UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2018

  • Lord Callanan – 2018 Speech on the European Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Callanan, the Minister of State for Leaving the European Union, in the House of Lords on 18 April 2018.

    My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to resume our debate after the Easter Recess. I hope that all noble Lords enjoyed a good break. I spent most of it studying amendments to this Bill. I hope that some doubts about how seriously the Government take these debates have now been dispelled, as noble Lords will have seen that the Government have already tabled many amendments on key aspects of the Bill. Further amendments will follow, relating to the provisions on delegated powers and on devolution. It is our firm and consistent desire to find consensus in this House on the contents of the Bill wherever possible, and I hope that our debates can proceed on a reasonably collaborative basis.

    Unfortunately, as in Committee, we start our proceedings with some amendments to the Bill that the Government cannot envisage accepting—or indeed any variant on them. That is not, of course, to impugn the motivation of those supporting the amendments or to deny the importance of the subject matter. Put simply—this will probably surprise nobody in the House—the Government simply do not agree with the proposed approach.

    I am, of course, grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate on the vital issue of our future economic relationship with the EU. As the Prime Minister stated in her Mansion House speech, we are seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than under any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. The Government have been clear that the UK, in its entirety, is leaving the customs union. For the sake of clarity, a customs union—as has been pointed out by many noble Lords—has a single external border and sets identical tariffs for trade with the rest of the world. International trade policy is consequently an exclusive competence of the EU, to avoid the creation of different customs rates in different parts of the EU customs union.

    The nub of the issue is this. If the UK were to remain in the customs union and be bound by the EU’s common external tariff, it would mean providing preferential access to the UK market for countries that the EU agrees trade deals with, without necessarily gaining preferential access for UK exports to such countries. Alternatively, we would need the EU to negotiate with third countries on the UK’s behalf. This would leave us with less influence over our international trade policy than we have now, and would not, in our humble assertion, be in the best interests of UK businesses.

    By leaving the customs union and establishing a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU, we will be able to forge new trade relationships with our partners around the world and maintain as frictionless trade as possible in goods between the UK and EU, providing a powerful and positive voice for free trade across the globe. There are real opportunities for the UK from increasing our trade with fast-growing economies around the world. The EU itself predicts that 90% of future world GDP growth is expected to be generated outside Europe—a trend expected to continue over the next five to 10 years.

    In assessing the options for the UK’s future customs relationship with the EU, the Government will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK, and by three key strategic objectives. First, we want to ensure that UK-EU trade is as frictionless as possible. Secondly, we want to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland—a commitment that was solidified by December’s joint report. Thirdly, we want to establish an independent international trade policy.

    Last year, in its future partnership paper, the Government set out two potential options for our customs arrangements with the EU. These were reiterated by the Prime Minister in her speech at the Mansion House earlier this year. I will give a few more details of those options.

    Option 1 is a new customs partnership between the UK and the EU. At the border, the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world whose final destination is the EU—including by applying the same tariffs and the same rules of origin as the EU for those goods. By following this approach, we would know that all goods entering the EU via the UK would pay the correct EU duties, removing the need for customs processes at the UK-EU border. But, importantly, we would also put in place a mechanism so that the UK would be able to apply its own tariff and trade policy for goods intended only for the UK market.

    The second option would be a highly streamlined customs arrangement under which, while introducing customs processes between the UK and the EU, we would jointly agree to implement a range of measures to minimise frictions to trade, together of course with specific provisions for Northern Ireland. This option would include measures to simplify the requirements for moving goods across borders; it would reduce the risk of delays at ports and airports; and it would see the continuation of existing levels of UK-EU customs co-operation, with mutual assistance and data sharing.

    Of course, the precise form of any new customs arrangements will be the subject of negotiation, and this will form a key part of our future economic partnership with the European Union. The Government have not just formed this policy arbitrarily but because we do not believe that a customs union is in the best interests of the UK and of UK businesses.

    I understand that many noble Lords disagree with our analysis, or believe that our goals are unreachable. However, we cannot support Amendments 1 and 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and Amendments 2 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which would have the effect of requiring the Government to make a Statement to Parliament on the steps taken towards the delivery of an objective the Government have clearly ruled out.

    We in the Government are trying to seek the best possible future arrangements for the UK. I am confident we will succeed, and the progress we have made already in areas that many thought impossible demonstrates how all sides have been willing to break new ground in order to move forwards. We have set out our two potential options for a future customs relationship with the EU, but these amendments would send a signal that the Government will not seek to negotiate them, and instead pursue an outcome that the Government have ruled out.

    I hope that noble Lords will accept our sincerity in our negotiating goals. I will also add, before noble Lords make a final decision, that I do not seek to give false hope that the Government will reflect further between now and Third Reading. I therefore hope that the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Wigley, will not press their amendments.

  • Chris Patten – 2018 Speech on the European Union

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Patten of Barnes in the House of Lords on 18 April 2018.

    I am delighted to second the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and I will seek to do so as briefly as he did, partly because he was so comprehensive in the arguments for a customs union and partly because we chewed over many of these issues in Committee and we plainly should not deal with them again. So I will not go into the issue of Northern Ireland’s border with the Republic of Ireland, because I spoke twice on that in Committee.

    I assume straightaway, because I have a regard for his intelligence, that the Minister responding to this debate is not going to suggest that the referendum result or the Conservative manifesto disqualifies us from proceeding in the direction suggested by the noble Lord. If I am wrong about that, I would be delighted to come back to it later. But there is one point made in the manifesto that I will dwell on for a moment—and, as clergymen occasionally say at the end of sermons, share with you all—because it allows me to bridge to the main argument we have today, which is about trade and trade opportunities for this country.

    I confess to the House straightaway that I used to make my living helping to write manifestos, and so I have a certain regard for these things. The manifesto said at the beginning:

    “People are rightly sceptical of politicians who claim to have easy answers to deeply complex problems”.

    So I ask the House to turn its attention to what we have been promised on trade.

    We are told by the Secretary of State for International Trade that a free trade agreement with the EU will be one of the “easiest in human history”. He also told us that, by the end of March 2019, the Government will have put in place or drafted or agreed up to 40 trade agreements with other countries. That is the backdrop. It seems to me that those propositions invite a little scepticism, and in a moment or two I will suggest to the House why that is the case.

    I have a degree of expertise in this area for which I do not seek to make extravagant claims—I do not know as much about trade as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, does, and I know that expertise is a dangerous thing in the present climate. But I did, either on my own or with others, negotiate free trade agreements between the European Union and Mexico, Chile and most of the countries of the Mashreq and Maghreb region. We were part of the negotiation team for China’s accession to the WTO. We failed with Russia—for all sorts of reasons which the House will not be surprised about—and we made only limited progress with Mercosur, the San José dialogue and the Andean pact countries. So I know how difficult these things are, and some of the problems that will be faced in addressing the agenda mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

    The first thing we have to do is secure our market in the European Union—50% of our trade. We then have to think about the 12% of trade with countries with which the European Union has concluded agreements already and the 8% with which it is negotiating trade agreements already. That adds up to about 70%. Of the remaining 30%, about half is with the United States, a quarter with China and Hong Kong, and the rest with everyone else.

    How are we going to manage with the countries with which the European Union has negotiated deals already? I spent a particularly dreary afternoon on Maundy Thursday looking through the European Union-South Korea trade deal. It was dreary not because it is not a good deal—indeed, it is such a good deal that the Foreign Secretary not long ago boasted about the great increase in British trade with South Korea—but because it is even longer than a long day’s journey into night. It runs to 1,400 pages, 900 of which just list tariffs. The idea that you can simply Snopake the words “European Union” and insert “United Kingdom” and grandfather that trade agreement in nanoseconds—even nanoyears—is absurd.

    First of all, the South Koreans know that we are the demandeur. They will know that we have a trade surplus with South Korea at the moment, which might make them a little resistant to being as helpful as they were with the European Union, which is, anyway, a much bigger market than the United Kingdom—500 million to about 65 million. There are technical issues as well that will be particularly demanding. I will not try to explain to the House—because I have only a vague notion of what it means—the problem with trigger volumes preventing surges of agricultural imports to a country. But that issue is one that will involve not just negotiations with South Korea but tripartite negotiations between us and the European Union as well as the South Koreans.

