UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2023 Speech on the Extension of Universal Jurisdiction

    Brendan O’Hara – 2023 Speech on the Extension of Universal Jurisdiction

    The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in the House of Commons on 25 April 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that offences of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes may be tried in the United Kingdom regardless of the nationality or residence of the offender; and for connected purposes.

    The Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill would tighten existing legislation on how we bring to justice those responsible for the world’s most heinous crimes. The Bill would allow legal systems across the UK to do that, irrespective of where the crimes were committed, regardless of the nationality or location of the perpetrators or victims, and without having to consider whether the accused person or the victim had any specific connection to the UK. In short, the Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill is about saying to the world’s worst criminals that there is no hiding place and there will be no immunity.

    Under international law, states are required to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute certain crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction. It is the international community’s way of recognising that there are crimes so grave that we all have an inherent responsibility and collective interest to ensure that they are prosecuted. The Bill seeks to help the UK meet its international responsibilities by amending the International Criminal Court Act 2001. Although that Act gives courts jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, it is still woefully deficient in providing what we would want from legislation claiming to operate universal jurisdiction.

    The main problem with the 2001 Act is that even with the most heinous crimes, if they were committed outside the UK, they can be prosecuted here only if the accused person is a UK national, a UK resident or subject to UK service jurisdiction. While some may say that the UK does have universal jurisdiction when it comes to such crimes, the reality is that what we have in the UK could best be described as a system of extraterritorial jurisdiction. That is what the Bill seeks to remedy, so that we instead have a real and meaningful system of universal jurisdiction for those crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. That is important, because given what is happening in the world right now, this is a live and pressing issue, whether in Ukraine, Myanmar, Xinjiang, Tigray or many, many other places.

    Many people are working right now on how the UK should change its definition of universal jurisdiction. I put on record my thanks to Dr Ewelina Ochab of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute for her invaluable assistance in putting the Bill together. I also thank the Clooney Foundation for Justice, which has done an enormous amount of work on this topic in recent months, and which will in the next couple of months release its own report on universal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.

    I understand that among that report’s key recommendations will be that the UK Government amend section 51(2)(b) of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to remove the requirement that for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the crime needs to have been committed either in the UK or, if committed outside the UK, by a UK national or resident for our courts to have jurisdiction. The report will argue instead that the UK should provide jurisdiction over those international crimes committed anywhere in the world, even when that offence bears no relation to the UK.

    As the Clooney Foundation for Justice report will set out, our courts already have universal jurisdiction when it comes to torture and certain other war crimes, which can be prosecuted regardless of the defendant’s nationality. There is no convincing explanation for the distinction that is drawn between the law on torture and those other international crimes. One consequence of the loophole might well be that Russian generals with blood on their hands could still travel to the UK, go shopping in Knightsbridge, undergo medical treatment and dine out in London’s best restaurants without facing the risk of arrest for the most serious and heinous crimes in the world. The foundation argues that that must change, and I wholeheartedly agree.

    In this changing world, it is becoming increasingly clear that the UK’s position on universal jurisdiction is simply not fit for purpose. That is not just because we operate this extraterritorial jurisdiction, but because under current law, proceedings for international crimes cannot be brought without the consent of the Attorney General. Ultimately that means that decisions to prosecute these crimes will be a political decision. Consequently, the UK cannot possibly play as meaningful a part in ensuring justice and accountability as it should. That may go some way to explaining why, to this day, British courts have not prosecuted anyone for their involvement in genocide, despite the fact that we have suspected perpetrators residing in the UK from both the Rwandan and the Yazidi genocides.

    Even by the Government’s own assessment, almost 1,000 British nationals travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Daesh. They were all complicit in the horrific atrocities, the killings, the rapes, the sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and girls, and much more—so much more, indeed, that this House unanimously declared in April 2016 that Daesh atrocities did indeed constitute a genocide. The UK Government also estimate that 400 British Daesh fighters are now back in the UK, yet only 32 of those returnees have been convicted for terror-related offences, or less than 10% of the returnees. Not one—not a single—Daesh fighter has stood trial in the UK for the rape and sexual enslavement of Yazidi women and children. Not one of them has been charged with torture or the forced recruitment of young boys into the ranks of Daesh fighters. Not one of them has been held to account for the mass graves that are still being uncovered in Sinjar, and not one of them has been asked to explain the fate of the 2,700 Yazidi women and girls who are still unaccounted for. They have all gotten away with genocide.

