UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Dominic Raab – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Dominic Raab – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, on 7 April 2020.

    Good afternoon, welcome to Downing Street for today’s coronavirus press conference. I’m joined by our Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, Chris it’s good to have you back. And also by Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser Angela Maclean.

    And before Angela gives us an update on the data, I would like to update you on the steps that the government is taking to defeat the coronavirus.

    Our step-by-step action plan is aimed at slowing the spread of the virus, so fewer people need hospital treatment at any one time, and that will protect the NHS’s ability to cope. At each point, we have been following scientific and medical advice and we’ve been very deliberate in our actions, taking the right measures at the right moment.

    We are taking unprecedented action to increase NHS capacity, by dramatically expanding the numbers of beds, key staff and equipment on the front-line, to give people the care they need, when they need it most. That is also why we are instructing people to stay at home, so we can protect our NHS and save lives.

    I can report that through the government’s ongoing monitoring and testing programme, as of today:

    208,837 people have now been tested for the virus

    51,608 have tested positive

    the number of people admitted to hospital with coronavirus symptoms now stands at 17,911 and of those who have contracted the virus 5,373 sadly have died

    Our thoughts, our deepest condolences are with their loved ones at this very difficult time.

    These figures are a powerful reminder of why we need everyone to follow the government’s guidance. We must stay at home, to protect our NHS and to save lives.

    As you will know, last night, the Prime Minister was admitted to hospital for tests following advice from his doctor. This was a precautionary step, because he continues to have persistent coronavirus symptoms, ten days after first having tested positive for the virus.

    I can tell you that the PM had a comfortable night in hospital, and he’s in good spirits. He’s still in hospital under observation. He is being given regular updates on developments, and he continues to lead the government.

    I can reassure the British people that the government remains united in a single overriding priority, which is to defeat the coronavirus and see this nation through the challenge ahead.

    In the last week under the Prime Minister’s leadership:

    the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Gove has explained what we are doing to boost manufacturing capability here at home, to meet the rising demand for ventilators and other equipment in the NHS

    Business Secretary Alok Sharma has been setting what the government is doing to support small businesses and yesterday, Health Secretary Matt Hancock gave an update on what we are doing to bolster capacity in the NHS, including increasing the number of critical care beds

    The FCO is supporting all of these operational priorities.

    So we’re deploying the diplomatic network right around the world, to source and buy ventilators and protective equipment, so that we can reinforce the NHS frontline here at home.

    At the same time, we’re working with other governments and the airlines to bring home as many stranded British nationals as we possibly can, prioritising our most vulnerable citizens.

    On commercial flights we’ve helped over 200,000 UK nationals come home from Spain, 13,000 from Egypt, 8,000 from Indonesia.

    We’ve also charted flights from 7 different countries, bringing home more than 2,000 British nationals.

    We’ve repatriated a further 1,550 from cruise ships, including most recently the Coral Princess and the Zaandam.

    And for those travellers still stuck abroad, we’re doing everything we can to keep international airports open, to keep commercial flights running, and to charter flights, when there are no other options – under the new arrangements I announced last week, and which have now been agreed with 14 airlines.

    We’ve allocated £75 million to support those arrangements. We’ve already had flights back from countries including Peru, Ghana, and Tunisia.

    And we’re fixing further flights from India, South Africa, Nepal and the Philippines, which will fly later on this week.

    So, I want to reassure people that every arm of government is doing everything it possibly can to defeat coronavirus and rise to the challenges it presents us at home and abroad.

    Last night, Her Majesty the Queen reflected on the national spirit of unity and resolve that we are seeing in our country, as well as the collective effort we need to tackle the disease. From our heroic doctors, nurses and careworkers, through to those manning the tills at supermarkets and pharmacies, those driving the lorries and the buses. They are all worthy of our applause, they are all worthy of our admiration.

    And on that note, both the Prime Minister and I would like to thank all the NHS staff for their truly heroic work and we urge the public to continue to follow the government’s advice to:

    – stay at home
    – protect the NHS
    – and save lives

    And on that note, I will pass over to Angela for an update on the latest data.

  • Stan Thorne – 1978 Speech on Local Authorities and Housing Management

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stan Thorne, the then Labour MP for Preston South, in the House of Commons on 8 June 1978.

    There are clearly only a few hon. Members who are interested in the points that I wish to make. I am aware that housing is basically a local authority matter, but we are concerned nationally about standards of provision. The Department of the Environment is in business to help local authorities, where possible, to improve their housing stock and to advise in many areas, including the management of stock.

    The background to the problems of the inner town area of Preston cannot be covered in depth in a short speech, but part of the history must be told. In 1955 the council embarked upon the first slum clearance programme affecting a part of the town known as Avenham, between Manchester Road and Frenchwood Street. When clearance was under way and the cost of land was known to be £32,000 an acre, Preston was pressed by the then Minister, on financial grounds, to build upwards.

    Two multi-storey blocks, Lancaster House and York House, were opened in about 1960. They were closely followed by Cumberland House, Westmorland House and Northumberland House. To people in need, these represented acceptable residences. In 1962, further blocks, Carlisle House, Richmond House and Durham House, closely followed by Kendal House and Penrith House, provided a total of 849 dwellings of mixed types including bed-sitters and one-, two-and three-bedroomed flats.

    In 1965 the housing committee was faced with complaints by tenants of heavy condensation and various attempts were made through the construction industry to remedy those defects, without notable success. It subsequently came to ​ the notice of the council and certain social and behavioural problems were also appearing within these blocks.

    The housing committee sought, as far as practicable, not to rehouse into those blocks families with young children, but it must be reported that this policy has failed. I am not involved with many of the families with young children in these multi-storey blocks who want to get out as quickly as possible for a variety of reasons, but mainly because of the difficulties of providing children with play facilities and the mischief that children can clearly get into in that sort of environment.

    The financial problem for the local authority has been immense in terms of cost of building, landscaping maintenance, and so on, and rents have varied over the years. The conditions in these dwellings deteriorated noticeably in about 1970, when vandalism became rife and the behavioural problems produced the fouling of lifts, excess noise, bad neighbour relations and damage to windows and other property within the buildings.

    Attempts were made by the local authority to control these aspects through meetings with tenants and the scheme for locking up in one block, Kendal House, fairly early at night. That produced a pattern of breaking and entering, and was not a success.

    The operation of the lifts has produced a loss of several thousand pounds in refurbishing, and the lift suppliers have clearly lost interest in maintaining an adequate stock of spares to keep the lifts running.

    Under the Fair Rents Act an attempt was made to have the blocks valued in such a way as to provide for a reduction in rents on the ground of inferior accommodation, but that was unsuccessful. Indeed, they were rated at about £10 more than comparable properties in much better areas.

    Various suggestions have been considered by the housing committee, political control of which has changed over the years, as to alternative use. Investigations have been carried out concerning criteria for entry—for example, no young children, executive-type employment, or student occupancy through the Preston Polytechnic. The latter presents considerable difficulties in terms of finance.

    There is about £9 million owing for the next 40-odd years, and any release of accommodation for students would, I believe, not rank for grant or loan. A rent for a flat may emerge at about £20 a week. Modifications have been estimated in respect of one block to amount to £120,000. As students normally require accommodation for only 40 weeks a year the other 12 weeks’ rental presents a problem. Additionally, it must be recognised that some of the present occupants wish to remain in the buildings. One suggestion was made that the blocks be used for elderly people, but discussions with Age Concern soon dispelled that notion.

    After the decision to reduce the number of families with younger children had been taken the numbers of families wishing to transfer crystallised. There are now about 130 families seeking a transfer in a situation in which there are 2,563 families in Preston seeking a home, many of whom—it is estimated at over 50 per cent.—are priority cases.

    The house building programme of the present Conservative-controlled council is 100 houses for rent this year, with the hope that housing associations will supplement that figure. An area cleared for rebuilding, known as Maudland Bank, is presently being developed. Wimpeys are building thereon 72 houses, most of which win be for sale to local authority housing list applicants. In Ingol, about 200 units of accommodation are planned. Within Ingol and Grange Estate there are many families becoming increasingly discontented in two-, three-, and four-storey flats where they have young children and where there are problems of vandalism and anti-social behaviour.

    The Central Lancashire New Town has a role to play in urban renewal and it would be interesting to know whether it can assist in the particular area to which I refer. It is possible that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to comment on that. Recently the council has employed staff to knock on doors to sell houses. The end-product is likely to be 1,000 fewer houses for rent. During the past six weeks a further 270 families have been added to the priority list and the trend suggests that by the end of 1978 there are likely to be 3,000 on the waiting list in Preston. That will be the highest figure ever recorded in the town’s history.