    Even more important are rules of origin—something that used to be well understood by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Not long before the Foreign Secretary made a speech saying that there was no reason why we should not, after leaving the European Union, stay in the single market, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union pointed out that, on balance, he was in favour of staying in the customs union because, even though you would not then be able to do independent trade deals on your own, the issue of rules of origin was so important that we had to stay within the union so that that did not present problems for us.

    Rules of origin is a problem that comes up straightaway when you look at the South Korea deal. Under rules of origin, each party is able to do without tariffs provided that up to 55% of what it is exporting is made in its own back yard. That is fine within the European Union, but the car industry in this country makes only 41% of the cars that we export in Britain. So straightaway, cars—and you can go down the list of tariffs—would not be able to go tariff free into the South Korean market.

    The South Korean trade deal provides 99% tariff-free access after five years. It is a terrific piece of trade diplomacy. Incidentally, it provides that access after five years, but the trade deal that the South Koreans did with Australia does not come into full working order, even on a more limited range of goods, for 20 years—so it was a very good piece of negotiation by the European Union. The idea that we can just do that and all the other trade deals overnight, over a month or over a year, without any problems is for the birds. It belongs to the category denounced in the manifesto.

    After we have dealt with the issue of the 12%, or maybe 20% by then, of the market that is covered by existing or future trade deals—“future” before we leave the European Union—between the European Union and other countries, we then deal with the three other categories of country. The first is China. China, admittedly, has done a trade deal with Switzerland and also with Iceland. Switzerland has done 38 trade deals with other countries, as opposed to more than 50 between the European Union and other countries. The deal between Switzerland and China is a very good example of how difficult it is to get into bed with an elephant. The Swiss have agreed hardly anything with the Chinese about services and nothing about cars, but they have accepted that China will have, for a number of goods, tariff-free access to Switzerland straightaway. In return, Switzerland gets tariff-free access to China after 15 years. So sleeping with elephants is a bit of a problem. I imagine that we would be looking to open up prospects for services—which, as the noble Lord said, is not an issue particularly involved here—but, apart from that, I am not quite sure what we would be hoping to get out of any future deal with China.

    What about Australia and the Commonwealth? As the noble Lord said, one of the basic axioms in trade policy is that you double the distance and halve the trade. The notion that the Australians will open up their market further for us without making demands in return is, again, nonsense. They will ask for us to make concessions in the field of agriculture, which may take some explaining to small and medium-sized farmers in this country.

    What about India? I noticed the other day that the European Union suggested that it might be easier to do a deal with India when we were no longer members of the European Union. In fact, we were always the back-markers when it came to negotiations with India. Why? Because we were concerned about opening up access to our services in India. Why? Because the Indians wanted in return for anything we were prepared to ask for greater scope for visas for Indians coming to this country, and we were not prepared to allow that.

    Finally, the United States represents 15% of our market, but we expect Richard Cobden’s legatee, President Trump, to open up the American market to the United Kingdom’s exports. Are we serious? We would be pressing for opening up procurement with the United States, and the United States would be pressing for opening up procurement with us in the National Health Service. I am not going through chickens again because we had chickens up to our eyebrows in Committee, but I remember a wonderful speech given by my noble friend Lord Deben about chickens. I wish I could remember every word of it, but it was a pretty compelling argument on the difficulties of doing a food deal with the United States. President Trump will not be there for ever—but, in my experience, the Americans were not pushovers when it came to doing trade deals.

    I have two last points. Is our ability to do trade deals or to export overseas held up by the fact that we are members of the European Union? When I last looked, Germany was a member of the European Union. Germany exports two and a half times as much to China as we do and exports more to India than we do. So the reason we do not do better in export markets must lie somewhere else. I do not agree with the point made by the Secretary of State for International Trade. I do not think that it is because British businessmen and exporters are—what was his expression?—fat and lazy. That is not why we do not do better. The truth is that between only 10% and 15% of companies in the country actually do serious exporting. They are mostly medium-sized or large companies—and guess what they want? They want the best access possible to the closest market. And where is that?

    So I do not think that blethering on about global Britain, or pretending that we have not been global Britain for years, or repeating “The Road to Mandalay” whenever one is travelling, is going to make a spectacular difference to our trading opportunities. I think very strongly that we will not do any better than we are doing within the customs union, given that we start from a position in which we export to the European Union three and a half times as much as we do to the United States, five times as much as we do to the Commonwealth and six times as much as we do to all the BRICs combined.

    So I support the amendment with some enthusiasm and I repeat what my noble friend Lord Hailsham said in Committee: namely, that there are times in one’s political career when what is alleged to be party loyalty comes way behind trying to stand up for the national interest. I intend to do that on this amendment and elsewhere on Report, and in doing that I think I will be repeating what I would have been able to say with the full support of my party for most of the time I have been a member of it.

  • Philip Hammond – 2018 Speech at Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Heads of Government Meeting in London on 17 April 2018.

    Lord Mayor, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    It gives me great pleasure to welcome our visitors to London, for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018.

    The biggest meeting of Heads of Government, of any kind, that the UK has ever hosted.

    From the Pacific Islands, to the British Isles, from the Caribbean to Central Africa, the Commonwealth is a community which spans the reach of global geography.

    And the entire breadth of the economic spectrum.

    A community united in its vast diversity, by a common heritage, and shared values of democracy and human rights.

    Tomorrow, I will chair a roundtable of heads of government and senior business leaders to reflect on key themes of this year’s summit.

    From boosting intra-Commonwealth trade, spreading inclusive growth, and how we can build upon our ‘Commonwealth Advantage’.

    That is, using our common language, institutions, trade ties, legal systems and values, for the common good of all our citizens.

    Because the fact is that together we have the capacity to do enormous good, and spread significant prosperity.

    We, the Commonwealth, represent a third of the global population.

    Half of the world’s top 20 emerging cities.

    And 60% of our population is under the age of 30.

    And the common-wealth is just that.

    Our commonalities mean as members we trade 20% more.

    Generate 10% more foreign direct investment.

    And enjoy costs of trade around 19% lower by comparison with non-Commonwealth relationships.

    And over seven decades we have used these deep ties to help newly independent countries develop their national institutions, make economic progress, and share common experiences with one another.

    But we cannot simply sit back and admire our achievements and past successes.

    We must look forward, and the Commonwealth must reform and change in an ever-changing world.

    We must continue to make the case for free trade as the best way to promote higher living standards amongst all of our citizens.

    And particularly we must look for opportunities to liberalise trade in services.

    We must ensure that our growth is inclusive.

    And at this Summit we have committed to increase opportunities for women to trade internationally.

    And to look at ways that we can tackle youth unemployment.

    And that it is sustainable.

    And we must prepare to embrace the changes of the technological revolution which is gathering pace around us.

    And ensure our economies, and our citizens, are ready to seize the opportunities that that revolution will bring.

    For example from FinTech – which has the potential to change the way in which our people and our businesses access financial services.

    Whether its cashless transactions between friends.

    Or sending remittances to family in other countries.

    I recently signed a FinTech Bridge between the UK and Australia.

    And we are exploring similar opportunities between the UK and India.

    And I hope we can encourage more of these agreements between Commonwealth countries in the years ahead.

    Because by working together in the Commonwealth we can be a force for good and for progress around the world.

    We can work together on the challenges that we face.

    Across the Commonwealth.

    Recognising our common values and needs.

    To grow our trade links.

    Unleash the talents of our populations.

    And strive to improve the lives of our 2.4 billion citizens, wherever in the world they live.

    We live in a time of extraordinary global change.

    The future offers incredible new opportunities, as well as immense new challenges to overcome.

    Our countries have dealt with the challenges of the past together.

    Now, as a Commonwealth of Nations, we shall win the future together.

