italy, the mood in Italy is nervous. They, unlike us, are in line and within target range of Libyan missiles, so the weight of European opinion is important in this matter.

The fourth casualty in this exercise has been the postponement, rather than the cancellation, of the meeting between Mr. Shultz and Mr. Shevardnadze. The Soviet Union is wrong in asserting that this attack was part of a strategy to torpedo the Geneva talks. This has been an inadvertent casualty of the whole peace process, and I hope that it will be resumed as soon as possible, and that the Foreign Secretary will lend his weight to the resumption of these important talks.

The fifth casualty on the debit side is the effect that it has had—

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose—

Mr. Steel

No, I shall not give way.

The fifth casualty is the effect that it has had in boosting Colonel Gaddafi’s position both internally and externally in the middle east. His 16–year-old reign in Libya has been a catalogue of misdeeds and malevolence. He is detested, and rightly so, by Westerner, Arab and African alike. He has invaded Chad, and tried to overthrow the neighbouring Government in Tunisia. He has meddled in Syria and Algeria and sponsored numerous acts of hijacking and terrorism, including the attempt to murder some leaders in Egypt. In Britain we too have suffered with the incident in St. James’s Square. Elsewhere in Europe, the terrorists that he has trained, sheltered and equipped have murdered Libyans in exile, and any foreigners who anger the colonel. The man is a menace, and is widely regarded as such. I fear that what this action has done is to boost his power, authority and status within his own country, and in the Arab world as a whole. All of this is on the debit side.

I come to the second point, which is the matter of the gulf of Sirte. These opinions that I give on Colonel Gaddafi’s status in the Arab world are not my own. During the Easter recess, I was in the Gulf States and every Government told me in relation to the action in the gulf of Sirte that surely we could have had more influence with the United States not to act unilaterally, that it would have the effect of boosting Colonel Gaddafi. That view must have been put to Vice-President Bush when he went round the same countries three days later. It appears that the United States has paid no attention to that particular argument.

When one looks at the fact that Jordan and Egypt are traditional friends, and have now joined in criticism of the action which we and the United States have taken, one must add all that together and then look at the credit side. The Prime Minister says that it will have helped to check terrorism. I am afraid that that must remain a hope, and not anything for which there is any evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, I think that there is every reason to believe that, far from stopping terrorism, this particular action will have boosted terrorism from Libya and elsewhere.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that it is not so long ago that he advocated bombing a very much less aggressive leader? Does he not remember Liberal policy to bomb Zimbabwe?

Mr. Steel

The hon. Member’s memory is faulty. Firstly, it was certainly not anything that I ever said and, secondly, the proposal was to damage the railway line carrying oil supplies across the desert.

The real argument which has been produced in favour of this action is that it has taught Colonel Gaddafi a lesson. That is undeniable. I believe the great powers, the great civilisations, do not enhance their reputation by giving vent to their frustrations in terrible acts of indiscriminate revenge, and that is how it is seen in the rest of the world.

There are three short lessons from this episode. Firstly, the United States Administration is right to complain of an inadequate European response to terrorism and to the acts of Libya. That is why I believe, and my party and our alliance believe, that the Government should take the evidence that they have both to the European Community and to the United Nations, and seek a collective response to Libya’s actions. Europe should act more unitedly, both against terrorism, and I believe, in the longer run, on the wider issues of the Middle East problem, on which Europe has done nothing since the days when Lord Carrington was chairman of the Council of Ministers. I think we ought to revise those initiatives.

The second lesson is that we ought to look at the arrangements for the use of American bases. The Attlee-Truman accord is very much out of date. It was never published, and it should now be revised, published and approved. If damage is not to be caused to the NATO Alliance, there must be no doubt as to the conditions under which American bases in this country are used. The Government made a severe error of judgment. I believe that the British people will share that view and that they would rather see a Government with a broader view of British interests in the world and a Government who will think that it is conceivable, occasionally, to say no to the occupant of the White House.

January 6, 2020
Neil Kinnock – 1986 Speech on Libya

Below is the text of the speech made by Neil Kinnock, the then Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 16 April 1986.

This House is united and firm in its view that terrorism is evil and cowardly and a completely unjustified and unjustifiable way of advancing any cause, whether it be political, religious, or any other cause. [Interruption.] The question before the House today, therefore, is not one of competitive loathing for Mu’ammar Gaddafi or any other supporter and sponsor of terrorism. It is not a question of who hates terrorism the most. The real question is not how we describe terrorism but what we do about it.

Faced by the terrorist menace which has emanated from Libya and many other countries over past years we must answer the question, what is the effective response to be made to terrorism and terrorists? The effective response is what today’s debate is and should be about, because it is the benchmark against which we have to judge the actions of the President of the United States and our own Prime Minister and because it is the only way to answer the question of where we and our allies, on both sides of the Atlantic, go from here. Therefore, we must judge the President and the Prime Minister on the effectiveness of the action which they have jointly taken.