    But it does not have to be this way. Many of our friends and allies have changed their law to meet the changing situation. In Germany, the law is unambiguous, saying that universal jurisdiction will apply to all criminal offences against international law. That means, regardless of where an offence was committed and whether it involves a German citizen, an accused person can be tried before a German criminal court. It has been this determination to pursue universal jurisdiction—genuine universal jurisdiction—that has resulted in the first ever prosecutions and convictions for members of Daesh for genocide.

    In January 2023, President Biden signed into law the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, which greatly expands the scope of individuals who can face prosecution for US war crimes. That Act will assist the Department of Justice in prosecuting alleged war criminals who are found in the United States, regardless of where they committed a crime or the nationality of either the perpetrator or the victim. The law was given extra impetus in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where there is now a growing body of evidence of war crimes being perpetrated by Putin’s army.

    Despite many warm words, the harsh truth is that, if UK domestic law is not strengthened, we will be unable to play a full part in bringing some of the world’s worst criminals to justice. That is why we need proper, universal jurisdiction, and that is why we also need to remove that extra political hurdle of seeking the permission or consent of the Attorney General before we can prosecute for genocide. This Universal Jurisdiction (Extension) Bill aims to address these issues, and help the UK play a full and appropriate role in ensuring justice, accountability and the upholding of international law.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Ordered,

    That Brendan O’Hara, Drew Hendry, Caroline Lucas, Liz Saville Roberts, Kirsty Blackman, Claire Hanna, Patrick Grady, Jim Shannon, Ben Lake, Patricia Gibson and Stewart Malcolm McDonald present the Bill.

    Brendan O’Hara accordingly presented the Bill.

    Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 296).

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Mansion House Speech on the UK and China

    James Cleverly – 2023 Mansion House Speech on the UK and China

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, at the Mansion House in London on 25 April 2023.

    Even when the emergencies of the day are seemingly all-consuming,

    It is vital never to lose sight of the biggest long-term questions.

    So tonight I propose to focus on a subject that will define our epoch

    and that is China and the UK’s policy towards it.

    I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase,

    or to sum up China itself in one word, whether “threat”, or “partner”, or “adversary”.

    And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.

    China is one of the few countries which can trace its existence back over two millennia,

    to 221BC,

    when it was united by the Qin Dynasty.

    Time and time again down the centuries, civil war or foreign invasions fractured China into rival kingdoms,

    but after every period of turmoil,

    China has always re-emerged.

    The opening line of the Chinese epic Romance of the Three Kingdoms describes this cycle:

    “Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce.”

    And long before they coalesced into one polity, the Chinese people created their language and their civilisation.

    Their written characters appeared in the Shang Dynasty in the 2nd millennium BC.

    Their inventions – paper, printing, gunpowder, the compass – these things transformed the fortunes of the whole of humanity.

    These innovations are the key to understanding why China’s economy was among the biggest in the world for 20 of the last 22 centuries,

    and why China, in 1820, comprised a third of global GDP – more than America, the UK and Europe combined.

    Then calamities struck, one after another;

    some caused by foreign aggression;

    others coming from within China itself.

    The deadliest of which was Mao’s famine, which claimed tens of millions of lives, more than any other famine in human history.

    Yet the last 45 years have seen another astonishing reversal.

    By releasing the enterprising genius of its people, China has achieved the biggest and fastest economic expansion the world has ever known.

    No less than 800 million people have lifted themselves out of poverty,

    in a nation that encompasses a fifth of all humanity

    and a vast area almost as large as continental Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.

    So forgive me when I say that no punchy catchphrase or plausible adjective can do justice to such a country or to any sensible approach towards it.

    If you are looking for British foreign policy by soundbite, I’m afraid you will be disappointed.

    My starting point is a recognition of the depth and complexity of Chinese history and civilisation,

    and therefore, by extension, of our own policy.