    My purpose in raising these extremely difficult problems is to seek my hon. Friend’s advice on their solution. I recognise that that is not an easy proposition. Is there any way in which a local conference of Ministers, housing committee members and officers, Members of Parliament, community representatives within the social service sector, the probationary service, tenants and residents associations and others, could be set up to consider how in a collective way we can overcome the difficulties and plan a progressive housing policy at Preston?

    I should welcome my hon. Friend’s advice on that score. As I have taken only 10 minutes, and have done so deliberately, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) will be allowed to say a few words to supplement the points that I have made which I am sure the Under-Secretary will find little difficulty in accepting. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these matters.

    Mr. Ronald Atkins (Preston, North)

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) for allowing me a few minutes to make a contribution to this short debate.

    We suffer from changing fashions in planning. In the 1950s and early 1960s planning opinion favoured high-rise flats as the answer to problems of land scarcity in town centres. These blocks today are almost universally condemned by the same planners. Tenants are refusing to live in them as being unsuitable for their families or for other reasons.
    It is a pity that we cannot anticipate, or even to want to anticipate, the wishes of those who have to live in the buildings that we plan for them. This lack of consultation is also evident in modernisation. For example, some tenants are forced to accept central heating which they cannot afford to cope with and are advised to keep their windows open when condensation or fungus appears on the walls.

    There is a need for consultation and a freer choice in all housing matters. Housing authorities provide better houses, but not always better communities. The authorities do not ask grandparents whether they want to be segregated, with others, away from their children and grandchildren. They do not ask parents ​ whether they would like gran—the best and cheapest baby sitter—to live in a street nearby.

    We in this House deliberate in our Select Committees and discover that violence in the family is often due to the break-up of family ties which in the past made a family secure and a community balanced. High-rise flats are unsuitable for children, and couples need to move when they have children. How can we have a stable community in such conditions?
    There is much to be said for good old-fashioned houses to replace the old streets which are being demolished. When I was a member of the Preston Borough Council, I advocated that, as the houses in the Wilbraham/Geoffrey Street area were being pulled down, the rebuilding of the street should proceed soon afterwards, enabling those who wished to do so to remain in the neighbourhood. If the Tories had adopted that Labour policy, we would have seen houses rising on what is now waste land which attracts vandals, rubbish and vermin.

    It saddens me to see Tory district councils wanting to rid themselves of their most important remaining function—their housing services. In Preston, the housing waiting list has now reached 2,576. It has increased by 105 in the last few weeks. That total was already much too high. But, apart from not carrying on the programme which Labour started, the Preston Council is waiting for others to get on with the job of building on waste land that has been waiting for houses too long. Good housing is the most important factor in social improvement. We ignore it at our peril.

  • John Davies – 1978 Speech on Foreign Affairs

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Davies, the then Conservative MP for Knutsford and Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 7 June 1978.

    I can certainly agree with the Foreign Secretary about the extent to which his speech has concentrated upon the problems and the areas of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the Western world. It is all too evident. As we look around the areas of tension world wide, it is very rare to find one where the Soviet Union’s finger is not somewhere in the pie.

    I realise, of course—and the Prime Minister said so yesterday—that not all these problems are matters of straightforward East-West confrontation. We know that underlying them in so many cases there are many ancient arguments and discussions, some which—in Africa certainly—pre-date the colonial period. They go back to tribal origins of which we are all well aware. The fact is that in each of them we see appearing the finger of Soviet involvement, to the damage of both the people themselves and certainly of our Western way of life.

    If we review the areas of tension we think of Southern Africa. We need not dwell on that area because the Foreign Secretary has said a great deal about it. However, the extent of the involvement of the Soviet Union is all too evident. It is all too evident in the Horn of Africa. We have the recent events of Afghanistan. I am far from being able to state—I doubt whether many people would be able to do so—the exact nature of the situation in that country. However, there can be little doubt that there again the long tentacle of Soviet interest has been reaching out.

    There is the problem of South-East Asia. There is the problem even of the South Pacific. In a different sense entirely there is the extraordinary effect of the build-up of the USSR merchant marine, with its predatory effect on the whole of the world’s merchant shipping. All these factors are evidence of the Soviet Union’s reaching out to damage not only us but so often the countries concerned.

    There is a great danger that we may adopt and accept some sort of false hypothesis that there is an equivalence of threat from us to the Soviet Union. That is not true. It is totally unrealistic to ascribe to the West a desire to disrupt and overthrow the Russian way of life. That has not been our objective, and it ​ is not so today. There is a great contrast between the West’s approach, which seeks to achieve change by its example and experience, by demonstrating that it runs things in a way that works better, and trying to convince others that as a result they should adopt our way of life, and the approach of the Soviet Union, which seeks to achieve exactly the same objective so often by force.

    Mr. Heffer

    The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what is going on in this world. Has he not read the recent revelations of what happened in Chile with the involvement of the CIA? There were measures taken to try to assassinate certain political leaders. That sort of thing was going on the whole time. Some of us condemn what the Soviet Union does, but it is about time that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends stopped mouthing rubbish about what happens when the CIA and others involve themselves in the internal affairs of countries that sometimes have elected leaders democratically, only to be undermined by the so-called Western standards of the CIA and others of that sort.

    Mr. Davies

    That interjection is totally wrong as regards what I said. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House that it is the purpose of the West deliberately to disrupt and undermine the life of the Soviet Union?

    Mr. Heffer

    Yes.

    Mr. Davies

    I do not know that, and I do not believe it to be the truth.

    Mr. Heffer

    You are a fool.

    Mr. Davies

    There is a total contrast between the attitude—

    Mr. Heffer

    What about Greece and the colonels?

    Mr. Davies

    I have endeavoured to answer the hon. Gentleman.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

    Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Heffer) might want to catch my eye at a later stage in the proceedings. He is not doing very well at present.

    Mr. Davies

    The contrast to which I have referred is starkly revealed in the whole of the Belgrade review of the Helsinki Final Act. The whole effort of ​ the West was to reduce tension and to improve relations by a systematic reduction of the causes of conflict within international relations generally within human rights, within normal humanitarian interchanges between States and within information on troop movements and the like.

    What was the response? It seems that it was as near to a complete negative as it could be. The reality is that the Soviet Union pursues ruthlessly the imposition of its own brand of ideology worldwide. Indeed, in President Carter’s speech he said:

    “To the Soviet Union, detente seems to mean a continuing aggressive struggle for political advantage and increased influence in a variety of ways.”

    That seems to be a just and correct statement.

    It is necessary that we seek to ascertain what is happening in the Soviet Union’s approach to the whole of its relationships with the Western world. I make some contrast with the analysis that the Secretary of State outlined. It seems that over many years the Soviet Union has been concerned with achieving equivalence or, where possible, superiority in its military preparedness, both in the strategic area and in conventional armaments, in the presumption that once that has been achieved it may argue from a position of strength and always ensure that negotiations with the West will so preserve either its superiority or at the worst equivalence, allowing it to act in other ways in regard to its own interests.

    I ask the House to take note of the fact to which the Secretary of State refered, namely, the whole conduct of the mutual and balanced force reduction discussions. That conduct has been based upon the presumption that nothing could be lost to the Soviet Union by loss of time. During the whole of that period conventional arms were being built up, so the certainty of superiority was assured. By that means the negotiations could be protracted. I fear that exactly the same approach is to be repeated in respect of the strategic arms problem. There is no change acceptable within that framework that is acceptable to the Soviet Union, and thus its superiority is either preserved or reinforced.

    Having achieved that position disarmament becomes desirable. It is obvious ​ that when one is assured of at least equivalence, and perhaps superiority, there is every interest in pursuing the whole objective of disarmament. I do not believe that the claim made recently by Russian leaders that they wish to achieve disarmament is false. I believe it to be a true claim but one which would preserve the Soviet Union’s superiority or at least equivalence.

    Mr. John Watkinson (Gloucestershire, West)

    The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the increase of Warsaw Pact forces in the Central Region. However, will he concede that if we take the totality of the forces and equipment available to the Warsaw Pact forces and the totality of forces and equipment available to NATO it is clear that there is parity in a large number of areas, with distinct superiority to the West in many others?

    Mr. Davies

    That superiority has been eroded to a large extent. If we consider the totality of the balance, it is quite clear that it has shifted the other way. The balance of force has changed and a new phase of Soviet strategy has now emerged. From the time that there has been a change in the balance, objectives have been pursued by the Soviet Union by indirect intrusion rather than by the threat of overwhelming force. The exploitation of any potential weakness worldwide that reveals itself is part of the Soviet Union’s scheme. It watches out for cracks in the whole armour of global security and inserts itself in them.

    It is wrong to imagine that the Soviet Union’s whole purpose is to secure dominant situations of threat to the West. I do not believe that to be so. In many instances the internal disruption of key areas is equally as effective as the adoption of a dominant position. If it is possible to undermine areas that have an essential contribution to make to Western interests in future, as much is achieved as if a military superiority or a philosophical one had been attained. The Soviet Union has adopted a quite different approach to the problems of progressively asserting its own ideology and imposing it worldwide. The confrontation now is not a contemplation of a head-on assault but rather one of sapping the resources and morale of the West by indirect means.