The purpose of the bombing raid on Tripoli and Benghazi on Monday night was said by President Reagan to be to

“bring down the curtain on Gaddafi’s reign of terror.”

I do not believe that anyone can seriously believe that that objective has been or will be achieved by bombing. The use of such force does not punish terrorism. The use of such force will not prevent terrorism. Indeed, the use of such force is much more likely to provoke and expand terrorism. In any case, the strategy of using military force for the purpose of teaching Gaddafi a lesson is fundamentally flawed for, as the Daily Telegraph said this morning, it presumes

“a degree of rationality in Tripoli about cause and effect, which is palpably lacking”.

There are some who would say that the evidence—[Interruption.]

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Prime Minister was given a fair hearing. That is equally the right of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Kinnock

It was clear from the earliest seconds of my speech what the tactic was to be and I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will be the judge about that.

Some will say that a great deal of weight must be given to the evidence which has been made available to the Prime Minister and to some others in this House.

Mr. Onslow rose—

Mr. Kinnock

I shall give way in a moment.

It is important to give attention to the evidence, but I caution people who allow their judgment to turn solely on the evidence—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Kinnock

No one needs any convincing about the criminality of Gaddafi and those who put their whole weight of judgment on the evidence of a particular series of planned atrocities are in great danger of all falling into the trap of saying that where there is evidence the response must be bombing raids. There is great danger in that. If they do not say that when there is evidence available, they must tell us in which cases, in which countries and on what occasions the evidence is to be neglected and the bombing raids are not to take place. That response should not be undertaken.

Mr. Onslow rose—

Mr. Kinnock

I shall give way in a moment.

The other consideration is that those who put their complete faith in the evidence as a justification for military strikes are saying that where there is such evidence the considerations of international law can be put aside. We do not accept that at home, we do not accept it abroad. That is not a point of nicety; it is fundamental to realism in the conduct of international relations and it is fundamental to our moral and material strength in international relations.

Mr. Onslow

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for belatedly giving way. I have no desire to destroy his speech. [Interruption.] I am simply anxious that he should not mislead the House. Earlier he quoted some words, attributing their implication to President Reagan. The House and the right hon. Gentleman may like to know what those words should have been. President Reagan said:

“I have no illusion that tonight’s action will bring down the curtain on Gaddafi’s regime, but this mission, violent as it was, can bring closer a safer and more secure world for decent men and women.”

The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House.

Mr. Kinnock

I know what the President said, I know what he implied, and I also heard the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.] I also heard the right hon. Lady yesterday say that this action was about turning the tide of terrorism. No one can be in any doubt that the whole proposition of the action, as given by the Governments and understood by the people, is that by such a bombing strike such damage can be inflicted on Gaddafi as to stop him engaging in terrorism. No one doubts that.

The response that President Reagan can count on is the very opposite to what he intended. Gaddafi is without doubt a malignancy. No one can doubt his involvement in financing and sponsoring terrorism throughout the world. However, as a consequence of the actions of the United States in the past few days, Gaddafi has a degree of support even from moderate Arab states that have previously regarded him with unrestrained hostility.

By the same means and for the same reasons, the influence of the United States and of Great Britain has been diminished, and we have heard from our European and Commonwealth allies statements of condemnation that would have been unthinkable about our country a short time ago.

I suggest that reasons such as those explain why the strategy of using military force against terrorism has never been employed by British Governments that have had to deal with that evil epidemic in recent years. Out policy until now has been a national policy. It has been a restrained policy. It has been a thorough policy of diplomatic sanctions, tightened security, the best anti-terrorism forces in the world, a readiness to take action wherever terrorists are caught and cornered, and an uncompromising attitude that refuses to trade hostages or to make any concessions to terrorism.

That has been our policy, and that policy has always stopped short of responding to terrorism with the might of armed force, such as was involved in the American attack on Monday night. That has not been because we are supine or because we are passive. It has certainly not been because we have cringed before terrorism and it is certainly not because we have not been provoked. The sentencing of British subjects, the kidnapping of British citizens, the murdering on our own streets of a policewoman and of others—all obviously make our blood boil.

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kinnock

I will give way in a moment.

However, we have not struck back with bombers because, while we know that the first step may be relatively easy, all further steps into conflict and all further steps back from conflict produce impossible difficulties. That policy of rationality, restraint, and fierce antiterrorism is the right policy. It can be, and now should be, strengthened, especially in the case of Libya, which is known to he a haven for terrorists. We should and could have strong commercial and financial sanctions and I now believe that we have an unprecedented opportunity to make those effective against Mu’ammar Gaddafi.