    And I rest that policy on a series of premises,

    the first of which is

    that whatever our differences with China’s leaders,

    I rejoice in the fact that so many Chinese people have escaped poverty.

    We do not live in a miserable zero-sum world: their gain is our gain.

    A stable, prosperous and peaceful China is good for Britain and good for the world.

    Looking ahead, I reject any notion of inevitability.

    No-one predicted China’s rapid rise from mass starvation to relative prosperity

    and today no-one can be sure that China’s economic juggernaut will roll on indefinitely.

    Last year, for the first time since Mao’s death in 1976, China’s economy grew no faster than the world economy,

    meaning that China’s share of global GDP stayed constant in 2022.

    And even if China does become the world’s largest economy in the coming decade,

    it may not hold that place for long,

    as a declining and ageing population weighs ever more heavily on future growth.

    Nor do I see anything inevitable about conflict between China and the United States and the wider West.

    We are not compelled to be prisoners of what Graham Allison called the “Thucydides trap”,

    whereby a rising power follows the trajectory of ancient Athens,

    and collides head-on with an established superpower.

    We have agency;

    we have choices;

    and so do our Chinese counterparts.

    Our task is to shape the course of future events, not succumb to fatalism.

    And we must face the inescapable reality that no significant global problem

    – from climate change to pandemic prevention,

    from economic instability to nuclear proliferation –

    can be solved without China.

    To give up on dialogue with China would be to give up on addressing humanity’s greatest problems.

    Even worse, we would be ignoring salient facts, vital to our safety and our prosperity.

    As I speak, the biggest repository of health data in the world is in China.

    The biggest source of active ingredients for the world’s pharmaceuticals is in China.

    And the biggest source of carbon emissions is also in China.

    Indeed, China has pumped more carbon into the atmosphere in the last 10 years than this country has since the dawn of the industrial revolution in the 18th century.

    How China regulates its data,

    how China develops its pharmaceuticals,

    how China conducts medical research,

    will be of seminal importance to the whole of humanity.

    And whether or not China cuts its carbon emissions will probably make the difference between our planet avoiding the worst ravages of climate change, or suffering catastrophe.

    We have already learned to our cost how China’s handling of a pandemic can affect the entire world.

    So have no doubt: decisions taken in Beijing are going to affect our lives.

    Do we not owe it to ourselves to strive to influence those decisions in our own interests?

    It would be clear and easy – and perhaps even satisfying –

    for me to declare some kind of new Cold War and say that our goal is to isolate China.

    It would be clear, it would be easy, it would be satisfying – and it would be wrong,

    because it would be a betrayal of our national interest and a willful misunderstanding of the modern world.

    Indeed, this Government will advance British interests directly with China, alongside our allies, while steadfastly defending our national security and our values.

    And we can expect profound disagreements;

    dealing with China I can assure you, is not for the fainthearted;

    they represent a ruthless authoritarian tradition utterly at odds with our own.

    But we have an obligation to future generations to engage because otherwise we would be failing in our duty to sustain – and shape – the international order.

    Shirking that challenge would be a sign

    not of strength but of weakness.

    Vladimir Putin never intended to demonstrate the power of a united West when he launched his onslaught against Ukraine.

    But our response shows that when Britain and America and Europe and our other partners across the world stand united, we are a match for anything.

    We should have every confidence in our collective ability to engage robustly and also constructively with China,

    not as an end in itself, but to manage risks and produce results.

    And we have achieved results.

    Let me give you some examples. In 2017 research, British research, convinced the Chinese agriculture ministry to act against the danger of antibiotic resistance by restricting colistin, an antibiotic used in animal feed.

    Sales fell by 90 percent, making everyone in the world safer.

    Last year, our diplomats in China helped to persuade the authorities to amend a draft procurement law,

    improving the chances of UK companies bidding for contracts from state-owned enterprises.

    This year, they secured licences worth £600 million for UK institutions to launch fund management companies in China.

    Britain’s position as a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has also allowed us to influence China’s approach towards this new institution,

    preventing it from becoming a politicised extension of the Belt and Road Initiative.