    The analysis and recognition of the problem is in no way warmongering or the resumption of the cold war. That is far from my mind. Still less is it a desire to break off contact and to reject negotiation. That, too, is absolutely absent from my thoughts. However, as the Prime Minister spoke yesterday he would dangerously mislead us into seeking to infer that the true appraisal of the real confrontation is in itself evidence of belligerency. In my view, it is quite the opposite. It is reminiscent of the days of appeasement of the 1930s to suggest that a revelation and recognition of the dangers surrounding us constitute a provocation.

    It is equally dangerous to reveal dangers and to be unprepared to take what steps are possible to improve our negotiating status. Yesterday the Prime Minister, perhaps not uncharacteristically, was long on sententious utterances but, as usual, rather short on positive steps to strengthen our negotiating stance. Yet both are available. There are means of doing both. There are the instruments at hand to do so and there are the things which want doing for that strengthening.

    As regards NATO, yesterday I was concerned to hear the Prime Minister say:

    “But there is no intention that NATO should become involved in Africa.”—[Official Report, 6th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 29.]

    But NATO is involved in Africa. It happens to be involved in Africa by its very proposition that its operational limits reach down to the Tropic of Cancer. Apart from that, it is involved in Africa because from Africa emerge many of the dangers which can provoke the very confrontation which NATO is there to face. Therefore, it is not right to try to eliminate NATO’s role from the whole of this important and fundamental area.

    Of course, I understand that there is no desire to extend the operational zone of NATO, seeing that already the disparity of forces makes the existing zone overstretched as far as we are concerned. Indeed, as regards the United Kingdom, that is all the more sorrily true when we think of the immense reductions in our own force capabilities which have taken place in the last few years. How unhappy it is that the incapacity of NATO to live up to its own necessary ​ commitments should have been so largely caused by our failure to maintain that level which we should maintain.
    NATO is undoubtedly the linchpin of Western defence. Therefore, it must take account of the causes of danger which arise globally. It cannot restrict itself to a limited zone of interest.

    Surely there must be a need for the improvement of the assessment and alarm system which detects areas of incipient danger before they arise and concerts plans to meet them. It must be done. Where else would the overhead strategy be engineered to ensure that the whole mechanism of response becomes more effective were it not within NATO itself?

    This surely is a sphere of action to which the Government must give more attention. It is important that NATO should be involved deeply in the constant forward analysis of those areas where tensions arise and where, as I said, the Soviet Union is so prepared and quickly able to insert itself to the damage of us all.

    Mr. Robert Hughes

    Could the right hon. Gentleman say in which areas of Africa recently he has been surprised at developments where there has been tension?

    Mr. Davies

    I think that the changing situation in the Horn of Africa could be said to have contained a number of surprises for many people, not least for myself, I freely admit, for many countries and certainly for the Government. There are areas where changes take place. The switching of allegiance has caused intense problems. Indeed, the Secretary of State referred to that matter earlier. In the framework of all these spheres, the interrelationships which exist between the SALT II and the MBFR talks and the whole question of nuclear disarmament, in whatever form it takes, need some point where the correlation of the West’s attitude and response to the issues concerned can be thrashed out. To my mind, it is useless to imagine that NATO has not got a fundamental part to play in that analysis.

    Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar (Belper)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr. Davies

    If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I shall give way to him later.

    ​ Another instrument which has been inadequately used up to date is the Community. I think that the political cooperation system which was developed in the Community to seek to concert political action within the member countries has found itself too much involved in simply mouthing utterances of exhortation and philosophy which have had extraordinarily little effect on the real outrun of events.

    The use of the Community’s negotiated arrangements, either through the Lomé Convention or its association arrangements with many other States, is an area where much greater involvement of the Community in the political stability of the countries with which it is dealing can be achieved.

    A further instrument may be the OECD. The OECD has been concerned within the West and amongst the Western industrialised countries in seeking to procure certain rules of order amongst them. How much more important that it should do so in relations between Western and Eastern countries. It is ridiculous that we should find ourselves offering terms of contract and credit to the East for the purchase of ships and other materials which we would by no means offer to our own industry. Surely this is an area where again instruments are available and can be turned to the advantage of the West.

    Of course, the Foreign Secretary dwelt at considerable length—I understand it—on Africa. Africa is a case study in itself of the current confrontation. The Secretary of State spoke a great deal about the Zaire problem, and I understand that.

    Mr. MacFarquhar

    Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the whole question of Western instruments, obviously there are three levels at which these can be discussed in the new way. There is the level of rhetoric, and I assume that he does not wish to limit himself to that. There is also the level of analysis. The right hon. Gentleman talked of NATO being able to provide analysis. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman has to go further, especially as regards NATO, if he means that NATO has got not just an interest but the means of doing almost anything in Africa, which would mean that the NATO treaty should be changed.

    ​Mr. Davies

    I said earlier that I doubted whether NATO’s operational zone could be extended for want of the capacity effectively to handle it. At the moment that must be the truth. But its importance in terms of correlating the activities of either groupings or individual States which may be involved seems absolutely intense and needs to be most actively pursued.

    The Secretary of State dwelt particularly on the issue of Zaire, and I understand that. But the problem is far more generalised. It seems unquestionable that Europe and Africa are irrevocably bound up with one another in a mutual interest. Europe’s deep dependence on Africa’s natural resources, be they mineral or food, is one side of the equation. But Africa’s equally deep dependence on Europe’s contribution to its development and management is no less serious. These two continents have got to find means of helping one another and they have to engineer, through their institutions, arrangements to ensure that help. Either deprived of the other’s contribution becomes precarious or worse.

    One has only to see the problem in many countries in Africa today when, either by their own will or by some accident of fate, they have deprived themselves of the input which the Europeans can and should effectively make. It is tragic to see it. We must find means round this immensely difficult problem.

    In no sense is what I am talking about a kind of neo-colonialism. It is not that, whatever. There is a state of interdependence which is fundamental. When the Foreign Secretary speaks of methods of monitoring the adequacy with which aid moneys and the like are utilised, of course we are immediately faced with the smack of neo-colonialism and the paternalism which he condemns. But it is necessary to find methods by which this interflow of materials and products resources on one side and of knowledge and ability on the other is preserved and improved.

    It suffices only for the disrupter to disrupt that interflow—to disrupt the ability of those countries to be able to count on the continuing movement and source of their own needs—for the whole situation to be damaged beyond repair. It is not necessary to install hostile regimes. The spread of Marxist ​ philosophy is not necessary, provided one can so ruin the countries concerned that they can neither take advantage of the Western input of ability nor provide the resources which are their principal source of prosperity.

    The evidence is all too easily available of just the kind of deterioration of which I am speaking. In the last few days I have been speaking to several major employers of European staffs in Africa. I spoke to both African and European employers. They ask—and I understand why—”what chance is there now of getting our people back into these areas?” I believe that 30,000 Belgians are employed in Africa. Many of them are leaving because they have no assurance of the future in that continent.

    Unless we take urgent steps to help, the same will happen in Rhodesia. All those people upon whom the development and prosperity of that country depend will find it impossible to retain their livelihoods there and they will seek to go elsewhere. This is a role for the European Community, perhaps within the framework of the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.

    Surely the Community could find some way whereby it interposes itself, on the one hand, to guarantee Europeans against massacre—and that involves the question of whatever forces are required—and to guarantee them against being deprived of property and unreasonable political interference; and, on the other hand to guarantee the Africans against exploitation, which they fear, and external domination which they also dread and which they see as a continuation of overbearing colonialism.

    A composite approach to the problem is required involving not only firefighting forces, although they are necessary. Without such an approach we shall not persuade people back into Africa. It must also provide technical and managerial pools and financial guarantees.

    Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

    The right hon. Member is right to concentrate on the political and economic stability. But in a significant passage he said that there must be protection for Africans and Europeans alike. I accept that we have seen certainly a Cuban and possibly a Russian involvement, the presence of Belgian and French troops, an ​ American airlift and a Chinese interest in Zaire, but what form of firefighting force has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? He says that NATO is overextended. Does he have in mind a European force, a United Nations force or an OAU force?

    Mr. Davies

    In my view such a force, particularly in Africa, would be formed within the framework of the discussions between the European Community and the African members of the Lomé Convention, in order to give the mutual guarantees that both sides ardently require. I do not know whether it should be formed entirely from African sources, entirely from European sources, or from both sides. Within the framework of that convention, the whole purpose of which is to do what I ardently plead for—to try to make Europe and Africa combine for their mutual advantage and protection—it must also be possible to provide for that type of security.