I believe that we can take that opportunity, because Libya is a country 80 per cent. dependent for its resources, and 100 per cent. dependent under its leadership, on oil, and with oil prices plummeting Gaddafi will be looking for credits. Those credits can and must be denied him until such time as the pressure of commercial, economic, financial, diplomatic and political sanctions squeezes the very life out of the Gaddafi regime. That is the way to do it. [HON. MEMBERS:”Hear, hear.”] That is the practical course. That is the effective course. That is the way to isolate Gaddafi. It is the best means of punishment and prevention of that evil. That is the way we should go from here.

The Prime Minister has declined economic sanctions in the past. Frankly, that reluctance to use economic sanctions is not becoming in a Government who on Monday were prepared to use this country as a base for bombers and to condone the use of those bombers.

Of course, the task of securing comprehensive economic and other sanctions has now been made much more difficult by the decision of the Prime Minister to be a compliant accomplice rather than a candid ally of the United States President. The right hon. Lady has not shown solidarity with our ally; she has shown subservience to the United States President. She was, as the Financial Times pointed out this morning,

“wrong to give in to US pressure on this occasion.”

She was wrong—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a very important debate and the whole House—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is not even in the House.

Mr. Kinnock

The Prime Minister was wrong to believe that the F1l l s were necessary for the operation or capable of reducing the casualties. She was wrong to depart from the common sense and legality of the British policy against terrorism as her Government and other Governments have operated it. She was wrong to neglect the impact that this action and her complicity in it would have on opinion among moderate Arab leaders She was wrong to disregard the reservations of our European allies.

Whatever plaudits the right hon. Lady’s deference to the President of the United States may bring her in America, they will not be echoed on this side of the Atlantic. In this continent—and especially in a generation older than mine—we know that the achievement and maintenance of liberty sometimes requires great sacrifice and death. But we also know that it is foolhardy to start something that by its very definition cannot be properly finished.

There cannot be any hon. Member—

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley) rose—

Mr. Kinnock

There cannot be any hon. Member in this House, or anyone in the country, who does not understand the frustration and resentment of the American President and people at the goading and attacks of terrorists. All of us, if we are honest with ourselves, are completely familiar with the instinct of revenge. Every one of us knows that lust for reprisal that we feel when we hear of assassination and bombings and, still more, when we see the bodies of children and old people shattered as a consequence of terrorist atrocities. Every instinct rages against it.

Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Kinnock

But we know, too, that the world simply cannot be run on the basis of such instincts. We know that an international strategy cannot be built on such instincts, and, much as we comprehend the sense of outrage, we cannot support the calculated reprisals that arise from that outrage.

Mr. Heseltine

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any reason to suppose that there is an historic precedent for the belief that economic sanctions would work, or that they would achieve the reductions in terrorism of which Mr. Gaddafi is so patently guilty?

Mr. Kinnock

I need not persuade President Reagan of that, for he is the most avid practitioner of economic sanctions against a series of Governments. I am sure that we could gain the ready acquiescence of the President to a comprehensive strategy of sanctions against Libya.

Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Favell rose—

Mr. Kinnock

With reference to the right hon. Gentleman’s precise point, as I deliberately said earlier, Libya, with its great dependence on oil, and only oil, as its source of revenue and as Gaddafi’s base for power, is uniquely positioned for the implementation of comprehensive international sanctions.

Mr. Favell rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must sit down when the Leader of the Opposition fails to give way.

Mr. Kinnock

It is obvious that the case for sanctions goes way beyond the House and any affiliation that the Labour party may have. Yesterday, I listened to a most persuasive interview given by Sir Anthony Parsons, a former adviser to the Prime Minister, who recommended precisely that course of sanctions as the most directly appropriate to the present circumstances.

The right hon. Lady was wrong to give support for the actions of reprisal that arose from the instincts of rage and outrage of the American President. That is not merely our view; it is the view of international law. The Prime Minister gave us her interpretation of international law and of self-defence yesterday, and she repeated it today. We have listened and we are not convinced. Much as the Prime Minister clearly believes in her interpretation, she can find no recognised authority outside the immediate ranks of the Conservative party to support her view of international law.

In the past 24 hours, we have heard from scholars of international law, from the lawyers who plead in the international courts, from the specialist political analysts and from experienced diplomats who have dealt with questions of international law throughout their professional lives. None of them upholds the right hon. Lady’s view of international law.

There are, of course, people who now say that international law as it is presently conceived was intended for a different age and that the age of terrorism means that the law must be stretched to embrace new sets of circumstances. I counsel against that, not from any reluctance to act directly against terrorism, but simply because of the impracticality of hitting back at terrorism with military force and because of the inhumanity which results from killing and maiming the innocent neighbours of terrorists.

I am not alone in that view. At the beginning of this week, the Secretary of State for Defence told the listeners of Radio Clyde:

“My colleagues and I are very dubious as to whether a military strike is the best way of doing this. It is liable to hit the wrong people. It creates other tensions in the area.”

No one could have put it better than that.