    Thank you all for being here – and I wish you a productive and inspiring week.

    Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement on Syria

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 16 April 2018.

    Mr Speaker, before I come to the substance of my statement I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in offering our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Sergeant Matt Tonroe from the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment who was killed by an improvised explosive device on 29 March.

    Sergeant Tonroe was embedded with US forces on a counter-Daesh operation. He served his country with great distinction and it is clear he was a gifted and intelligent instructor who was respected by everyone he served with. Sergeant Tonroe fought to protect British values, our freedoms, and to keep this country safe.

    With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the actions that we have taken, together with our American and French allies, to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capabilities – and to deter their future use.

    On Saturday 7th April, up to 75 people, including young children, were killed in an horrific attack in Douma, with as many as 500 further casualties.

    All indications are that this was a chemical weapons attack.

    UK medical and scientific experts have analysed open-source reports, images and video footage from the incident and concluded that the victims were exposed to a toxic chemical.

    This is corroborated by first-hand accounts from NGOs and aid workers.

    While the World Health Organisation received reports that hundreds of patients arrived at Syrian heath facilities on Saturday night with “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals.”

    And, based on our assessment, we do not think that these reports could be falsified on this scale.

    Furthermore, Mr Speaker, the Syrian Regime has reportedly been attempting to conceal the evidence by searching evacuees from Douma to ensure samples are not being smuggled from this area.

    And a wider operation to conceal the facts of the attack is under way, supported by the Russians.

    Mr Speaker, the images of this suffering are utterly haunting.

    Innocent families – seeking shelter in underground bunkers – found dead with foam in their mouths, burns to their eyes and their bodies surrounded by a chlorine-like odour.

    Children gasping for life as chemicals choked their lungs.

    The fact that such an atrocity can take place in our world today is a stain on our humanity.

    And we are clear about who is responsible.

    A significant body of information – including intelligence – indicates the Syrian Regime is responsible for this latest attack.

    Open source accounts state that barrel bombs were used to deliver the chemicals.

    Barrel bombs are usually delivered by helicopters. Multiple open source reports and intelligence indicates that Regime helicopters operated over Douma on the evening of 7th April, shortly before reports emerged in social media of a chemical attack. And the Syrian military officials coordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine weapons.

    Mr Speaker, no other group could have carried out this attack.

    The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs.

    Daesh does not even have a presence in Douma.

    And the reports of this attack are consistent with previous Regime attacks.

    These include the attack on 21st August 2013 where over 800 people were killed and thousands more injured in a chemical attack also in Ghouta.

    14 further smaller scale chemical attacks reported prior to that Summer.

    3 further chlorine attacks in 2014 and 2015 which the independent UNSC-mandated investigation attributed to the Regime.

    And the attack at Khan Shaykhun on 4th April last year, where the Syrian Regime used sarin against its people killing around 100 with a further 500 casualties.

    Based on the Regime’s persistent pattern of behaviour and the cumulative analysis of specific incidents we judged it highly likely that the Syrian regime had continued to use chemical weapons on at least four occasions since the attack in Khan Shaykhun. And we judged that they would have continued to do so.

    So we needed to intervene rapidly to alleviate further indiscriminate humanitarian suffering.

    Mr Speaker, we have explored every possible diplomatic channel to do so, but our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted.

    Following the sarin attack in Eastern Damascus back in August 2013, the Syrian Regime committed to dismantle its chemical weapon programme – and Russia promised to ensure that Syria did this, overseen by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

    At the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition cited this diplomatic agreement as a “precedent that this process can work.”

    But this process did not work.

    It did not eradicate the chemical weapons capability of the Syrian Regime, with only last month the OPCW finding that Syria’s declaration of its former Chemical Weapons programme is incomplete.

    And, as I have already set out, it did not stop the Syrian Regime from carrying out the most abhorrent atrocities using these weapons.

    Furthermore, on each occasion when we have seen every sign of chemical weapons being used, Russia has blocked any attempt to hold the perpetrators to account at the UN Security Council, with six such vetoes since the start of 2017.

    And just last week, Russia blocked a UN Resolution that would have established an independent investigation able to determine responsibility for this latest attack.

    So regrettably, we had no choice but to conclude that diplomatic action on its own is not going to work.

    The Leader of the Opposition has said that he can “only countenance involvement in Syria if there is UN authority behind it”.

    The House should be clear that would mean a Russian veto on our foreign policy.

    When the Cabinet met on Thursday we considered the advice of the Attorney General.

    Based on this advice we agreed that it was not just morally right but also legally right to take military action, together with our closest allies, to alleviate further humanitarian suffering.

    This was not about intervening in a civil war. And it was not about regime change.

    It was about a limited, targeted and effective strike that sought to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people by degrading the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their use.

    And we have published the legal basis for this action.

    It required three conditions to be met.

    First, there must be convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief.

    Second, it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved.

    And third, the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim.

    These are the same three criteria used as the legal justification for the UK’s role in the NATO intervention in Kosovo.

    Our intervention in 1991 with the US and France – and in 1992 with the US – to create safe havens and enforce the no fly zones in Iraq following the Gulf War were also justified on the basis of humanitarian intervention.

    So governments of all colours have long considered that military action, on an exceptional basis, where necessary and proportionate, and as a last resort, to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe is permissible under international law.

    Mr Speaker, I have set out why we are convinced by the evidence and why there was no practicable alternative.

    Let me set out how this military response was also proportionate.

    This was a limited, targeted and effective strike that would significantly degrade Syrian Chemical Weapons capabilities and deter their future use – and with clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent civilian casualties.

    As a result the co-ordinated actions of the US, UK and France were successfully and specifically targeted at three sites.

    Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said at the weekend, these were not “empty buildings.”

    The first was the Barzeh branch of the Scientific Studies and Research Centre in Northern Damascus.

    This was a centre for the research and development of Syria’s chemical and biological programme. It was hit by 57 American T-LAMs and 19 American JASSMs.

    The second site was the Him Shinsar chemical weapons bunkers, 15 miles west of the city of Homs, which contained both a chemical weapons equipment and storage facility and an important command post.

    These were successfully hit by 7 French SCALP cruise missiles.

    And the third site was the Him Shinsar chemical weapons storage site and former missile base which is now a military facility.

    This was assessed to be a location of Syrian Sarin and precursor production equipment whose destruction would degrade Syria’s ability to deliver Sarin in the future.

    This was hit by 9 US TLAMs, 5 naval and 2 SCALP cruise missiles from France – and 8 storm shadow missiles launched by our four RAF Tornado GR4s.

    Very careful scientific analysis was used to determine where best to target these missiles to maximise the destruction of stockpiled chemicals and to minimise any risks to the surrounding area.

    And the facility that we targeted is located some distance from any known population centres, reducing yet further any such risk of civilian casualties.

    Mr Speaker, while targeted and limited, these strikes by the US, UK and France were significantly larger than the US action a year ago after the attack at Khan Shaykhun – and specifically designed to have a greater impact on the regime’s capability and willingness to use chemical weapons.

    We also minimised the chances of wider escalation through our carefully targeted approach and the House will note that Russia has not reported any losses of personnel or equipment as a result of the strikes.

    And I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to all the British service men and women – and their American and French allies – who successfully carried out this mission with such courage and professionalism.

    Mr Speaker, let me deal specifically with three important questions.

    First, why did we not wait for the investigation from the OPCW?

    UNSC-Mandated inspectors have investigated previous attacks and on four occasions decided that the Regime was indeed responsible.

    We are confident in our own assessment that the Syrian Regime was highly likely responsible for this attack and that its persistent pattern of behaviour meant that it was highly likely to continue using chemical weapons.

    Furthermore, there were clearly attempts to block any proper investigation, as we saw with the Russian veto at the UN earlier in the week.

    And let me set this out in detail. We support strongly the work of the OPCW fact-finding mission that is currently in Damascus.

    But that mission is only able to make an assessment of whether chemical weapons were used.