    Dr. Owen

    The right hon. Gentleman is developing an interesting argument about the use of the Lomé Convention. I am sure that he knows that this suggestion would be strongly opposed by our European partners who are currently opposed even to a human rights clause in the convention. They believe that the convention should not involve any form of political interference. The British Government have argued for an ability to intervene on human rights. If we were to extend such intervention to political and defence issues we should be met with considerable resistance, not least by the French Government.

    Mr. Davies

    I understand. But two things must be said. First, the inclusion of the human rights clause, which I applaud, is a unilateral proposal. What I am proposing is something which has benefits for both sides. Secondly, there has been a substantial change of mind in the last two or three weeks because of what has happened. I find it remarkable that it was the French Government who earlier this week were trying to feel their way towards some composite form of safeguarding force. That is a new attitude for the French Government. Let us take advantage of that new mind, if it exists.

    Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler (Norfolk, North-West)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the human rights ​ clause for the convention is being opposed by the francophone countries and many others in the Community because it would interfere in the internal running of the countries which are signatories to the convention? But a non-aggression pact would not be open to the same criticism.

    Mr. Davies

    The mutuality of what I am suggesting has a strength which the unilateral approach does not seem to have.

    There are many other spheres in which the European Community can be advantageously deployed if there is determination and effort. Undoubtedly, in strengthening and reinforcing the growing and more encouraging developments in the countries covered by the ASEAN agreement there is an opportunity for action by the European Community which it has not yet adopted and has not been encouraged to adopt.

    It has a less evident but significant role to play in Middle Eastern disputes. The same is true in the Greek-Turkish dispute. The instrument of the Community can, by political will, be turned not only to consider the economic interchange but the political difficulties in the areas concerned. The Community must be led to take a more positive view of the need to take action to assure the maintenance of the great outposts of Western life in the South Pacific, Australia and New Zealand.

    There is much action which should be taken and which is positive and useful. It is fine to stand on principles. I thought that what the Secretary of State said was of a noble-sounding character. But it sounded as if he were standing off from the problem. We have to stand into the problem and really get to grips with it. Our complaint about the Government is that they seem to vacillate while the President of the United States has today reiterated his more positive and determined attitude to resist the inroads into our Western way of life. I believe that the world can be made a safer and more prosperous place. We have a part to play. We can and must play it.

  • David Owen – 1978 Statement on Foreign Affairs

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Owen, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 7 June 1978.

    I know that the House is pleased to have two days to devote to the subject of foreign affairs. There must be few occasions in recent history when there has been so much genuine concern about the direction of foreign policy and such a questioning of the relationships between East and West.

    I shall speak this afternoon mainly about Africa. I shall relate my remarks about Africa to the whole nexus of problems, particularly to East-West relationships and what we increasingly describe as detente.

    Nobody in the House wishes to question the fundamental principle underlying detente—the need for a closer working relationship between the two major super Powers in the world, the United States and the Soviet Union. Although no doubt different opinions will be expressed in this debate as to how the process of detente should be managed, and although there will be different interpretations as to what each of us can legitimately expect to extract from our relationships in that process, particularly about the motivation of the Soviet Union in entering into detente, I hope that no voices will be raised in this debate asking us arbitrarily to stop the process of detente.

    Certainly if that view were to be advocated, Her Majesty’s Government would reject it decisively. There can be very few people who would wish to return to the situation that obtained at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, when Mr. Khrushchev said so graphically that the smell of burning hung in the air. For those of us who lived their early adult life through that experience, there can be no wish to return to that kind of dangerous situation.

    Equally, although detente has made considerable progress, and although under successive Governments there has been a fair and broad measure of agreement as to how it should be pursued, there are still grave dangers in the world. I believe that it is vitally important that relations ​ between the two super Powers should be of such a managed quality that the element of risk and of danger is reduced to the bare minimum.

    I believe that the President of the United States is totally committed in pursuit of that aim. I have no doubt whatever that, provided he can satisfy himself that he can negotiate a strategic arms limitation agreement which is fair to both the Soviet Union and his own country, an agreement that protects the vital interests of his partners in NATO, he will make the second strategic arms limitation agreement. I believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that such an agreement will be negotiated before the end of this year.

    Furthermore, I believe that the involvement of the United Kingdom Government with the United States and the Soviet Union in pursuing a comprehensive test ban treaty is a most important development. I believe that we are near to the stage of reaching agreement and that we should pursue that end.

    In seeking that element of detente, in wishing to make a contribution to the discussions which are now taking place at the Special Session of the United Nations in our work in the detailed disarmament discussions, in pursuing a complete eradication of chemical weapons, and in advancing many of the initiatives put forward by the British Government, with the support of many of our allies in the United Nations, I am certain that there is common ground.

    Furthermore, I am convinced that there is common ground in the Soviet Union. It is sincerely and deeply committed to detente and to the element of arms negotiations, particularly relating to nuclear questions. I am less convinced yet of the Soviet Union’s determination to put the same effort into conventional arms negotiations as it is prepared to put into nuclear arms negotiations.

    It is extremely important, as the world sees its scarce resources bound up in ever-increasing arms budgets, that we do not lose sight of the dimension of conventional arms and the extremely large budget which is now forming part of the Third World’s budget on conventional arms, which it can ill afford, certainly often fuelled by Soviet Union arms supplies but also often fuelled by the Western World as well.

    The first test of a real commitment to conventional arms control measures will come before the end of the year in the attitude of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries to mutual and balanced force reductions. The negotiations have been continuing for some years. It is extremely important, if those negotiations are to survive and we are to build on the years of dialogue that have gone before, that we should move them off dead centre and make progress. When President Brezhnev visited the German Chancellor he signed a joint agreement with the Federal Republic which indicated that they were not seeking exact equivalents on all weapons systems but accepted parity in nuclear and conventional weapons. The acceptance of parity underlay SALT I negotiations and is part of the current SALT II negotiations. The concept of parity is essential in mutual and balanced force reductions.

    Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

    The Minister says, I am sure with sincerity, that Mr. Brezhnev is anxious to achieve arms limitation. Has the Minister also seen President Carter’s statement of this morning in which he said that the Soviet Union is now engaged in an extensive and excessive military build-up far beyond any legitimate requirements for her own defence? How does he square those two propositions?

    Dr. Owen

    It is always wiser not to give way too early in a debate. I was talking in terms of conventional arms. I drew attention to the fact that the degree of commitment to it has not been proven. I was isolating the lack of progress over MBFR. I was going on to say that during the time which we have been discussing MBFR and the concept of parity there has been an ever-increasing build-up in Soviet conventional weapons, particularly banks and particularly in the central front. There has also been the development of a new weapons system, the SS20, which though called a strategic nuclear weapons system and which therefore comes into the SALT negotiations, is strategic for all of us in Western Europe. It could be targeted on all the major cities of Western Europe.

    During this time, particularly in the area of conventional weapons, there has ​ been no evidence of the same commitment to parity and to a readiness to accept arms control methods. I was to develop the argument. I believe that that requires a response from the West. When there is a clear trend of increased defence expenditure and increased quality of defence equipment across two alliances, it is extremely foolhardy for the Western Alliance not to respond.

    Far too little publicity was given in the recent NATO Conference to the central achievement of that conference. It started when President Carter in the London NATO Summit a year ago called for a response from the West to the continued arms build-up of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. Many people a year ago were very sceptical whether there would be a response. Over the last decade there has been an understandable reluctance—because none of us wants to increase our defence budgets—to match the increase. Each year people had thought that perhaps we could make progress on MBFR, or that it was simply the Soviet Union deciding that it wanted a world maritime role and, that since it was a major super Power, there was bound to be a rapid growth, building up its navy from virtually nothing in the late 1940s and going through the 1950s and 1960s. There were a lot of rational explanations.

    When I was most involved in the balance of forces in 1969–70 there was some exaggeration of the imbalance then existing, but nobody, looking back over the last five or six years, can mistake the trend. We can argue about the percentage of gross national product and about particular weapons, but the trend is clear. It was that trend to which President Carter asked the Alliance to respond. Therefore, the long-term defence improvement programme was set in hand, and a contribution was asked for of a 3 per cent. increase in the defence budget from the member States. In Washington the decision on that contribution was taken. That was an important decision. I dare say that it was the first time in the history of the Alliance that it made a concerted response. That was the right and necessary response.

    However, there is nothing incompatible between making that response and in Washington taking the decisions to make that response effective in detailed planning of weapons’ systems and the deployment of forces, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the world and the NATO powers contributing to the debate in the United Nations on how we can do something about disarmament and arms control. It is consistent, given the present situation, that we should respond to an increase in Soviet Union spending and in the quality of forces but redouble our efforts to achieve balanced arms control measures and reductions in budgets, in numbers of men and in quantity of weapons. That has been the British Government’s position.