We need only ask ourselves, “Where are the modern terrorists?” They are found in their hideaways in the farms, villages and tenements of Ireland, Beirut, the Punjab and even some of the cosiest suburbs of European cities. They are scattered throughout the people, and that is what makes the idea of retribution by mass military force so impractical and such a dangerous course for future action.

If we set our hand to a strategy of reprisals, it will provoke, not prevent, terrorism and any subsequent pause in such a strategy of reprisal would be seen as irresolution and weakness by the terrorists and would encourage them to commit further atrocities. If we pursued the strategy of reprisal, we should be caught in a trap of either doing too much or never doing enough. We could never get such a strategy right. It is not a strategy; it is a snare. British Governments have long known that, and that is why they have avoided such snares.

I strongly urge the right hon. Lady to resume that course of common sense and legality. There is only one policy that she can effectively pursue now. She can return to our European allies and partners and urge them to adopt the comprehensive sanctions that are essential to the isolation of Gaddafi. I know that that is very difficult. It will be especially difficult because the Prime Minister has a Foreign Secretary who, at the same time as he was agreeing in The Hague on Monday a communiquÉ which urged “restraint on all sides”, knew that the Americans had already unleashed their dogs of war. The reaction of allies such as Leo Tindemans, Bettino Craxi, the Germans and the French testifies to that difficulty. The fact that it will be difficult does not mean that it will be impossible.

The right hon. Lady can repair the damage which she has caused, and if she pursues that course of securing combined and co-ordinated sanctions she will have strong support. It is essential that she makes that change, for she has not been strong, she has been supine, in her support for the American President. She has not acted in the interests of Britain. She has caused us to be more isolated from our allies and she has damaged our long-standing and wise anti-terrorist policy. She has not defended British citizens; she has put them in greater jeopardy. That is why the Prime Minister’s policy has been and will be rejected by the British people. They know that she can have neither justice nor effectiveness on her side. They know that her might is not right.

January 6, 2020
Margaret Thatcher – 1986 Statement on Libya

Below is the text of the statement made by Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 16 April 1986.

My statement yesterday explained the Government’s decision to support the United States military action, taken in self-defence, against terrorist targets in Libya.

Of course, when we took our decison we were aware of the wider issues and of people’s fears. Terrorism attacks free societies and plays on those fears. If those tactics succeed, terrorism saps the will of free peoples to resist.

We have heard some of those arguments in this country: “Don’t associate ourselves with the United States,” some say; “Don’t support them in fighting back; we may expose ourselves to more attacks,” say others.

Terrorism has to be defeated; it cannot be tolerated or side-stepped. When other ways and other methods have failed—I am the first to wish that they had succeeded—it is right that the terrorist should know that firm steps will be taken to deter him from attacking either other peoples or his own people who have taken refuge in countries that are free.

Before dealing with that central issue, and the evidence that we have of Libyan involvement, I wish to report to the House on the present position, as far as we know it. There have been reports of gunfire in Tripoli this lunchtime, but we have no further firm information.

The United States’ action was conducted against five specific targets directly connected with terrorism. It will, of course, he for the United States Government to publish their assessment of the results. However, we now know that there were a number of civilian casualties, some of them children. It is reported that they included members of Colonel Gaddafi’s own family.

The casualties are, of course, a matter of great sorrow. We also remember with sadness all those men, women and children who have lost their lives as a result of terrorist acts over the years—so many of them performed at the Libyan Government’s behest.

We have no reports of British casualties as a result of the American action or of any subsequent incidents involving British citizens in Libya. I understand that telephone lines to Libya are open and that people in the United Kingdom have been able to contact their relatives there.

As I told the House yesterday, since May 1984 we have had to advise British citizens choosing to live and work in Libya that they do so on their own responsibility and at their own risk. Our consul in the British interests section of the Italian embassy has been and will remain in close touch with representatives of the British community to advise them on the best course of action.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

The right hon. Lady referred to the killing of innocent children and then to terrorist attacks on innocent people in various parts of the world. I think that she and I may have been brought up in the same Christian tradition. Does she remember that two wrongs do not make a right?

The Prime Minister

Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have realised that I was trying to tackle that argument in part, when I said that terrorism thrives on a free society. The terrorist uses the feelings in a free society to sap the will of civilisation to resist. If the terrorist succeeds, he has won and the whole of free society has lost.

We are most grateful for the work of the Italian authorities, as our protecting power, on behalf of the British community in Libya.

In this country, we have to be alert to the possibility of further terrorist attacks—so, too, do our British communities abroad. Our security precautions have been heightened, but it is, of course, the technique of the terrorist not just to choose obvious targets. Members of the public should therefore be ready to report to the police anything suspicious that attracts their attention. We have also taken steps to defend our interests overseas, seeking from foreign Governments enhanced protection for British embassies and communities.