    China is the biggest shareholder of this Bank, the Bank is headquartered in Beijing,

    and yet within a week of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine,

    it froze every single project in Russia.

    But even though engagement can succeed,

    the truth is that a country like ours,

    devoted to liberty and democracy,

    will always be torn between our national interest in dealing with China

    and our abhorrence of Beijing’s abuses.

    When we see how authoritarian states treat their own people, we wonder what they would do to us if they had the chance.

    And history teaches us that repression at home often translates into aggression abroad.

    So our policy has to combine two currents:

    we must engage with China where necessary and be unflinchingly realistic about its authoritarianism.

    And that means never wavering from one clear principle.

    We do not expect our disagreements with China to be swiftly overcome,

    but we do expect China to observe the laws and obligations that it has freely entered in to.

    So, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council,

    China has shouldered a special responsibility to uphold the UN Charter.

    As a party to the Joint Declaration,

    China has agreed to preserve Hong Kong’s freedom.

    As a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the Convention Against Torture and many other instruments of international law,

    China has accepted an array of obligations.

    And if China breaks them, we are entitled to say so

    and we are entitled to act – and we will –

    as we did when China dismantled the freedoms of Hong Kong, violating its own pledge,

    which is why we gave nearly 3 million of Hong Kong’s people a path to British citizenship.

    Peaceful co-existence has to begin with respecting fundamental laws and institutions,

    including the UN Charter,

    which protects every country against invasion.

    And that means every country: a Chinese diplomat in Paris cannot, and must not, and will not, decide the legal status of sovereign countries.

    By attacking Ukraine, Russia has provided an object lesson in how a UN member state should not behave.

    And Putin has also trampled upon China’s own stated principles of non-interference and respect for sovereignty.

    A powerful and responsible nation cannot simply abstain when this happens,

    or draw closer to the aggressor,

    or aid and abet that aggression.

    A country that wants a respected place at the apex of the world order should stand up for its own principles,

    and keep its solemn obligations

    Obligations to defend the laws at the very foundation of that order.

    This responsibility goes hand-in-hand with China’s right to play a global role commensurate with its size and its history.

    And the rights of a sovereign nation like Ukraine cannot be eradicated just because the eradicator enjoys a “strategic partnership” with China.

    So, British policy towards China has three pillars.

    First, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.

    We are not going to be silent about interference in our political system, or technology theft, or industrial sabotage.

    We will do more to safeguard academic freedom and research.

    And when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.

    Hence we are building our 5G network in the most secure way, not the fastest or the cheapest way.

    China’s leaders define their core interests – and it’s natural that they do.

    But we have core interests too,

    and one of them is to promote the kind of world that we want to live in,

    where people everywhere have a universal human right to be treated with dignity,

    free from torture, free from slavery, free from arbitrary detention.

    And there is nothing uniquely “Western” about these values:

    torture hurts just as much whoever it is inflicted upon.

    So when Britain condemns the mass incarceration of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, I hope our Chinese counterparts do not believe their own rhetoric

    that we are merely seeking to interfere in their domestic affairs.

    Just as we should try harder to understand China, I hope that Chinese officials will understand

    that when their government builds a 21st century version of the gulag archipelago,

    locking up over a million people at the height of this campaign,

    often for doing nothing more than observing their religion,

    this stirs something deep within us.

    When the United Nations finds that China’s repression in Xinjiang may – and I quote – “constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity”,

    our revulsion is heartfelt and shared unanimously across our country and beyond.

    We are not going to let what is happened in Xinjiang drop or be brushed aside.

    We cannot ignore this simply because this is happening on the other side of a frontier,

    or that to raise it might be considered unharmonious or impolite.

    Second, the UK will deepen our cooperation and strengthen our alignment with our friends and partners in the Indo-Pacific and across the world.

    Our aim will be to bolster collective security, deepen commercial links, uphold international law, and balance and compete where necessary.

    So I’m delighted that Britain will soon be the 12th member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, reinforcing our trading ties with rapidly growing economies.

    Already we are the only European country to be a Dialogue Partner of the Association of South-East Asian Nations.