    On that aspect of detente there is a great deal of understanding between the Soviet Union and the West. The question for us is: why the Soviet Union, at a time of genuine commitment to nuclear arms control measures, has allowed this very large increase in its conventional arms in particular and the build-up of forces in Europe. That has been done at the same time as the Soviet Union has built up its forces on its border and in the immediate area around China.

    There has always been the argument that the Soviet tendency is to over-insure. That is deep-seated in history and has not come about since the Second World War. There is the legacy and there are the memories of the Second World War, a subject referred to by President Carter in his speech. That is an obvious motive. Whereas when Khrushchev was in power we were always conscious that there was a debate taking place between the executive branch of the Government in the Soviet Union and the military about the relative spending and of the competing claims on scarce resources—an argument which is well known in all of our democracies—it is striking that that argument has not seen any obvious light of day over the last few years. I do not know whether this is a conscious decision, but the political leadership genuinely pursued detente in terms of arms control in nuclear weapons, and usually the closer one gets to nuclear weapons and the awesomeness of their power, the more there is felt to be a commitment to try to do something to contain them. If there is not a conscious decision, there is at least a seeming acceptance that the military should continue to expand and ​ to go for the weapons systems of its choice and that it should not be faced, as the military has to be faced in most of the Western democracies, with the balance of priorities between spending on defence and spending on other matters. One of the central issues that the Soviet Union will have to face if we are to make serious progress in detente is that it will have to come to grips with defence expenditure and with the arguments of its own military.

    There are two other areas of detente where there would be nowhere near as much agreement. The first is human rights. This was an aspect which was put into the negotiations in Helsinki in 1975 and which is resented by the Soviet Union which feels that the West pursues this aspect of detente in a way which the Soviets would call almost aggressive. They would certainly see the West as giving an unbalanced priority to human rights. The other area is the extent to which detente operates outside Europe and worldwide. These are the contentious areas.

    As to human rights, it may well be that in Western democracies, where there is an automatic assumption that most of those rights are both natural and self-evident, there may have been a tendency to believe that there would be more rapid progress as a consequence of the Helsinki conference than was ever likely or possible. I do not believe that Western democracies should shift one inch from their commitment to human rights. It has always been inherent in the process of detente that while we would make progress towards managing relations between countries in a more orderly way, there would not be a cessation of ideological disputes and arguments. The Soviet Union has never claimed that this was involved in the detente process. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when he was Foreign Secretary, there is no armistice in the wars of ideas.

    There can be no agreement to hold off discussion of central issues such as the weight we respectively give to democracy, to individualism as opposed to collectivism and to dissent as opposed to unanimity. Therefore, the Western world is bound to pursue those issues and those who hold a different ideology are bound to pursue their views.

    As the process of detente continues, we are faced with the inherent contradiction that is implicit in detente. On the one hand, we try to widen the areas of agreement, but on the other, by the mere process of coming closer together, by working together in terms of industry and cultural exchanges and by the mere juxtaposition of our peoples, some of the different ways in which an individual lives his life in either of the two ideologies create tensions and conflicts. This is bound to happen. That tension is inherent in the detente process.

    Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that we also feel strongly about what happens in relation to human rights in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay?

    Mrs. Lena Jeger (Holborn and St. Pancras, South)

    And Czechoslovakia.

    Mr. Heffer

    I am talking for the moment about those countries that are not part of the East European bloc. There would be no suggestion on our part that we should go to war with those countries, but that should not stop us from saying that they should restore human rights and civil liberties at the earliest possible moment. In the same way, we say that to the Soviet Union, to East European countries and—Conservative Members should take note of this—to China.

    Dr. Owen

    I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the concept of human rights is such a powerful concept in foreign policy. It does not discriminate between countries and ideologies. Those who hold dear the values of democracy are able and should uphold the values of human rights whether in Leftist Communist regimes or in Rightist Fascist regimes.

    One of the most interesting developments in the House in the last few years is how the voices on both sides have increasingly tended to show concern for human rights under Left or Right extremist Governments. Two or three years ago, my hon. Friends were always being accused of selectivity in human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), by his concern about what has been occurring in some East European countries and with his well-known views about Chile and South ​ Africa, has shown the sort of balance that ensures that our voice carries more strength because it is not selective. It is directed at any abuse of human rights.

    In the relationship of East-West issues, we should not disguise the fact that progress will not be as fast as we wish. It will be contentious and it will create tensions in our relations. However, having said that, I do not believe that we should back off or change our policies. It is right, though, to make the distinction that the Government have consistently made. There is a difference between the way in which a Government pursue the issue of human rights in direct governmental relationships and the way in which individuals pursue the issue.

    The most powerful concept of human rights is that it works through the public and through the attitudes of a country to its foreign policy. No Government can have a foreign policy in isolation from the attitudes of their fellow countrymen. This is one issue which the Soviet Union must start taking more into account. If it pursues a policy that ignores the valid concerns of Western democracies about human rights, it will contribute to a build-up of public attitudes in those democracies to which every Government will be bound to react.

    That is not to say that Government policy must be wholly reactive to public opinion. It must be prepared to lead public opinion, but if the public feels that the process of detente is all give on our side and that nothing is being returned from the other side, it will soon ensure that we do not make agreements that the Government may wish to make. We would be restrained. That is the sort of pressure that we are beginning to see operated in the limitations on the freedom of manoeuvre of the American President and it would soon be felt by a British Foreign Secretary.

    The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries must recognise that our concern over human rights is a legitimate part of detente. It is a matter that we shall pursue. But we must recognise that it is only one aspect of detente and we should not bring the whole process to a crashing halt because we are not making progress as fast as we may wish in this extremely delicate area which goes to the root of many ideological disputes.

    I turn to the subject of Africa. Here again there has been a tendency, particularly in the last few months, for people to feel that detente is threatened. I do not think that any of us has denied that if detente is to gather momentum—and I have never believed that it is a passive process; there is a passive policy of detente, but there is also a dynamic policy—it must go into new areas and must take a managed relationship and greater harmony out into areas such as Africa.
    There is little doubt that in the past year or more there has been growing evidence that some of the ideological disputes and East-West tensions have been taken away from Europe to other areas, particularly Africa. However, it would be a gross travesty and a corruption of the evidence and the facts to say that Africa is solely an East-West issue. It is not.

    In going through each of the different issues that we face, I wish to say to the House why I believe that it is not the case. I believe that it would be gravely damaging for our policy and standing in Africa if we were to allow this to be portrayed as a purely East-West struggle, although there are elements of East-West tension within it. There are elements of East-West competition within most of the trouble spots. But the Government stand absolutely firm on their belief that African problems are by far best dealt with by African nations.

    We stand firmly behind our support for the Organisation of African Unity, which faces some extremely difficult problems. This is a grouping of 49 countries with diverse economies, diverse religions and diverse languages. It would be extraordinary if they were able to have the degree of unity, for instance, that we manage to get within the Community of the Nine. We may think that our own unity is not strong but it is certainly envied by many other nations. We have shown an ability in the European Economic Community to come together and make collective decisions over a wide range of areas. Many other regions envy this and are far from being able to achieve it.

    I turn to Zaire, which is the most immediate issue facing us. What should the response of the West be in Zaire? Let us go back in history to the spring ​ of 1977, when there was a similar incident on the borders between Angola and Zaire. At that time the French Government responded to a request from a sovereign Government to fly troops from Morocco down into Zaire. The troops were requested of Morocco by Zaire, and Morocco asked whether France would fly troops down there.

    At that time we had a political cooperation meeting in London and I was in the chair. The entire European Community supported the decision that was taken on that occasion. In retrospect, I think that we ought to have done more to try to stabilise the economic and political factors in Zaire. We were given a warning sign then, although I may say that a great deal of effort was made, particularly by the Belgian Government. This is an example of how deep-seated is the problem and how very difficult it will be to establish economic and political stability in Zaire, because so little progress was made during that time.

    We have made a modest contribution, helping in every way we could, to the efforts to deal with the current problem in Zaire. I believe that, faced by the danger to the lives of expatriates in part of Shaba Province, the French, Belgians, Americans and British were right to do what they could on a humanitarian basis to save life. Tragically, we were too late for many people. I have no doubt that we were right about that action that was taken. I have also no doubt that the Belgians and the French, when asked to keep their forces in the area for a short period of time, to try to ensure the establishment of law and order, were right to keep their forces there. They have had our support.

    The next question is much the hardest one. What should be done once the emergency is over? I believe that, through a combination of Press stories and statements, the West has been in danger of getting its priorities somewhat wrong. I believe that the first priority now for Zaire is political and economic stability.

    In this connection a most important event has taken place over the last three days. The decision of President Kaunda to meet President Neto was extremely important, as was the decision of President Kaunda to meet President Mobutu. There is no doubt whatsoever that the three countries concerned—Zambia, ​ Angola and Zaire—will have to come together in a political agreement to settle this long-standing problem.