    Even if the OPCW team is able to visit Douma to gather information to make that assessment – and they are currently being prevented from doing so by the Regime and the Russians – it cannot attribute responsibility.

    This is because Russia vetoed in November 2017 an extension of the Joint Investigatory Mechanism set up to do this. And last week, in the wake of the Douma attack, it again vetoed a new UNSC resolution to re-establish such a mechanism.

    And even if we had OPCW’s findings, and a mechanism to attribute, for as long as Russia continues to veto, the UN Security Council still would not be able to act.

    So Mr Speaker, we cannot wait to alleviate further humanitarian suffering caused by chemical weapons attacks.

    Second, were we not just following orders from America?

    Let me be absolutely clear: we have acted because it is in our national interest to do so.

    It is in our national interest to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria – and to uphold and defend the global consensus that these weapons should not be used.

    For we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised – either within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere.

    So we have not done this because President Trump asked us to do so.

    We have done it because we believed it was the right thing to do. And we are not alone.

    There is broad based international support for the action we have taken.

    NATO has issued a statement setting out its support, as have the Gulf Co-operation Council and a number of countries in the region.

    And over the weekend I have spoken to a range of world leaders – including Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Gentiloni, Prime Minister Trudeau, Prime Minister Turnbull and European Council President Donald Tusk.

    All have expressed their support for the actions that Britain, France and America have taken.

    Third, why did we not recall Parliament?

    Mr Speaker, the speed with which we acted was essential in co-operating with our partners to alleviate further humanitarian suffering and to maintain the vital security of our operations.

    This was a limited, targeted strike on a legal basis that has been used before.

    And it was a decision which required the evaluation of intelligence and information much of which was of a nature that could not be shared with Parliament.

    We have always been clear that the government has the right to act quickly in the national interest.

    I am absolutely clear, Mr Speaker, that it is Parliament’s responsibility to hold me to account for such decisions – and Parliament will do so.

    But it is my responsibility as Prime Minster to make these decisions.

    And I will make them.

    Mr Speaker, as I have been clear this military action was not about intervening in the civil war in Syria – or about regime change.

    But we are determined to do our utmost to help resolve the conflict in Syria.

    That means concluding the fight against Daesh, which still holds pockets of territory in Syria.

    It means working to enable humanitarian access and continuing our efforts at the forefront of global response, where the UK has already committed almost £2.5 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.

    And next week, we will attend the second Brussels Conference on supporting the Future of Syria and the Region which will focus on humanitarian support, bolstering the UN-led political process in Geneva, and ensuring continued international support to refugees and host countries – driving forward the legacy of our own London Conference held in 2016.

    And it means supporting international efforts to reinvigorate the process to deliver a political solution: for this is the best long-term hope for the Syrian people.

    The UK will do all of these things.

    But as I have also been clear, that is not what these military strikes were about.

    Mr Speaker, as I have set out, the military action that we have taken this weekend was specifically focused on degrading the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring their future use.

    In order to achieve this there must also be a wider diplomatic effort – including the full range of political and economic levers – to strengthen the global norms prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, which have stood for nearly a century.

    So we will continue to work with our international partners on tough economic action against those involved with the production or dissemination of chemical weapons.

    And I welcome the conclusions of today’s European Foreign Affairs Council, attended by my Rt Hon Friend the Foreign Secretary, that confirmed the Council is willing to consider further restrictive measures on those involved in the development and use of chemical weapons in Syria.

    We will continue to push for the re-establishment of an international investigative mechanism which can attribute responsibility for chemical weapon use in Syria.

    We will advance with our French allies the new International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, which will meet in the coming weeks.

    And we will continue to strengthen the international coalition we have built since the attack on Salisbury.

    Mr Speaker, last Thursday’s report from the OPCW has confirmed our findings that it was indeed a Novichok in Salisbury – and I have placed a copy of that report’s Executive Summary in the Library of the House.

    While of a much lower order of magnitude, the use of a nerve agent on the streets of Salisbury is part of a pattern of disregard for the global norms that prohibit the use of chemical weapons.

    So while the action was taken to alleviate humanitarian suffering in Syria by degrading the Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deterring its use of these weapons – it will also send a clear message to anyone who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity.

    We cannot go back to a world where the use of chemical weapons becomes normalised.

    Mr Speaker, I am deeply conscious of the gravity of these decisions.

    They affect all members of this House – and me personally.

    And I understand the questions that – rightly – will be asked about British military action particularly in such a complex region.

    But I am clear that the way we protect our national interest is to stand up for the global rules and standards that keep us safe.

    That is what we have done – and what we will continue to do.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at Commonwealth Business Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 16 April 2018.

    Good morning everyone.

    I would like to start by thanking the Lord Mayor for hosting us here today at the beautiful Guildhall, the home of the City of London’s administrators for almost 600 years.

    As we have just heard, the building has witnessed its fair share of history over the centuries. And today it is a privilege to add to the rollcall of great events with the 11th Commonwealth Business Forum.

    We are here today to discuss how best to make this a more prosperous Commonwealth for all, with contributions from leading figures in some of the world’s top businesses.

    And this is just one of four such fora running this week ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, giving a voice to hundreds of people who, in so many different ways, do so much to make our Commonwealth the amazing institution it is.

    There is the People’s Forum, providing a platform for the Commonwealth’s incredible Civil Society groups. The Women’s Forum will look at ways of overcoming the challenges still faced by a great many women and girls. And, perhaps most important of all, there is the Commonwealth Youth Forum.

    It is so important because, while the Commonwealth itself is a venerable institution, its citizens are much younger: almost two thirds are under the age of 30.

    The young people of today are the Commonwealth of tomorrow, its business leaders, its innovators, its heads of government.

    They have incredible potential, and we as a Commonwealth have a duty to help them reach it. That is why I have put youth at the heart of this week’s agenda, and why I began this morning by meeting with some of the Youth Forum’s delegates.

    As we talked about their ideas and aspirations, about their vision for the future of the Commonwealth, I was struck by the vital role that businesses like yours have in tackling their concerns and giving substance to their ambitions.

    They called for cleaner oceans and greater sustainability.

    You can help deliver that by changing business practices and creating innovative new products and solutions. They called for action on youth unemployment.

    You, as entrepreneurs and business leaders, create the jobs and opportunities our young people need and, by driving our economies, you fund the schools and colleges that equip them with the skills they need.

    And the members of the Youth Forum called for an inclusive Commonwealth where greater prosperity is enjoyed by everyone.

    That is something that simply cannot be achieved without strong, successful businesses. Because the best way to raise living standards for all is through economic growth based on free enterprise operating in inclusive, fair and open rules-based markets.

    A key part of that, one that has become more important in the years since the Commonwealth was founded, is international trade – and it is an area in which the Commonwealth is flourishing.

    The 2018 Commonwealth Trade Review predicted that trade between member states will be worth $700 billion by 2020. Here in the UK, for example, the value of our exports to fellow members is roughly double what it was 20 years ago.

    Yet risks remain. Global growth is fragile. The challenges posed by protectionism are all too clear. And the world economy is changing, as new technology creates new jobs in some industries while supplanting them in others.

    If Commonwealth businesses are to flourish in such times, if we are to deliver and secure the prosperous future our young people want and deserve, then the Commonwealth and national governments must not be afraid to act.

    Because although the system of international commerce has done much good for the world, it can always be improved. Playing fields can be levelled, barriers removed, the benefits opened up to all.

    So while we should be unapologetic in our support for free and inclusive trade, we should also work hand in hand with businesses to make it more efficient and effective, for example by supporting the use of international standards.

    Shared standards have huge potential to stimulate trade.

    They create a common language for trading partners across the globe, enhance trust in supply chains and stimulate innovation.

    Greater use of these international standards across the Commonwealth will reduce the costs of trade between members, as well as with partners beyond the Commonwealth, for greater global benefit.

    That is why the UK will be funding an all-new Commonwealth Standards Network, which will support developing countries in particular to better meet existing international standards.

    The network will provide a significant opportunity for national standards experts to collaborate and share best practice.