    We are deepening our long term partnership with India.

    And we are developing the next generation of our aircraft alongside Japan.

    And we’ve joined the United States to help Australia to build nuclear-powered conventionally-armed submarines under the AUKUS partnership.

    Together with our friends, the UK will strive for openness and transparency in the Indo-Pacific.

    At this moment, China is carrying out the biggest military build-up in peacetime history.

    In a period of just four years – between 2014 and 2018 – China launched new warships exceeding the combined tonnage of the Royal Navy’s entire active fleet.

    And a we see this happening;

    as we watch new bases appearing in the South China Sea and beyond,

    we are bound to ask ourselves: what is it all for?

    Why is China making this colossal military investment?

    And if we are left to draw our own conclusions, prudence dictates that we must assume the worst.

    And yet of course we could be wrong: it is possible that we will be too cautious and too pessimistic.

    The UK and our allies are prepared to be open about our presence in the Indo-Pacific.

    And I urge China to be equally open about the doctrine and intent behind its military expansion,

    because transparency is surely in everyone’s interests

    and secrecy can only increase the risk of tragic miscalculation.

    Which brings me to Taiwan.

    Britain’s longstanding position is that we want to see a peaceful settlement of the differences across the Strait.

    Because about half of the world’s container ships pass through these vital waters every year,

    laden with goods bound for Europe and the far corners of the world.

    Taiwan is a thriving democracy and a crucial link in global supply chains, particularly for advanced semi-conductors.

    A war across the Strait would not only be a human tragedy,

    it would destroy world trade worth $2.6 Trillion, according to Nikkei Asia.

    No country could shield itself from the repercussions.

    Distance would offer no protection from this catastrophic blow to the global economy – and least China’s most of all.

    I shudder to contemplate the human and financial ruin that would follow.

    So it’s essential that no party takes unilateral action to change the status quo.

    And the third pillar of our policy is to engage directly with China, bilaterally and multilaterally, to preserve and create open, constructive and stable relations,

    reflecting China’s global importance.

    We believe in a positive trade and investment relationship, whilst avoiding dependencies in critical supply chains.

    We want British companies to do business with China – just as American, ASEAN, Australian and EU companies currently do –

    and we will support their efforts to make the terms work for both sides,

    pushing for a level playing field and fairer competition.

    We have an interest in continuing to benefit from Chinese investment,

    but we don’t want the long arm of the Chinese Communist Party reaching towards the central nervous system of our country.

    And in the past, we haven’t always struck the perfect balance between openness and security.

    Now we are gaining the right legal powers to safeguard what we must and be open where we can.

    Above all, we need to be properly skilled for the challenge,

    so we are doubling our funding for China capabilities across Government;

    we’ve allocated the resources to build a new British Embassy in Beijing,

    I’m determined to reach agreement with China’s government so this can proceed.

    So our approach to China must combine all of these currents,

    protecting our national security,

    aligning with our friends,

    engaging and trading with China where our interests converge,

    avoiding policy by soundbite,

    and always standing up for the universal values which Britain holds dear.

    I fervently believe there are no inevitabilities:

    the future is ours to shape,

    in the humble knowledge

    that how we respond to this challenge now will help define the modern world.

    Thank you.

  • Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech at the Council of Europe Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

    Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech at the Council of Europe Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on 25 April 2023.

    Good morning everyone, I want to start with an apology.

    I would love to be there with you for what I know will be an informed and fruitful discussion, and one that will lead to a valuable report.

    And I am hugely grateful to your President for the kind invitation to speak to you all today and to have a chance to reinforce the UK Government’s position on the participation of Russia and Belarus in international sport.

    I’d also like to extend my thanks to all the members of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media for your illuminating work in this area.

    The UK Government has been committed to the people of Ukraine from day one of Putin’s barbaric invasion and that commitment is an unwavering one.

    Any change to our position on the participation of Russian and Belarusian athletes representing their states in international sport would be incompatible with that commitment and incompatible with our values as a country.

    As this Council knows, the Olympic Truce – a principle that dates back to the 9th century BC to promote peace, friendship and understanding through sport – and is agreed at the United Nations – has been broken by Russia not once, but twice.