    This is a problem that the world has known about for some time. The Congo is still with us and its legacy still lives on in Shaba Province. This is shown by the number of refugees. I was talking this afternoon to the High Commissioner who is dealing with the refugee problem, and he told me that there are over 200,000 Angolans in Zaire and Zaireans in Angola. There is a lesser number of refugees in Zambia. Those three countries have a deep-seated political problem which has its roots in the Lunda tribe. The problem has a long legacy. There is much suspicion and much fear, and a very enlightened political leadership will be required in order to resolve these problems. These political problems cannot be resolved against a background of military and economic instability.

    With regard to the economic instability, a meeting is to take place in Brussels, called by the Belgian Government, on 13th and 14th June. This has been in prospect for some time. It is a meeting between the Government of Zaire and other concerned countries, and the International Monetary Fund, to tackle the economic problems of the area. The Paris meeting was also addressed to the question whether five of the Western countries most concerned could develop an economic and political policy, and also a policy on some aspects of the security position, in order to try to stabilise Zaire. Unfortunately, we allowed the military aspects to dominate the headlines. We allowed the military issue to come first, important though it is. It is immensely important to try to get the key technicians for the copper and cobalt mines in Shaba to stay. This is the key to the economy of Zaire. They will not stay if they think that their security is threatened. In that respect the security position has to be addressed.

    Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

    As three of the Governments represented in Paris are intervening militarily in Zaire—and the British Government have rightly disavowed this intervention—will the British Government withdraw from the gang of five? If next week at the Brussels conference there is any sugges- ​ tion of military intervention, will the Government dissociate themselves from it?

    Dr. Owen

    I do not think that my hon. Friend has followed my argument. I said that I thought that we were right in sending RAF Transport Command to Zambia. In fact, it flew into Zaire at one stage. This was for the purposes of humanitarian assistance and it was part of a collective response. My hon. Friend said that three Governments are involved. Only two Governments are involved on the ground. The Americans were involved in transport. The Belgian Government have today made a decision about withdrawal, and so have the French Government. The French Government have said that they would withdraw. The United States Government have been faced with the problem that the Government of Zaire have asked them to do what the French Government previously did—that is, to fly Moroccan troops down there to replace the departing French troops—and the Americans agreed to do this. I do not think that they could have done anything else in the circumstances.

    I want now to move on to the longer-term problem—

    Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

    Without any reservations whatsoever I condemn the killings in Shaba Province of whites and blacks and condemn whoever was responsible for it, but will my right hon. Friend address himself to the question how we can ensure peace and stability in the area for the indigenous population, as well as expatriates, if we maintain by military support a corrupt regime, whose record of killing of people in Angola and in Shaba leaves us all with feelings of great horror? How can we provide any stability if we support corrupt regimes by military means?

    Dr. Owen

    This is one of the greatest problems that we face. We have to live with the Government who are there. I believe very strongly that the problem which my hon. Friend puts forward is a central one. If the West’s support for Zaire—and I stress that it is for Zaire—was not to be contingent on certain conditions, we would be making a great mistake. I believe that our economic support and all other forms of support now must be clearly and deeply contingent on a monitorable plan for economic assistance, economic reform and restructuring ​ in that country to ensure that the money goes for the purpose for which it is allocated and for which it is given and also that it is accompanied by a readiness to look at political solutions to problems and, if possible, a widening of the decision-making structure and political involvement in that country.

    I want to stress that I believe that we have an opportunity to create a strong Zaire. But if we do it in a way which says “This is carte blanche to do what you like” we shall make a grave mistake. I am not in favour of too much paternalism, but in this case I believe that it will be necessary to ensure that there is an agreed economic plan which is kept to and a degree of political commitment and widening out.

    This is one reason why I am particularly against seeing these issues as an East-West struggle. If we see it as an East-West struggle, we shall be dragged in day by day to supporting purely a particular regime or a particular group of individuals, and we shall lose sight of our central objective, which is to support Zaire and the stability of Africa in that region.

    As for the question of military intervention—and I deal with it because it is a serious problem—would that it were so easy and would that it were possible for security to come purely and simply from the indigenous forces of that country. That would be by far the easiest solution. But I believe that it is reasonable for troops from other African countries to be called in by other Governments if they wish to do so.

    Here I come to this suggestion of a Pan-African force, and I must say that I still have great difficulty with what this concept is. I see a European Community which in 1954 failed to agree on a defence community. I do not know what people think of or mean by a Pan-African force. Are we asking the OAU to have a structure, and a command structure, or are we asking for a collective response? Certainly I think that we should involve the OAU as much as we can in any military questions which are being asked. I think that any questions which are being asked about military support there are more likely to come not from Africa collectively but from the region, and that it would be helpful ​ if the type of military response was always seen as a response by a Government asking for support from other Governments. For instance, in 1964 in East Africa when this arose, it was an emergency action initially and then one other African Government came in and put their troops at the disposal of the Government. That was a decision taken at an OAU meeting.

    If we are to have that sort of response, I think that it should be geared to Zaire and Zaire’s problems. There is no African country which will put troops at the disposal of any country. They will judge each one on its merits. They will ask themselves “If we put in our troops, which country, under what circumstances, and what are the arrangements?” If some permanent military defence structure for Africa comes, it will come from the OAU. The belief that such a structure can be built up by us in the West, with a lot too much talk of NATO involvement, has made some of the sensible security arrangements which ought to have been made over the last few weeks much harder to achieve. Now, by standing back a little, let us hope that we can provide a sensible security structure which will be seen to be supporting the Zaire Government and not polarising the issue into East-West relations and which will allow for a political framework.

    We ought not to forget that the OAU has attempted before—recently not always with a great deal of success, but in the past with considerable success—mediation and conciliation, and I believe that we should encourage that process now. In the last Shaba incident in 1977, Nigeria worked very hard to try to achieve conciliation.

    Concerned involvement from the West is helpful to Africa. Many African countries want it, and we should not be ashamed to demonstrate it. But it is the way that we do it and the manner in which we do it which is important. If we see it as being to help Africans solve African problems, I believe that it will meet with a response. But if it is seen as the West intervening in Africa, I believe that we shall not get the sort of response that is wanted.

    I should like now to say a little about Francophone Africa and Anglophone Africa. Recently, I have tried to develop ​ closer relationships with many French-speaking African countries, and I believe that it is in British interests to do so. Similarly, I believe that it is in our interests that France should show more interest in the Commonwealth African countries, and I am glad to say that they have been doing so. There has been a considerable degree of discussion.

    It does not matter if the West’s response is not always identical. It is one of our strengths in dealing with the East that the West, because of its diversity and because of its pluralist democracy, does not always have an absolutely unified response. Someone said that the Soviet Union can sing in unison but that the West must try to sing in harmony. Sometimes we shall have different emphases and different shifts. It is helpful for the West—for the United States, for us, for the Federal Republic of Germany and for France—to work closely together in Africa, but not just exclusively.

    When Belgium has, as it has, a very intricate knowledge of Zaire, we should work with the Belgians. We worked with Canada in Namibia as part of the five-power initiative in the United Nations because of our membership of the Security Council. We worked with Italy over Somalia and Ethiopia.

    Here again, I come back to some of the debates in this House of very recent memory and to some of the urging which I received, especially from the Opposition, that we should have intervened with arms supplies to Somalia, when I stood firm by the OAU principle that we should respect the territorial integrity of the countries and that we should not put ourselves on the side of those who would run down the easy route of trying to change the map of Africa by force. It might look easy for a few weeks, but it would result in total havoc for Africa—a Pandora’s box.

    At this Dispatch Box day after day I had to defend our decision to defend the territorial integrity of Ethiopia, not because I approved of what was going on in Ethiopia then, not because I approved of that Government’s human rights record, but because I did not believe that a decision like the Ogaden and a dispute as deep-seated as the Ogaden could be supported by force, and I was not prepared to put the West on the side of the wrong on the issue of principle. I believe that ​ it has greatly strengthened our ability now to respond in Zaire that we did not put ourselves on the wrong side in that dispute.

    Equally, I believe that by singling out Eritrea, which was an internal dispute, as an area in which the Cubans would be very ill-advised to intervene, in marked contrast to their previous support for the Eritrean Freedom Movement, and by questioning their non-aligned status, we contributed to a rethink of the Cuban position. I believe that Cuba now is finding some difficulty in establishing itself with others in the non-aligned world as truly non-aligned. I believe that that worries them, and well it might, because their actions have not been the actions of a concerned non-aligned country. They have followed slavishly the line of the Soviet Union. If they wish to re-establish their non-aligned credentials, I believe that they must now show their willingness to withdraw or at least to reduce their forces in Africa. They have a perfect example to reduce their forces in Ethiopia. The issue of the Ethiopia-Somalia border dispute which they went into is now, we hope, being resolved. The Minister of State is now visiting Kenya and will be visiting Somalia.