    And it will empower developing countries to have a stronger voice in the international standards community – something that has benefits on a global scale.

    We will also be funding a Trade Facilitation Programme, supporting and providing technical assistance to selected Commonwealth countries in implementing the World Trade Organisation’s Trade Facilitation Agreement. Full implementation of the WTO agreement is estimated to reduce trade costs by up to 16 per cent for the less-developed countries.

    It will cut the average time needed to import goods by 47 per cent, and the time taken to export by as much as 91 per cent, a huge boost for businesses across the Commonwealth.

    But no amount of action on these fronts will truly be successful if half the Commonwealth’s citizens continue to face significant barriers to participation in the economy.

    If our family of nations is to realise its full potential, then we must take action to boost women’s access to economic opportunity, and empower them to create and build their own businesses.

    Many members have already signed up to the Buenos Aires Declaration on Trade and Women’s Economic Empowerment, which seeks to remove barriers to, and support, the participation of women in trade.

    It is an impressive start, but I believe we can go further.

    So, over the next two years, the UK will work with the International Trade Centre to deliver a new programme: SheTrades Commonwealth.

    SheTrades will offer Commonwealth-wide support to help countries break down gender barriers in international trade.

    It will provide a forum for member states to work collectively and share best practice.

    And will compile the data needed to identify what works and track progress over time.

    The programme will also deliver targeted interventions in a number of countries, providing training for women entrepreneurs, connecting them to market and investment opportunities, and helping firms overcome barriers to engaging with women-owned businesses.

    Boosting women’s participation is the right thing to do, but business equality is not just about doing what is right – there are real economic benefits.

    It has been estimated that if women played the same role as men in labour markets, as much as $28 trillion could be added to global GDP by 2025.

    If Commonwealth members are not giving women an equal opportunity to succeed in business and in trade, they are trying to take on some of the biggest economies in the world with one hand tied behind their backs.

    That will not change overnight. But SheTrades represents an important step in the right direction – one that, like the other initiatives I have talked about today, will deliver benefits across the Commonwealth and beyond.

    When we all work to the same standards, when we break down barriers to trade and when we empower women to take their rightful place in the economy, the benefits are felt not just by countries and individuals involved.

    Freer, easier trade means stronger economies, more jobs, more choice and lower prices – and that is true here in the UK, across the Commonwealth and around the world.

    With its unique scope and global voice, such a Commonwealth can set a powerful example to the world, one that demonstrates and underlines the importance of protecting free trade and the rules-based international order.

    Today’s initiatives are an example of what can be done to make that happen, of how governments can lay the groundwork for growth. But you in business also have a vital role to play.

    The discussions here will feed into the full summit, so I hope you take the chance to share ideas and insights, to identify new challenges and new opportunities, to highlight where Commonwealth governments can step up and do more and even where, perhaps, we should step back and do a little less.

    The Commonwealth has never just been about heads of state and government.

    It has always been an organisation in which people and businesses from around the world can come together and work together to improve all our lives.

    This is your forum, and this is your Commonwealth.

    So let us make it an organisation that works for all of us, and shape a future of which we can all be proud.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Press Conference Statement on Syria

    Below is the text of the press conference statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, on 14 April 2018.

    Last night British, French and American armed forces conducted co-ordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use.

    For the UK’s part four RAF Tornado GR 4’s launched storm shadow missiles at a military facility some 15 miles west of Homs, where the regime is assessed to keep chemical weapons in breach of Syria’s obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    While the full assessment of the strike is ongoing, we are confident of its success.

    Let me set out why we have taken this action.

    Last Saturday up to 75 people, including young children, were killed in a despicable and barbaric attack in Douma, with as many as 500 further casualties.

    We have worked with our allies to establish what happened. And all the indications are that this was a chemical weapons attack.

    We have seen the harrowing images of men, women and children lying dead with foam in their mouths.

    These were innocent families who, at the time this chemical weapon was unleashed, were seeking shelter underground, in basements.

    First-hand accounts from NGOs and aid workers have detailed the most horrific suffering, including burns to the eyes, suffocation and skin discolouration, with a chlorine-like odour surrounding the victims.

    And the World Health Organisation has received reports that hundreds of patients arrived at Syrian health facilities on Saturday night with “signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals.”

    We are also clear about who was responsible for this atrocity.

    A significant body of information including intelligence indicates the Syrian Regime is responsible for this latest attack.

    I cannot tell you everything. But let me give an example of some of the evidence that leads us to this conclusion.

    Open source accounts allege that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals.

    Multiple open source reports claim that a Regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7th April.

    The Opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs.

    And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials co-ordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7th April.

    No other group could have carried out this attack. Indeed, Daesh for example does not even have a presence in Douma.

    And the fact of this attack should surprise no-one.

    We know that the Syrian regime has an utterly abhorrent record of using chemical weapons against its own people.

    On 21st August 2013 over 800 people were killed and thousands more injured in a chemical attack also in Ghouta.

    There were 14 further smaller scale chemical attacks prior to that summer.

    At Khan Shaykhun on 4th April last year, the Syrian Regime used sarin against its people killing around 100 with a further 500 casualties.

    And based on the Regime’s persistent pattern of behaviour and the cumulative analysis of specific incidents we judge it highly likely both that the Syrian regime has continued to use chemical weapons since then, and will continue to do so.

    This must be stopped.

    We have sought to do so using every possible diplomatic channel.

    But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted both on the ground and in the United Nations.

    Following the sarin attack in Eastern Damascus back in August 2013, the Syrian Regime committed to dismantle its chemical weapon programme – and Russia promised to ensure that Syria did this, overseen by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

    But these commitments have not been met.

    A recent report from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has said that Syria’s declaration of its former Chemical Weapons programme is incomplete.

    This indicates that it continues to retain undeclared stocks of nerve agent or precursor chemicals – and is likely to be continuing with some chemical weapons production.

    The OPCW inspectors have investigated previous attacks and on four occasions decided that the Regime was indeed responsible.

    And on each occasion when we have seen every sign of chemical weapons being used, any attempt to hold the perpetrators to account has been blocked by Russia at the UN Security Council, with six such vetoes since the start of 2017.

    Just this week, the Russians vetoed a draft Resolution that would have established an independent investigation into this latest attack – even making the grotesque and absurd claim that it was “staged” by Britain.

    So we have no choice but to conclude that diplomatic action on its own will not be any more effective in the future than it has been in the past.

    Over the last week the UK government has been working intensively with our international partners to build the evidence picture, and to consider what action we need to take to prevent and deter future humanitarian catastrophes caused by chemical weapons attacks.

    When the Cabinet met on Thursday we considered the advice of the Attorney General, the National Security Adviser and the Chief of the Defence Staff – and we were updated on the latest assessment and intelligence picture.

    And based on this advice we agreed that it was both right and legal to take military action, together with our closest allies, to alleviate further humanitarian suffering by degrading the Syrian Regime’s Chemical Weapons capability and deterring their use.

    This was not about interfering in a civil war.

    And it was not about regime change.

    As I discussed with President Trump and President Macron, it was a limited, targeted and effective strike with clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation and did everything possible to prevent civilian casualties.

    Together we have hit a specific and limited set of targets. They were a chemical weapons storage and production facility, a key chemical weapons research centre and a military bunker involved in chemical weapons attacks.

    Hitting these targets with the force that we have deployed will significantly degrade the Syrian Regime’s ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons.

    A year ago, after the atrocity at Khan Shaykhun, the US conducted a strike on the airfield from which the attack took place. But Assad and his regime hasn’t stopped their use of chemical weapons.

    So last night’s strikes by the US, UK and France were significantly larger than the US action a year ago and specifically designed to have a greater impact on the regime’s capability and willingness to use chemical weapons.

    And this collective action sends a clear message that the international community will not stand by and tolerate the use of chemical weapons.

    I also want to be clear that this military action to deter the use of chemical weapons does not stand alone.

    We must remain committed to resolving the conflict at large.

    The best hope for the Syrian people remains a political solution.