The United Nations Security Council met twice yesterday and resumes today. With some significant exceptions, first international reactions have been critical, even to this carefully limited use of force in self-defence, but I believe that we can be pretty certain that some of the routine denunciations conceal a rather different view in reality.

Concern has been expressed about the effects of this event on relations between East and West. The United States informed the Soviet Union that it had conclusive evidence of Libyan involvement in terrorist activities, including the Berlin bomb, that limited military action was being taken and that it was in no way directed against the Soviet Union.
We now hear that Mr. Shevardnadze has postponed his meeting with Mr. Shultz planned for next month. I must say that that looks to me rather like a ritual gesture. If the Soviet Union is really interested in arms control it will resume senior ministerial contacts before long.

Right hon. and hon. Members have asked me about the evidence that the Libyan Government are involved in terrorist attacks against the United States and other Western countries. Much of this derives, of course, from secret intelligence. As I explained to the House yesterday, it is necessary to be extremely careful about publishing detailed material of this kind. To do so can jeopardise sources on which we continue to rely for timely and vital information.

I can, however, assure the House that the Government are satisfied from the evidence that Libya bears a wide and heavy responsibility for acts of terrorism. For example, there is evidence showing that, on 25 March, a week before the recent Berlin bombing, instructions were sent from Tripoli to the Libyan people’s bureau in East Berlin to conduct a terrorist attack against the Americans. On 4 April the Libyan people’s bureau alerted Tripoli that the attack would be carried out the following morning. On 5 April the bureau reported to Tripoli that the operation had been carried out successfully. As the House will recall, the bomb which killed two people and injured 230 had exploded in the early hours of that same morning.

This country too is among the many that have suffered from Libyan terrorism. We shall not forget the tragic murder of WPC Fletcher by shots fired from the Libyan people’s bureau in London just two years ago tomorrow. It is also beyond doubt that Libya provides the Provisional IRA with money and weapons. The major find of arms in Sligo and Roscommon in the Irish Republic on 26 January, the largest ever on the island, included rifles and ammunition from Libya.

There is recent evidence of Libyan support for terrorism in a number of other countries. For instance, only three weeks ago intelligence uncovered a plot to attack with a bomb civilians queueing for visas at the American embassy in Paris. It was foiled and many lives must have been saved. France subsequently expelled two members of the Libyan people’s bureau in Paris for their involvement.

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

My right hon. Friend mentioned the considerable arms find by the Garda in County Sligo. Does she recall that they also unearthed a very large supply of small arms ammunition in boxes with Libyan army markings?

The Prime Minister

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do recall that piece of evidence.

On 6 April an attempt to attack the United States embassy in Beirut, which we know to have been undertaken on Libyan Government instructions, failed when the rocket exploded on launch.

It is equally clear that Libya was planning yet more attacks. The Americans have evidence that United States citizens are being followed and American embassies watched by Libyan intelligence agents in a number of countries across the world. In Africa alone, there is intelligence of Libyan preparations for attacks on American facilities in no fewer than 10 countries.

There is other specific evidence of Libyan involvement in past acts of terrorism, and in plans for future acts of terrorism, but I cannot give details because that would endanger lives and make it more difficult to apprehend the terrorists. We also have evidence that the Libyans sometimes chose to operate by using other middle east terrorist groups.
But we need not rely on intelligence alone because Colonel Gaddafi openly speaks of his objectives. I shall give just one instance. In a speech at the Wheelus base in Libya in June 1984, he said:

“We are capable of exporting terrorism to the heart of America. We are also capable of physical liquidation and destruction and arson inside America.”

There are many other examples.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I am grateful to the. Prime Minister for giving way. Why is she prepared to support United States aggression against Libya but is not prepared to support United States economic sanctions against Libya?

The Prime Minister

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself in patience, I shall come to that.

Yesterday, many hon. Members referred to the need to give priority to measures other than military, but the sad fact is that neither international condemnation nor peaceful pressure over the years has deterred Libya from promoting and carrying out acts of terrorism.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby) rose—

The Prime Minister

No, I must carry on at the moment. I am on a new point about non-military measures about which I have been asked, and I must proceed through this evidence carefully.

In 1981 the United States closed the Libyan people’s bureau in Washington and took measures to limit trade with Libya. Later, in January this year, the United States Government announced a series of economic measures against Libya. They sought the support of other Western countries. We took the view, together with our European partners, that economic sanctions work only if every country applies them. Alas, that was not going to happen with Libya.

In April 1984 we took our own measures. We closed the Libyan people’s bureau in London and broke diplomatic relations with Libya. We imposed a strict visa regime on Libyans coming to this country and we banned new contracts for the supply of defence equipment and we severely limited Export Credits Guarantee Department credit for other trade.

Over the years, there have been many international declarations against terrorism, for example, by the economic summit under British chairmanship in London in June 1984; by the European Council in Dublin in December 1984; and finally by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1985. All those meetings adopted resolutions condemning terrorism and calling for greater international co-operation against it.