    I wish to improve our relationships with Somalia, but I do not wish at the same time to have no relationships with Ethiopia.

    At this stage I would like to suggest what the West can do, and why I believe that the last few weeks have shown a lack of confidence in the West’s policies in Africa. Over the last few years, I believe, the West has improved its standing, its position and its ability to influence in Africa. I do not take the defeatist view of our lack of influence in Africa.

    We shall carry influence in Africa by sticking to principle. It will be achieved by pursuing, even through long-drawn-out negotiations, the negotiated path to independence in Namibia and by doing the same thing in Rhodesia and bringing Zimbabwe to independence. It will not be achieved by having a foreign policy that flutters around on the wind of editorial policies that often change three times in ten days. It will be achieved by having principles and sticking to them, by refusing to simplify extremely complex issues and by being prepared to take one’s stand on principles.

    Because it has been prepared to condemn abuses of human rights in Africa—not just South Africa and apartheid, but in Uganda and action over the Central African Empire—the West will have some influence long term on that pattern of government.

    I believe that if we hold steady, even on Rhodesia, in dealing with the problem that has bedevilled us for more than 12 years, there is a prospect of a negotiated settlement. I believe that the atmosphere in that country and around it is coming close to a recognition that there must be negotiations between all the parties and that the round-table talks must take place. Given persistence, given that we stick to our principles and are not backtracked into other parts of Africa, and given that we do not damage our standing in other parts of Africa, we can achieve the settlement that we all want to see in Rhodesia.

    That settlement will not be achieved by going down one side or another or by embracing the internal settlement, which has many features that are inadequate and will have to be negotiated. It will not be achieved by attending meetings of the internal settlement. It will be achieved by holding our position on principle and by being prepared to bring together all the parties, those outside and those inside. I believe that that could happen. The settlement will be achieved not by being thought to be, or being seen to be, supporting any one group of nationalist leaders but by letting that decision be taken by the electors.

    In Namibia and in Rhodesia we have the chance of an internationally acceptable solution as a result of fair and free elections, with United Nations peacekeeping and involvement if necessary. That is a great prize. It is a prize which the Soviet Union has never been able to contribute to Africa. We want to achieve that type of high-level commitment to a negotiated settlement, to peaceful objectives and to the principle of an African solution. We ought to help with aid—

    Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)

    Aid to guerrillas.

    Dr. Owen

    The hon. Gentleman can always be guaranteed to introduce that sort of comment. I suggest that he should ask himself about his own contribution to Africa. Given the position of demo- ​ cratic countries and our policy of not supplying arms to freedom movements, he should ask himself whether in standing aside from them altogether, having no relationship with them, and not giving any form of humanitarian help, we would not do the very thing that the hon. Gentleman so dislikes—push them ever further into the arms of the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union. One of our greatest problems is that because we do not supply them with arms and other countries are prepared to do so, we lose influence and we have to redouble our political efforts.

    It is wise for us to put economic aid into these countries. I am not at all apologetic to the hon. Member over the fact that we have an aid budget for Mozambique. I believe that it is a great mistake to believe that one influences countries by cutting oneself off from them. It is very rare that one can totally cut oneself off from countries which have governments which are recognised in the United Nations and free and sovereign governments recognised by the OAU. The fact that we have relations with Angola and Mozambique helps us to influence their policies.

    Mr. Brotherton

    While conceding that the Foreign Secretary may be convinced by his own argument, I want to press him on how he can reconcile his high-minded argument about principle with giving money to people in Mozambique and Angola in order to enable them to murder blacks and whites alike in Zaire and Rhodesia.

    Dr. Owen

    Of course we are not giving money to them for this purpose and all the money is contingent, qualified and carefully selected so that it cannot be given for such purposes. If some of it slips in the wrong direction, I would be very grateful to have information about it and I will do my utmost to stop it. But given the choice, it is wise to keep relations with those countries, to keep our influence with them and to try to ensure that they remain non-aligned so that they are not driven ever-increasingly into a Marxist ideology and total alignment with the Soviet Union. I believe that same policy is applied elsewhere.

    I am perfectly prepared to believe that wherever possible one should open a dialogue. I know that there are some ​ hon. Members who criticise us for not holding a dialogue in the Middle East and there is some substance in some of those arguments. It would be very much easier if some of the groups with whom hon. Members think we should have a dialogue would at least recognise the state of Israel. It would be very much easier to have a dialogue if that formal recognition could be given.

    I have tried to relate in a whole variety of different parts of Africa these complex issues of East-West relations. They are very difficult. There is no doubt that it is not in our interests to see a Marxist ideology spread across Africa. I do not believe that it is in Africa’s interests either. Many people in Africa know this.

    We should be more confident about the whole of our aid budget. The Soviet Union spends less than 0·1 per cent. of Soviet GNP on foreign aid. In fact the value of Soviet aid to developing countries has declined since 1973–74. The Soviet Union makes no contribution whatever to the North-South dialogue. The Soviet Union is not making friends in many of these countries. Where the Cubans have involved themselves they have often found themselves very soon in dispute with the country into which they have gone. In the Horn of Africa the Russians supplied arms to Somalia and to Ethiopia. Both those countries were under Soviet influence but, hopefully, one of those countries will come increasingly into a friendly relationship with us now that it has withdrawn to its own boundaries.

    In acting as we have in this matter we have retained the friendship of Kenya which, at one stage, could have been gravely damaged had we followed some of the advice that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen urged upon us in the House.

    There is no simple easy one-paper policy for dealing with Africa. But I believe that if we apply principle, if we have courage and steady nerves, we shall have a policy for Africa which will enrich Africa, contribute to that continent and its future and in the process increase the standing of Britain, increase our export effort and our industrial involvement in that continent, and bring greater peace to the world.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on Catherine Calderwood

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on Catherine Calderwood

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 5 April 2020.

    Dr Calderwood’s advice to me, to the government and to people across Scotland over the past few weeks has been the right advice. People should continue to stay at home to protect the NHS and to save lives.

    It is however clear that the mistake she made – even though she has apologised sincerely and honourably for it – risks distracting from and undermining confidence in the government’s public health message at this crucial time. That is not a risk either of us is willing to take.

    Catherine has been a transformational CMO, bringing changes to the way medicine is delivered in Scotland and in particular using her experience to bring an overdue focus to women’s health. Also, as I said earlier, her advice to me on Coronavirus will be missed – which is why she will work to ensure a smooth transition in the days ahead.

    While she has made a very serious mistake in her actions, that should not detract from the fact that as CMO she has made a highly valuable contribution to the medical profession and to health in Scotland, and I have no doubt she will continue to do so in future. She leaves office with my thanks and admiration.

  • Catherine Calderwood – 2020 Resignation Statement

    Catherine Calderwood – 2020 Resignation Statement

    Below is the text of the resignation statement made by Catherine Calderwood on 5 April 2020.

    I am deeply sorry for my actions and the mistakes I have made.

    The First Minister and I have had a further conversation this evening and we have agreed that the justifiable focus on my behaviour risks becoming a distraction from the hugely important job that government and the medical profession has to do in getting the country through this coronavirus pandemic. Having worked so hard on the government’s response, that is the last thing I want.

    The most important thing to me now and over the next few very difficult months is that people across Scotland know what they need to do to reduce the spread of this virus and that means they must have complete trust in those who give them advice. It is with a heavy heart that I resign as Chief Medical Officer.

    I will work with my team over the next few days to ensure a smooth transition to my successor.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2017 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2017 Christmas Broadcast

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Christmas Broadcast which was shown on 25 December 2017.

    Sixty years ago today, I spoke about the speed of technological change, in what was my first televised Christmas broadcast. At the time, it felt like a landmark.

    Television has made it possible for many of you to see me in your homes on Christmas Day. My own family often gather round to watch television as they are at this moment, and that is how I imagine you now.

    Six decades on, the presenter of that broadcast has ‘evolved’ somewhat, as has the technology she described. Back then, who could have imagined that people would one day be following this Christmas message on laptops and mobile phones? But I’m also struck by something that hasn’t changed. That, whatever the technology, many of you will be watching or listening to this at home.

    We think of our homes as places of warmth, familiarity and love; of shared stories and memories, which is perhaps why at this time of year so many return to where they grew up. There is a timeless simplicity to the pull of home.

    For many, the idea of “home” reaches beyond a physical building – to a home town or city. This Christmas, I think of London and Manchester, whose powerful identities shone through over the past twelve months in the face of appalling attacks. In Manchester, those targeted included children who had gone to see their favourite singer. A few days after the bombing, I had the privilege of meeting some of the young survivors and their parents.

    I describe that hospital visit as a “privilege” because the patients I met were an example to us all, showing extraordinary bravery and resilience. Indeed, many of those who survived the attack came together just days later for a benefit concert. It was a powerful reclaiming of the ground, and of the city those young people call home.