    We need all partners – especially the Regime and its backers – to enable humanitarian access to those in desperate need.

    And the UK will continue to strive for both.

    But these strikes are about deterring the barbaric use of chemical weapons in Syria and beyond.

    And so to achieve this there must also be a wider diplomatic effort – including the full range of political and economic levers – to strengthen the global norms prohibiting the use of chemical weapons which have stood for nearly a century.

    Although of a much lower order of magnitude, the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the UK in recent weeks is part of a pattern of disregard for these norms.

    So while this action is specifically about deterring the Syrian regime, it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity.

    There is no graver decision for a Prime Minister than to commit our forces to combat – and this is the first time that I have had to do so.

    As always, they have served our country with the greatest professionalism and bravery – and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

    We would have preferred an alternative path.

    But on this occasion there is none.

    We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised – either within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere.

    We must reinstate the global consensus that chemical weapons cannot be used.

    This action is absolutely in Britain’s national interest.

    The lesson of history is that when the global rules and standards that keep us safe come under threat – we must take a stand and defend them.

    That is what our country has always done.

    And that is what we will continue to do.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement in Sweden

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Sweden on 9 April 2018.

    Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for hosting me at Rosenbad today. I’m very pleased to be back in Sweden.

    The historic ties, shared values and cooperation between our countries I think makes ours a truly special partnership.

    As you say, today we have talked about the attack in Salisbury, the threat Russia poses to our shared security, wider European and international security issues, as well as our bilateral relationship, and the progress we have been making towards a Brexit deal.

    But I’d like to begin by reiterating Britain’s condemnation of the truly barbaric chemical attack in Douma, Syria.

    Saturday’s horrific attack against the people of Douma, among them a number of innocent children, was utterly reprehensible.

    We are working closely with our allies to establish urgently the detail of what happened. If confirmed, this represents further evidence of the Assad regime’s appalling cruelty against its own people, and total disregard for its legal obligations not to use these weapons.

    This heinous attack follows a wider pattern of reckless behaviour in which fundamental international norms on counter-proliferation and the use of chemical weapons have been wilfully violated.

    Russia’s vetoes at the UN have enabled the Assad regime to breach global rules, and removed mechanisms that allow us to investigate chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

    So the international community must strengthen its resolve to deal with those responsible. Together with Sweden we have called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council which will take place shortly.

    And just as we must stand up against the use of chemical weapons in Syria and violations of the counter-proliferation agenda, so we must stand together in the wake of last month’s nerve agent attack in Salisbury.

    I’d like to thank you Prime Minister, for your solidarity, and for standing up for our shared values and our shared security.

    Our case for Russian culpability is clear. No other country has a combination of the capability, the intent and the motive to carry out such an act.

    Faced with the evidence, Russia provided no explanation, and even pointed the finger at Sweden in a preposterous effort to distract from the truth.

    So these attempted murders represent another assault on our shared values and the international rules based system which upholds them.

    Your swift condemnation of Russia was critical in helping reinforce western unity. The robust steps that you and others have taken in the past month demonstrate a clear recognition of the shared threat we face.

    We have also discussed the bilateral security and defence relationship between our countries which remains strong, and our cooperation in this area continues to deepen as we look to bolster our European security and harden our defences in the face of the growing challenge from Russia, as well as wider threats to global security.

    Sweden has contributed to international operations in Afghanistan and Libya, and your troops now play an active role alongside ours in UN peacekeeping operations and as part of the global coalition to defeat Daesh.

    I welcome Sweden’s decision to join the Joint Expeditionary Force, which has bolstered our ability to respond quickly together to emerging threats across the globe.

    We also cooperate closely to fight terrorism. In recent years our nations have suffered callous attacks on our citizens by cowards who want to destroy our values and way of life. Indeed, Saturday marked one year on from a despicable act of terror here on the streets of Stockholm.

    And as I said at the time, we will continue to stand together as we confront this shared threat.

    Beyond security, our strong trade and investment relationship – which has grown between our countries over hundreds of years – continues to flourish.

    There are a thousand Swedish companies in the UK and a similar number of British companies with a presence here in Sweden.

    Our economic ties are one of the many reasons we are determined to maintain our close links with Sweden after Brexit. And today we have discussed the ambitious economic and security partnership we want to build.

    We have also reflected on progress in the negotiations, and considered those elements that remain outstanding – including on issues relating to Northern Ireland.

    Our shared interests will undoubtedly continue to align post-Brexit, and I have no intention of allowing our close and historic ties to weaken.

    I want a future relationship of unprecedented breadth and depth with the EU, and with our European partners too.

    And so I am absolutely committed to continuing to work with you in the years ahead, to build on our partnership and keep our people prosperous and safe.

    Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Statement in Denmark

    Below is the text of the statement made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Denmark on 9 April 2018.

    Thank you, Prime Minister, for your warm welcome today and I am delighted to be back in Denmark.

    Your country is a natural partner for the UK, and – as we have discussed today – a likeminded friend and ally on a broad range of issues.

    This afternoon we have, as you have just heard, talked about the attack in Salisbury and the international response to Russia’s aggression, wider European and global security issues, our bilateral relationship, and Brexit.

    First, let me say a word on the reports this weekend of a barbaric chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, targeting innocent civilians – many of them children.

    The UK utterly condemns the use of chemical weapons in any circumstances. And we must urgently establish what happened on Saturday.

    If confirmed, this is yet another example of the Assad regime’s brutality and brazen disregard for its own people and for its legal obligations not to use these weapons. If they are found to be responsible, the regime and its backers – including Russia – must be held to account.

    The events in Douma fit into a troubling wider pattern of acts of aggression and abuse of longstanding international norms on counter-proliferation and the use of chemical weapons.

    In recent years, Russia’s repeated vetoes at the UN have enabled these rules to be broken, and removed mechanisms that allow us to investigate and hold to account chemical weapons attacks in Syria. This must stop.

    We will work closely with our allies – including at the UN Security Council later today – to ensure the international community strengthens its resolve to deal with those who are responsible for carrying out these barbaric attacks, and who allow global norms to be breached in such an appalling way.

    We saw a similar recklessness last month with the use of chemical weapons on the streets of Salisbury.

    I want to extend Britain’s gratitude for your swift and decisive action in response to this horrific attack, and in support of our shared national security.

    The UK’s case for holding Russia responsible for the attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal is clear.

    Based on our world-leading experts at Porton Down positively identifying the chemical agent as a Novichok; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and retains the capability to do so; Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; our assessment that they view some defectors as legitimate targets for assassination, and our information indicating that they have investigated ways of delivering nerve agents, probably for assassination, and as part of this programme have produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichoks, the government has concluded there is no plausible explanation other than that Russia was responsible.

    No other country has a combination of the capability, the intent and the motive to carry out such an act.

    Denmark’s solidarity, along with many countries across the international community, has been invaluable in sending a strong signal to Russia that its illegal and destabilising activity will not be tolerated.

    And the response from Denmark and our allies in recent weeks has shown a clear acknowledgement of the shared threat Russia poses to our security on a range of fronts. This increasingly hostile behaviour has involved a sustained campaign of cyber espionage, and disruption including against Denmark.

    We will continue to stand up for the fundamental values that underpin our way of life. And we agreed today on the need to do more – alongside our allies – to counter the growing challenge from Russia to international security.

    I welcome Denmark’s leadership in co-hosting the next Ukraine Reform Conference in June. This is an important moment in consolidating international support for reform efforts and in helping Ukraine build its stability and resilience to Russian interference.

    The UK and Denmark continue to cooperate closely on security and defence, as we work to tackle shared challenges on our continent and beyond the borders of Europe.

    Nowhere is our shared commitment to Europe’s collective security more evident than in the hundreds of British and Danish troops standing shoulder to shoulder in Estonia as part of a UK-led NATO battlegroup.

    Our armed forces are also taking on Daesh in Iraq and Syria, working to bring long-term stability to Afghanistan, and collaborating through the Joint Expeditionary Force to respond to crises around the world.