Indeed, the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly unequivocally condemns as criminal all acts, methods and practices of terrorism. It calls upon all states, in accordance with international law, to refrain from organising, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other States. After the Achille Lauro incident, the Security Council issued a statement condemning terrorism in all its forms everywhere.

But while resolutions and condemnation issued from those cities, in others more terrible events—bombings, hijackings and kidnappings—were happening or were being planned. They are still being planned.

It was against that remorseless background of terrorist atrocities, and against the background of the restrained peaceful response, that the case for military action under the inherent right of self-defence to deter planned Libyan terrorist attacks against American targets was raised.

President Reagan informed me last week that the United States intended to take such action. He sought our support. Under the consultation arrangements which have continued under successive Governments for over 30 years, he also sought our agreement to the use of United States aircraft based in this country. Hon. Members will know that our agreement was necessary.

In the exchanges which followed, I raised a number of questions and concerns. I concentrated on the principle of self-defence, recognised in article 51 of the United Nations charter, and the consequent need to limit the action and to relate the selection of targets clearly to terrorism.

There were of course risks in what was proposed. Many of them have been raised in the House and elsewhere since the action took place. I pondered them deeply with the Ministers most closely concerned, for decisions like this are never easy. We also considered the wider implications, including our relations with other countries, and we had to weigh the importance for this country’s security of our Alliance with the United States and the American role in the defence of Europe.

As I told the House yesterday, I replied to the President that we would support action directed against specific Libyan targets demonstrably involved in the conduct and support of terrorist activities; further, that if the President concluded that it was necessary, we would agree to the deployment of United States aircraft from bases in the United Kingdom for that specific purpose.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir.

The President responded that the operation would be limited to clearly defined targets related to terrorism, and that every effort would be made to minimise collateral damage. He made it clear that, for the reasons I indicated yesterday, he regarded the use of F111 aircraft from bases in the United Kingdom as essential. There are, I understand, no other F111s stationed in Europe. Had we refused permission for the use of those aircraft, the United States operation would still have taken place; but more lives would probably have been lost, both on the ground and in the air.

It has been suggested that, as a result of further Libyan terrorism, the United States might feel constrained to act again. I earnestly hope that such a contingency will not arise. But in my exchanges with the President, I reserved the position of the United Kingdom on any question of further action which might be more general or less clearly directed against terrorism.

Mr. Faulds

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

The Prime Minister

No. This point is particularly important.

Moreover, it is clearly understood between President Reagan and myself that, if there were any question of using United States aircraft based in this country in a further action, that would be the subject of a new approach to the United Kingdom under the joint consultation arrangements.

Many hon. Members have questioned whether the United States action will be effective in stopping terrorism—

Mr. Faulds

Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?

The Prime Minister

Many hon. Members—

Mr. Faulds rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must resume his seat if the Prime Minister does not give way.

The Prime Minister

Many hon. Members have questioned whether the United States action will be effective in stopping terrorism or will instead have the effect of quickening the cycle of violence in the middle east.

Let us remember that the violence began long ago. It has already taken a great many lives. It has not been so much a cycle of violence as a one-sided campaign of killing and maiming by ruthless terrorists, many with close connections with Libya. The response of the countries whose citizens have been attacked has not so far stopped that campaign.

Mr. Wareing

Will the Prime Minister give way on that point?

The Prime Minister

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later. Please may I continue with this point?

Mr. Faulds

Why not give way to me?

The Prime Minister

Indeed, one has to ask whether it has not been the failure to act in self-defence that has encouraged state-sponsored terrorism. Firm and decisive action may make those who continue to practise terrorism as a policy think again. I give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing).

Mr. Wareing

Would the Prime Minister agree that if her argument is correct we should all be feeling very much safer? Can she therefore explain why, for the first time since the early days of my election to the House, I was asked this morning—as all hon. Members have been asked—for my pass and my car was searched in order to ensure our safety? Am I to feel safe now as a result of this attack?

The Prime Minister

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would see the wisdom of taking heightened precautions. It would have been folly not to do so.

It has also been suggested that the United States action will only build up Colonel Gaddafi’s prestige and support in the Arab world. In the very short term, one must expect statements of support for Libya from other Arab countries—although one is entitled to ask how profound or durable that support will be. But moderate Arab Governments, indeed moderate Governments everywhere, have nothing to gain from seeing Colonel Gaddafi build up power and influence by persisting in policies of violence and terror.

Their interest, like ours, lies in seeing the problems of the middle east solved by peaceful negotiation, a negotiation whose chances of success will be much enhanced if terrorism can be defeated.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) rose—

The Prime Minister

I shall not give way now.

Let me emphasise one very important point. A peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel question remains our policy and we shall continue to seek ways forward with moderate Arab Governments. Indeed, I shall be seeing King Hussein later this week to discuss this very matter.