    We expect our homes to be a place of safety – “sanctuary” even – which makes it all the more shocking when the comfort they provide is shattered. A few weeks ago, The Prince of Wales visited the Caribbean in the aftermath of hurricanes that destroyed entire communities. And here in London, who can forget the sheer awfulness of the Grenfell Tower fire?

    Our thoughts and prayers are with all those who died and those who lost so much; and we are indebted to members of the emergency services who risked their own lives, this past year, saving others. Many of them, of course, will not be at home today because they are working, to protect us.

    Reflecting on these events makes me grateful for the blessings of home and family, and in particular for 70 years of marriage. I don’t know that anyone had invented the term “platinum” for a 70th wedding anniversary when I was born. You weren’t expected to be around that long. Even Prince Philip has decided it’s time to slow down a little – having, as he economically put it, “done his bit”. But I know his support and unique sense of humour will remain as strong as ever, as we enjoy spending time this Christmas with our family and look forward to welcoming new members into it next year.

    In 2018 I will open my home to a different type of family: the leaders of the fifty-two nations of the Commonwealth, as they gather in the UK for a summit. The Commonwealth has an inspiring way of bringing people together, be it through the Commonwealth Games – which begins in a few months’ time on Australia’s Gold Coast – or through bodies like the Commonwealth Youth Orchestra & Choir: a reminder of how truly vibrant this international family is.

    Today we celebrate Christmas, which itself is sometimes described as a festival of the home. Families travel long distances to be together. Volunteers and charities, as well as many churches, arrange meals for the homeless and those who would otherwise be alone on Christmas Day. We remember the birth of Jesus Christ whose only sanctuary was a stable in Bethlehem. He knew rejection, hardship and persecution; and yet it is Jesus Christ’s generous love and example which has inspired me through good times and bad.

    Whatever your own experiences this year; wherever and however you are watching or listening, I wish you a peaceful and very happy Christmas.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2018 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2018 Christmas Broadcast

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Christmas Broadcast which was shown on 25 December 2018.

    For many, the service of Nine Lessons and Carols from King’s College, Cambridge, is when Christmas begins. Listened to by millions of people around the world, it starts with a chorister singing the first verse of Once in Royal David’s City.

    The priest who introduced this service to King’s College chapel, exactly one hundred years ago, was Eric Milner-White. He had served as a military chaplain in the First World War. Just six weeks after the Armistice, he wanted a new kind of service which – with its message of peace and goodwill – spoke to the needs of the times.

    2018 has been a year of centenaries. The Royal Air Force celebrated its 100th anniversary with a memorable fly-past demonstrating a thrilling unity of purpose and execution. We owe them and all our Armed Services our deepest gratitude.

    My father served in the Royal Navy during the First World War. He was a midshipman in HMS Collingwood at the Battle of Jutland in 1916. The British fleet lost 14 ships and 6,000 men in that engagement. My father wrote in a letter: “How and why we were not hit beats me”. Like others, he lost friends in the war. At Christmas, we become keenly aware of loved ones who have died, whatever the circumstances. But of course, we would not grieve if we did not love.

    Closer to home, it’s been a busy year for my family, with two weddings and two babies – and another child expected soon. It helps to keep a grandmother well occupied. We have had other celebrations too, including the 70th birthday of The Prince of Wales.

    Some cultures believe a long life brings wisdom. I’d like to think so. Perhaps part of that wisdom is to recognise some of life’s baffling paradoxes, such as the way human beings have a huge propensity for good, and yet a capacity for evil. Even the power of faith, which frequently inspires great generosity and self-sacrifice, can fall victim to tribalism. But through the many changes I have seen over the years, faith, family and friendship have been not only a constant for me but a source of personal comfort and reassurance.

    In April, the Commonwealth Heads of Government met in London. My father welcomed just 8 countries to the first such meeting in 1948. Now the Commonwealth includes 53 countries with 2.4 billion people, a third of the world’s population. Its strength lies in the bonds of affection it promotes, and a common desire to live in a better, more peaceful world. Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human-being is always a good first step towards greater understanding. Indeed, the Commonwealth Games, held this year on Australia’s Gold Coast, are known universally as the Friendly Games because of their emphasis on goodwill and mutual respect.

    The Christmas story retains its appeal since it doesn’t provide theoretical explanations for the puzzles of life. Instead it’s about the birth of a child and the hope that birth — 2,000 years ago — brought to the world. Only a few people acknowledged Jesus when he was born. Now billions follow him. I believe his message of peace-on-earth and goodwill-to-all is never out of date. It can be heeded by everyone. It’s needed as much as ever.

    A very happy Christmas to you all.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2019 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2019 Christmas Broadcast

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Christmas Broadcast which was shown on 25 December 2019.

    As a child, I never imagined that one day a man would walk on the moon. Yet this year we marked the fiftieth anniversary of the famous Apollo 11 mission. As those historic pictures were beamed backed to earth, millions of us sat transfixed to our television screens, as we watched Neil Armstrong taking a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind and, indeed, for womankind. It’s a reminder for us all that giant leaps often start with small steps.

    This year we marked another important anniversary: D-Day. On 6th June 1944, some one hundred and fifty-six thousand British, Canadian and American forces landed in Northern France. It was the largest ever seaborne invasion and was delayed due to bad weather. I well remember the look of concern on my father’s face. He knew the secret D-Day plans but could of course share that burden with no-one.

    For the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary of that decisive battle, in a true spirit of reconciliation, those who had formerly been sworn enemies came together in friendly commemorations either side of the Channel, putting past differences behind them.

    Such reconciliation seldom happens overnight. It takes patience and time to rebuild trust, and progress often comes through small steps. Since the end of the Second World War, many charities, groups and organisations have worked to promote peace and unity around the world, bringing together those who have been on opposing sides. By being willing to put past differences behind us and move forward together, we honour the freedom and democracy once won for us at so great a cost.

    The challenges many people face today may be different to those once faced by my generation, but I have been struck by how new generations have brought a similar sense of purpose to issues such as protecting our environment and our climate.

    My family and I are also inspired by the men and women of our emergency services and Armed Forces; and at Christmas we remember all those on duty at home and abroad, who are helping those in need and keeping us and our families safe and secure.

    Two hundred years on from the birth of my great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great grandchild into our family. Of course, at the heart of the Christmas story lies the birth of a child: a seemingly small and insignificant step overlooked by many in Bethlehem. But in time, through his teaching and by his example, Jesus Christ would show the world how small steps taken in faith and in hope can overcome long-held differences and deep-seated divisions to bring harmony and understanding. Many of us already try to follow in his footsteps. The path, of course, is not always smooth, and may at times this year have felt quite bumpy, but small steps can make a world of difference.

    As Christmas dawned, church congregations around the world joined in singing It Came Upon the Midnight Clear. Like many timeless carols, it speaks not just of the coming of Jesus Christ into a divided world, many years ago, but also of the relevance, even today, of the angels’ message of peace and goodwill.

    It’s a timely reminder of what positive things can be achieved when people set aside past differences and come together in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation. And, as we all look forward to the start of a new decade, it’s worth remembering that it is often the small steps, not the giant leaps, that bring about the most lasting change.

    And so, I wish you all a very happy Christmas.

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 2020 Commonwealth Day Message

    Queen Elizabeth II – 2020 Commonwealth Day Message

    Below is the text of HM Queen Elizabeth II’s Commonwealth Day Message on 9 March 2020.

    On Commonwealth occasions, it is always inspiring to be reminded of the diversity of the people and countries that make up our worldwide family. We are made aware of the many associations and influences that combine through Commonwealth connection, helping us to imagine and deliver a common future.

    This is particularly striking when we see people from nations, large and small, gathering for the Commonwealth Games, for meetings of Commonwealth governments, and on Commonwealth Day. Such a blend of traditions serves to make us stronger, individually and collectively, by providing the ingredients needed for social, political and economic resilience.

    Throughout my life, I have had the opportunity to see and hear how membership of the Commonwealth family means so much to those living in all parts of the world, often in places that are quite remote. Advances in technology and modern media have now enabled many more people to witness and enjoy – with remarkable immediacy – this experience of Commonwealth connection, in areas such as education, medicine and conservation.

    Looking to the future, this connectivity means we are also aware, perhaps as never before, that wherever we live, our choices and actions affect the well-being of people and communities living far away, and in very different circumstances. For many, this awareness awakens a desire to employ our planet’s natural resources with greater care, and it is encouraging to see how the countries of the Commonwealth continue to devise new ways of working together to achieve prosperity, whilst protecting our planet.

    As members of this very special community, on this Commonwealth Day, I hope that the people and countries of the Commonwealth will be inspired by all that we share, and move forward with fresh resolve to enhance the Commonwealth’s influence for good in our world.

    ELIZABETH R