    Our economic cooperation – and shared commitment to free trade – is vital to our countries’ prosperity, with our growing trading relationship worth £11 billion a year.

    And on Brexit, we talked today about the progress made at the March European Council on the negotiations, and about the key questions that remain to be resolved.

    We have also taken the opportunity to discuss what we want our future economic and security partnership to look like once Britain has left the EU.

    As I have said before, I am ambitious for the scale and scope of this relationship, and I want to ensure we maintain the closest possible links with our European allies.

    I understand that future arrangements for Denmark’s fishing industry are of particular interest to you. As an independent coastal state, we’ll want to ensure fair and reciprocal access to waters.

    The alliance between Britain and Denmark is rooted deeply in our shared values and a mutual desire to work together for the security and prosperity of our people.

    And so I look forward to working with you to make sure our close and productive ties endure long after Britain has left the EU.

    Thank you.

  • Alan Whitehead – 2018 Speech on Air Quality and Shipping Emissions

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Whitehead, the Labour MP for Southampton Test, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2018.

    It is a sad occasion that I cannot entirely join in the good wishes of the Deputy Leader of the House for the Easter Adjournment, because I am still here, along with you, Mr Speaker, and indeed a number of hon. Friends and hon. Members who have come to hear this debate and possibly to intervene briefly. I am very appreciative of their taking the time to stay behind, and indeed, of the Minister for coming along this afternoon to hear the last Adjournment debate before we finally start our Easter recess.

    The city that I represent is home to one of the UK’s largest ports. Southampton’s thriving port hosts large numbers of container vessels, roll-on/roll-off ships transporting vehicles, and many general cargo ships, along with being the main UK base for cruise ships. In just the next five days in Southampton, more than 60 large vessels are due to arrive at the port, including five cruise ships, nine large vehicle/ro-ro vessels and 10 large container ships. They are all very welcome to the port. Southampton port is not just a great asset to Southampton, but is a national trading and passenger asset in its own right.

    The ships are varied in size, content and function, but they all have one thing in common: when they are in port, often for several days at a time, they keep themselves going—their heating, lighting, power and so on—by running their engines and on-board generators as if they were at sea. During that period, a cruise liner, particularly, will consume an enormous amount of fuel—estimated to be some 2,500 litres of diesel per hour—in running its generators and keeping facilities in good order for perhaps 3,000 or 4,000 passengers. If we take account of the crew members and all the other people who are on the vessel, a cruise liner in port in the middle of Southampton running its engines in this way might be likened to a small town, perhaps the size of Romsey, turning up in the middle of a city and running exclusively on diesel generators, with all the consequences that that has for nitrous oxide and particulate emissions across the area.

    At the same time, Southampton is one of 18 cities in the UK facing possible infraction proceedings because of air quality issues in the city. Measures are under way in Southampton on the basis of commendable action by the city council to get a grip on air quality, including a future clean air zone for the city centre. The port of Southampton is working hard on its shoreside emissions. The port overall can be extrapolated as contributing overall perhaps some 25% of total emissions—of nitrous oxide, sulphur and particulates—but to date, it has not been able to do anything about the central fact of ships berthed in the port.

    However, something can be done and indeed is being done in a number of ports across the world—that is, to plug vessels arriving in port into the port’s mains electricity system, so that a ship can switch off its engines and rely on shore power to do the job. Ports in a number of parts of the world, including the United States, the far east and some parts of Europe, have installed shore-to-ship ​electrical supplies—essentially a very large plug deriving electrical supply from local power that goes into an equally large socket on the ship at berth to take over the running of the ship’s power in port.

    Shore-to-ship power is a very simple and relatively low-cost alternative to ships powering themselves when in ports close to densely populated areas. It also, potentially, makes money for ships at berth, since it is far cheaper for them to run on local power than to burn bunker fuel while in port. It certainly saves on emissions: a recent study in the United States showed that cruise vessels using shore power in one location saved 99% of their nitrous oxide emissions and between 60% and 70% of particulate emissions. Increasing numbers of vessels visiting ports in the UK now have the equipment on board that allows them to plug in. The problem is, though, that there are no shore facilities installed in Southampton, or indeed in any medium or large commercial port anywhere in the UK.

    Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the argument he outlines. Does he believe that the absence of the shore-to-ship power supply is caused by a lack of regulation? Will he come on to what the shipping companies are expected to be able to do in terms of plugging in? Is it the responsibility of the port? Have the Government legislated on what ought to be the best practice in ports?

    Dr Whitehead My hon. Friend has raised some important points, and I shall touch on some of them in a moment. There are currently no regulations that would mandate the introduction of shore-to-ship power, although it is possible that European Union directives could be used for the purpose.

    To the credit of Southampton port, it is looking into whether it can install facilities in one cruise liner berth, but, as far as I know, it is alone in that. No other major port in the United Kingdom is following suit. The arguments that are presented for doing nothing about it are multiple and familiar. It is argued that not enough ships have the facilities to “plug in”, so it would be a waste of money, or that it is too expensive to take the plunge unilaterally, or that there are other ways in which emissions from ships might be reduced.

    Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. As he will know, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and I have concerns about the Enderby Wharf cruise liner terminal that is planned for East Greenwich. In that instance, the developer is saying that the cruise liner company with which it is working does not have the necessary technology. Is there not a role for the Government here? Could they not regulate to encourage cruise liner companies to upgrade and retrofit their fleets so that they can utilise this option when ports and terminals take it up?

    Dr Whitehead There is certainly a case for doing that. In California, regulations require a certain proportion of ships visiting ports to use shore-to-ship facilities. However, in California the facilities are already there.

    The arguments for doing nothing have some limited grounds, but unless the facilities are there, ships will have no incentive to equip themselves to use them, and, ​as I have said, there is currently no mandate for their use. Equipping a berth for large vessels would cost about £3 million, and fully equipping all Britain’s major and medium-sized ports would probably come to about £100 million.

    Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) Before I came to this place, I was a deputy executive member on Leeds City Council, and I attended many workshops with Southampton city councillors where I heard those same arguments. It was said that Southampton and other city councils were too hard pressed to introduce such measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are doing all that they can, but need Government support?

    Dr Whitehead I do agree, and in a moment I shall refer to the support that the Government might be able to provide. If we are to roll out shore-to-ship power across the country, we shall need a combination of stick and carrot.

    The £100 million that I have just mentioned would, however, largely be recovered—eventually—in fees in subsequent years, because ships coming into port would be charged for the electricity that they used, although it would be cheaper for them than using their own bunker fuel. It is true that some companies are making an effort to modify the fuel that is used by generators when ships are in port so that they run on, say, liquid petroleum gas rather than diesel or bunker fuel, but nothing comes close to the benefit of shore-to-ship supply.

    So how can we make a break in the apparent stand-off that currently exists in the UK? Ports may be aware that shore-to-ship power is beginning to happen seriously around the world, and ships are increasingly turning up ready to go, but everyone is looking over their shoulder to see whether anyone else is moving first. It might, commendably, be Southampton—although even then the initiative is for only one berth, which is a start but leaves a long way to go—but Southampton should not be in such a position.

    My central call this afternoon is for Government to take the lead in the creation of a level playing field for all ports in the UK for shore-to-ship installations by giving notice of an intention to mandate their use in ports by a specified date and, if I can venture a suggestion, to place aside a modest fund to assist ports in installing the necessary equipment over the specified implementation period.

    That is not exactly a novel idea, because an EU directive already exists—directive 2014/94/EU, to be precise, known as the alternative fuels infrastructure directive or AFID. It says this on shore-to-ship power, in article 4(5):

    “Member States shall ensure that the need for shore-side electricity supply for inland waterway…and seagoing ships in maritime and inland ports is assessed in their national policy frameworks. Such shore-side electricity supply shall be installed as a priority in ports of the TEN-T Core Network, and in other ports, by 31 December 2025”.

    Article 4(6) states:

    “Member States shall ensure that shore-side electricity supply installations for maritime transport, deployed or renewed as from 18 November 2017, comply with the technical specifications set out in point 1.7 of Annex II.”