Mr. Beith

To what extent does the Prime Minister think that Colonel Gaddafi’s capacity to mount attacks of terrorism has been reduced by the measures taken by the United States?

The Prime Minister

I believe that his capacity and the will of the people to do so have been impaired by the actions that have taken place.

The United States is our greatest ally. It is the foundation of the Alliance which has preserved our security and peace for more than a generation. In defence of liberty, our liberty as well as its own, the United States maintains in Western Europe 330,000 service men. That is more than the whole of Britain’s regular forces. The United States gave us unstinting help when we needed it in the South Atlantic four years ago.

The growing threat of international terrorism is not directed solely at the United States. We in the United Kingdom have also long been in the front line. To overcome the threat is in the vital interests of all countries founded upon freedom and the rule of law.

Terrorism exploits the natural reluctance of a free society to defend itself, in the last resort, with arms. Terrorism thrives on appeasement. Of course we shall continue to make every effort to defeat it by political means. But in this case that was not enough. The time had come for action. The United States took it. Its decision was justified, and, as friends and allies, we support it.

January 6, 2020
Edward Leigh – 1986 Speech on Unfitness To Plead

Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Leigh, the then Conservative MP for Gainsborough and Horncastle, in the House of Commons on 16 April 1986.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the criminal law in relation to defendants who are unfit to plead; and for connected purposes.

The Bill is prompted by the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. Glen Pearson, a 32–year-old deaf mute with few communication skills, who was alleged to have stolen £5.40 and three light bulbs and ordered to be detained in custody for an indefinite period by Lincoln Crown court. He was released three months later, after a national outcry. No ordinary person would be treated in that way by the courts.

Why did it happen to Glen Pearson? He was found, rightly, to be unfit to plead. From that moment he was caught in the grip of an infernal machine, as remorseless in its purpose as anything out of a Greek tragedy. Under section 5(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, if a person is found to be unfit to plead the judge has no choice—I emphasise that he has no choice—but to send him to the hospital specified by the Secretary of State. Moreover, the judge must direct that a person so committed to hospital shall be detained as if he were held under sections 37 to 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

For an obviously insane and dangerous person the law is logical, because those sections of the Mental Health Act make it clear that a hospital order can be made only in the case of an insane person if very strict criteria are met. For example, two medical reports have to be furnished to the court, and the court has to be satisfied that the mental disorder is of such a nature that it warrants detention for treatment. [Interruption.] Under section 41 of the Act the court, being satisfied with regard to the offender’s past and that it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm, can order the defendant’s detention without limit of time.

It will come as a great surprise that while my constituent was detained indefinitely as if those criteria applied to him, the court did not and could not consider whether in fact they did apply to him once it had found that he was unfit to plead. As two psychiatric reports and one psychologist’s report showed later, Glen Pearson was not insane and he was not a serious danger to the public, but he was treated as if he was—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.

Mr. Leigh

I am able to illustrate the extraordinary clumsiness of the law in this area by considering the hypothetical case of an Amazonian Indian visiting this country who is incapable of speaking English and whose language nobody can translate. Assuming that no interpreter could be found and that he was accused of stealing 6p, if he were brought before the courts of this land they would have no choice but to detain him indefinitely in a prison hospital.

My Bill seeks to amend the law so that a person found unfit to plead will be detained in a prison hospital only if the strict criteria of insanity are met. Otherwise, he will be remanded in custody or on bail with conditions, as appropriate, until such time as he is fit to plead. Remand to prison custody would be appropriate only if the offence were of a serious nature and the defendant’s unfitness was outside the scope of the mental health provisions. I must make it clear, therefore, that the Bill in no way lessens the protection available to the public; it simply widens the powers available to the courts.

The Bill provides for the regular review of unfitness, there is no similar provision in the law as it stands. The Bill provides for the case to be brought to a conclusion within a specified period. Mr. Paul Bacon, the solicitor who represented Glen Pearson on this occasion, once represented a client who had to wait seven years for trial. When the court was finally persuaded to bring the matter to trial, it was found that the police had lost the evidence. Lastly, my Bill provides that a case of unfitness should be allowed to be heard in summary as well as in Crown proceedings.

It would seem strange to a foreign legislator, observing our proceedings today, that, sandwiched between questions to the Secretary of State on the very lifeblood of the nation and a debate to be initiated by the Prime Minister on a matter of world crisis, the House should grant to an unknown Back Bencher the right to inform Parliament of the trials the tribulations of an even more unknown deaf mute from a small market town in north Lincolnshire, of which the House knows little. But I believe that the procedure and forbearance of the House in allowing me to do this reflects no more than Parliament’s knowledge and wisdom, accumulated over centuries, from Hampden’s time to the present day, that out of the affairs of small men great issues are often determined.

Moulded by the wisdom of our glorious Judaeo-Christian tradition, we in this country appreciate—as it is appreciated to the same extent nowhere else—that anyone, however reviled or lowly or disabled, has a right to be treated fairly and that anyone has the right to be considered innocent before guilt is proved. It is in that spirit that I ask the leave of the House to introduce this Bill to cover the one small area of the law that I have described which is clearly unfair, inappropriate and in need of reform.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Tom Clarke and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

January 6, 2020
Boris Johnson – 2020 Joint Statement with France and Germany on the Situation in Iran

Below is the text of the joint statement made between Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, and Emmanuel Macron, the French President, issued on 6 January 2020.

We have condemned the recent attacks on coalitions forces in Iraq and are gravely concerned by the negative role Iran has played in the region, including through the IRGC and the Al-Qods force under the command of General Soleimani.

There is now an urgent need for de-escalation. We call on all parties to exercise utmost restraint and responsibility. The current cycle of violence in Iraq must be stopped.

We specifically call on Iran to refrain from further violent action or proliferation, and urge Iran to reverse all measures inconsistent with the JCPOA.

We recall our attachment to the sovereignty and security of Iraq. Another crisis risks jeopardizing years of efforts to stabilize Iraq.

We also reaffirm our commitment to continue the fight against Daesh, which remains a high priority. The preservation of the Coalition is key in this regard. We therefore urge the Iraqi authorities to continue providing the Coalition all the necessary support.

We stand ready to continue our engagement with all sides in order to contribute to defuse tensions and restore stability to the region.

January 6, 2020
Home Office – 2019 Press Release on Funding for Violence Reduction Units

Below is a press release issued by the Home Office on 29/12/2019.

Police and crime commissioners will receive an additional £35 million to continue funding specialist teams to tackle violent crime in their area.

Eighteen police and crime commissioners (PCCs) will receive an additional £35 million to continue funding specialist teams to tackle violent crime in their area, the Home Secretary has announced today (29 December 2019).

Violence Reduction Units (VRUs) bring together different organisations including police, local government, health, community leaders and other key partners to prevent serious violence by understanding its root causes.

This early intervention approach forms one part of the government’s drive to tackle serious violence, which also includes bolstering law enforcement with 20,000 new police officers and increasing prison sentences for violent criminals.

Home Secretary Priti Patel said:

I will not tolerate criminals drawing vulnerable young people into a life of violence.

We are delivering on the people’s priorities by recruiting 20,000 new police officers and introducing tougher sentences to keep offenders behind bars for longer, but agencies must also work together to tackle this issue head on.

These units are already playing a vital role in diverting young people away from crime – and the funding I have announced today will allow them to continue this important work.

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) Serious Violence Lead, Mark Burns-Williamson PCC OBE said:

This funding is very welcome as it will enable PCCs to continue to develop and fund their Violence Reduction Units in the short term. PCCs are investing in preventative and early intervention initiatives around the country and are working to deliver a whole-system approach to tackling serious violence.

We will continue to work with the Home Office and our partners to ensure longer-term investment over the period of the next spending review for all police force and PCC areas to deal with the scourge of serious violence in helping to keep our communities safe.

Earlier this year the Home Secretary allocated £35 million to 18 PCCs in the areas worst affected by violent crime to set up Violence Reduction Units, as part of an additional £100 million fund to support police to surge their response to serious violence.

Each unit has been tasked with delivering strategies that involve police, healthcare workers, community leaders and others, and aim to reduce and prevent violence in both the short and long term.

Work already under way from the Violence Reduction Units includes new virtual reality technology to teach young people about the dangers of getting involved in serious violence and putting community leaders in hospital A&E departments to provide support to those involved in violence when they are most vulnerable.

The announcement also follows a raft of new commitments from the government to crack down on violent crime, such as creating a legal duty on public bodies to work together to tackle and prevent violent crime.

Overview of funding for Violence Reduction Units

Funding is subject to receiving proposals from Violence Reduction Units on spending allocations and being agreed by the Home Office.

Force area £ funding per year (19/20 and 20/21) Total funding for VRUs
Metropolitan Police £7,000,000 £14,000,000
West Midlands £3,370,000 £6,740,000
Greater Manchester £3,370,000 £6,740,000
Merseyside £3,370,000 £6,740,000
West Yorkshire £3,370,000 £6,740,000
South Yorkshire £1,600,000 £3,200,000
Northumbria £1,600,000 £3,200,000
Thames Valley £1,160,000 £2,320,000
Lancashire £1,160,000 £2,320,000
Essex £1,160,000 £2,320,000
Avon and Somerset £1,160,000 £2,320,000
Kent £1,160,000 £2,320,000
Nottinghamshire £880,000 £1,760,000
Leicestershire £880,000 £1,760,000
Bedfordshire £880,000 £1,760,000
Sussex £880,000 £1,760,000
Hampshire £880,000 £1,760,000
South Wales £880,000 £1,760,000
Total England & Wales £34,760,000 £69,520,000

January 3, 2020