    The Government have consulted and responded to the consultation on the directive, except that in the consultation they have scrupulously put the implementation of article 4(6) into train by insisting that statutory operators​
    “must ensure that new or renewed shore side supply installations must comply with certain technical standards”.

    Frankly, I imagine that that will be fairly easy to comply with given that none exist. Of course, there is not a mention in the consultation or response of the rather more difficult point made in article 4(5).

    In other words, as far as I can see, the Department does not intend to do anything about that. So my other call this afternoon—or rather perhaps a question—is about why the Department has apparently ignored one of the central points of the alternative fuels directive. Does it intend to put that right and get on with a programme of installing shore-to-ship charging before we are no longer mandated to do so at the end of the transition period of leaving the EU? Or does it just intend that such a mandate might just slip away and get lost after our exit from the EU is complete? If the latter is the case, that will be a sad outcome both for Southampton and all the populations of the ports around the country who welcome and support the port activity in their towns and cities but want those ports to be contributors to the health and clean air of their cities rather than detractors.

    I hope that the Minister has a positive response for me this afternoon so that I can wish her, as well as everybody else, a happy Easter.

    Jim Fitzpatrick I sensed that my hon. Friend was heading to a conclusion. At the beginning of his speech, he said how important the port of Southampton is for the wellbeing of the city, so will he confirm that this is not an attack on shipping, which is a fundamental industry for the UK economy? Members want to support shipping and are asking the Government for leadership in ensuring that shipping is more environmentally friendly and clean in the future. That will mean that when new cruise terminals are proposed for places such as the centre of London, people will welcome that because of the economic benefit it will bring and because they know that it will operate on an environmentally clean basis.

    Dr Whitehead My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I want to emphasise a little more. The presence of the port and all the activity that goes on with it are wholly welcomed in Southampton. I am sure that that is exactly the same in other cities that are close to and host major ports in the UK. Those cities do not want to see the end of those ports; indeed, they want to see development and thriving arrangements. All the boroughs around those cities have a joint interest in ensuring that the ports thrive as best they can. Over the years, Southampton has been substantially supportive of the growth and development of the port, but we want ports to work on the same basis as everyone else, cleaning up the air around us and ensuring that we can live in an environment that is conducive to the thriving of those ports for the future.

    Hoping that the Minister has a positive response for me this afternoon, I will end with the thought that that response will literally enable my constituents to breathe more easily.

  • David Gauke – 2018 Statement on John Worboys

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Gauke, the Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 28 March 2018.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I’d like to make a statement on the High Court judgment handed down this morning in the case relating to the Parole Board decision to release John Radford, formerly known as John Worboys.

    This is an important and unprecedented case. The President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, the most senior judge who heard this case said – it is wholly exceptional. It is the first time that a Parole Board decision to release a prisoner has been challenged and the first time that the rules on the non-disclosure of Parole Board decisions have been called into question.

    The judgment quashes the Parole Board’s decision to release Worboys and finds that Rule 25 of the Parole Board Rules is unlawful.

    This means that Worboys’ case will now be resubmitted to the Parole Board. A new panel will be constituted and updated evidence on his risk from prison and probation professionals will be provided. The panel will then assess anew whether Worboys is suitable for release.

    Those victims, covered by the Victim Contact Scheme, will be fully informed and involved in this process.

    My department also has to reformulate the Parole Board’s rules to allow more transparency around decision making and reasoning.

    Mr Speaker, it is clear that there was widespread concern about the decision by the Parole Board to release Worboys. As I have previously told the House, I share these concerns and, consequently I welcome the judgment.

    I want to congratulate the victims who brought the judicial review and to reiterate my heartfelt sympathy for all victims who have suffered as a result of Worboys’ hideous crimes.

    Mr Speaker, I want to set out, in greater detail than I have previously been able, the reasons why I did not bring a judicial review.

    As I told the House on 19 January, I looked carefully at whether I could challenge this decision. It would have been unprecedented for the Secretary of State to bring a judicial review against the Parole Board – a body which is independent but for which my department is responsible.

    I took expert legal advice from Leading Counsel on whether I should bring a challenge. The bar for judicial review is set high. I considered whether the decision was legally irrational – in other words, a decision which no reasonable Parole Board could have made.

    The advice I received was that such an argument was highly unlikely to succeed. And, indeed, this argument did not succeed. However, the victims succeeded in a different argument.

    They challenged that, while Ministry of Justice officials opposed release, they should have done more to put forward all the relevant material on other offending.

    They also highlighted very significant failures on the part of the Parole Board to make all the necessary inquiries and so fully take into account wider evidence about Worboys’ offending.

    I also received advice on the failure of process argument and was advised that this was not one that I as Secretary of State would have been able to successfully advance.

    The victims were better placed to make this argument and this was the argument on which they have won their case.

    It is right that the actions of Ministry officials, as well as the Parole Board, in this important and unusual case have been laid open to judicial scrutiny.

    I have always said I fully support the right of victims to bring this action. I have been very concerned at every point not to do anything to hinder the victims’ right to challenge and to bring their arguments and their personal evidence before the court.

    Indeed, the judgment suggests that, had I brought a case, the standing of the victims may have been compromised.

    The Court’s findings around how this decision was reached give rise to serious concerns.

    The Court has found that “the credibility and reliability” of Worboys’ account in relation to his previous offending behaviour “was not probed to any extent, if at all” by the Parole Board. And that although the Parole Board was entitled to make enquiries of the police in relation to his offending it did not do so.

    These are serious failings which need serious action to address. In these circumstances, I have accepted Professor Nick Hardwick’s resignation as Chair of the organisation.

    I am also taking the following actions:

    Instructing my officials to issue new guidance that all relevant evidence of past offending should be included in the dossiers submitted to the Parole Board, including possibly police evidence, so that it can be robustly tested in each Parole Board hearing.

    Putting in place robust procedures to check that every dossier sent by HMPPS to the Parole Board contains every necessary piece of evidence – including sentencing remarks or other relevant material from previous trials or other civil legal action.

    Boosting the role of the Secretary of State’s representative at Parole Board hearings – with a greater presumption that they should be present for those more complex cases where HM Prison and Probation Service is arguing strongly against release, as was the case here.

    Working with the Parole Board to review the composition of panels so that the Parole Board includes greater judicial expertise for complex, high profile cases – particularly where multiple victims are involved or where there is a significant dispute between expert witnesses as to the suitability for release.
    And develop more specialist training for Parole Board panel members.
    The judgment also found that blanket ban on the transparency of Parole Board proceedings is unlawful. I accept the finding of the Court and will not be challenging this.

    It was my view from the beginning that very good reasons would be needed to persuade me we should continue with a law that doesn’t allow any transparency. I am now considering how the Rule should be reformulated. When I addressed the House on this matter in January, I said I had commissioned a review into how victims were involved in Parole Board decisions, in the transparency of the Parole Board and on whether there should be a way of challenging Parole Board decisions. That work has been continuing for these past two and a half months.

    Given the very serious issues identified in this case, I can announce today that I intend to conduct further work to examine the Parole Board rules in their entirety.

    As a result of the work that has been completed to date, I have already decided to abolish rule 25 in its current form and will do so as soon as possible after the Easter recess. This will enable us to provide for the Parole Board to make available summaries of the decisions they make to victims.

    In addition, I will bring forward proposals for Parole Board decisions to be challenged through an internal review mechanism where a separate judge-led panel will look again at cases which meet a designated criterion.

    I intend to consult on the detail of these proposals by the end of April alongside other proposals to improve the way that victims are kept informed about the parole process. I am grateful to Baroness Newlove for her help with this part of the review and to Dame Glenys Stacey for her helpful suggestions and review of the way that victim liaison operated in this case.

    I will come back to the House with further proposals as these are developed. But in conclusion Mr Speaker, let no-one doubt the seriousness with which I take the issues raised by this morning’s judgment – nor the bravery of the victims who brought this case to Court.

    I commend this statement to the House.