    The first time was – rather unbelievably – at their own hosting of the Winter Games at Sochi in 2014, and the second was during the Beijing Games in 2022.

    Russia has shown nothing but contempt for the values of the Olympics movement and its flouting of the rules has extended beyond the current conflict, as we saw with its involvement in doping programmes.

    The facts are incontrovertible – Russia has devastated Ukraine, Russia has killed Ukrainian athletes and Russia has smashed Ukraine’s sports infrastructure to smithereens.

    This regime does not deserve to see its athletes line up on the starting blocks of races or stand on podiums during medal ceremonies as representatives of their countries.

    As part of our absolute commitment to Ukraine and Ukrainian sovereignty, we have used the convening power of sport to bring together a coalition of 35 countries opposed to Russian and Belarusian participation in international sport.

    The collective statements we issued in March and July of last year, and February of this year, set out shared principles that all those countries agreed on.

    Our common goal is for sporting bodies to minimise the ability of Russia and Belarus to use sport for political gain.

    We recognise and want to maintain the autonomy of sport, and we support those national and international sports bodies who have shown moral clarity and exceptional leadership in this area.

    Bodies like the World Athletics Council that reaffirmed their decision in March to exclude Russian and Belarusian athletes.

    World Athletics President Seb Coe highlighted the substantial damage that Russia and Belarus have already done to ‘the integrity of our major international competitions.’

    It is in our collective gift to restore that integrity.

    And I want to be clear on one point which is really at the heart of this issue: this is not about punishing individual Russian or Belarusian athletes. These individuals have dedicated their lives to sport.

    What we stand against is athletes competing to represent the state of Russia and Belarus. There is a fundamental difference.

    The UK Government has from March 2022 been clear in our guidance to our own domestic sports bodies that individual Russian and Belarusian athletes can compete as ‘neutrals’ on UK soil, as long they really are neutral and are not representing their states in any way.

    And we have been equally clear on what that neutrality looks like. These athletes must not, under any circumstances, express support for the war or the Russian and Belarusian regimes.

    This extends to athlete funding – so athletes funded by their states to compete in events or who are in receipt of funding or sponsorship directly aligned to their states, such as from state controlled companies like Gazprom – cannot be considered to be neutral.

    Athletes directly funded by their states to compete in sports competitions, who would not be present at those events without that support, are de facto representatives of those states. They are only there by virtue of being funded by, trained by, selected by, supported by the Russian state.

    And, in that sense, from the UK perspective both ourselves and the International Olympic Committee, through its recommendations on ‘neutrality’ to International Federations of 28 March, are both seeking the same outcome: ensuring the Russian and Belarusian states cannot be represented in international sport.

    We have seen the IOC start to address some of the concerns our group of 35 nations raised in February and that is to be welcomed.

    But the IOC’s recommendations do not go far enough for us and they leave far too many unanswered questions. Our deep reservations extend across three areas.

    Firstly, there is no reference anywhere in the recommendations to state funding, which as I have said is a breach of neutrality. That issue is simply too fundamental to be ignored and it strikes at the heart of what neutrality is. State funding is state representation.

    Secondly, the provisions set out on military and national security agency links are currently minimal, especially when we know that the links between state, military and sport in Russia and Belarus are root and branch.

    And if you think that sounds like an exaggeration, consider the fact that the two leading Russia sports societies, the Central Sports Club of the Army (CSKA) and the Dynamo Sports Society, were founded by the Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Internal Affairs respectively.

    Athletes trained by those two societies consistently bring home by far the largest share of Russian Olympic medals.

    Many Russian athletes have been active in their support for Putin’s invasion.

    The limited focus of the IOC’s recommendations around people being currently “contracted” to the military or national security agencies really does not account for the intrinsic relationship between the military and security apparatus.

    Our concern also covers the potential for loopholes, with people being ‘uncontracted’ before events and then ‘re-contracted’ afterwards to allow them to compete.

    In Belarus, the Lukashenko regime maintains close control of Belarusian sport, with the Belarus Olympic Committee and Presidential Sports Club, which provides direct financial support to Belarusian athletes, led by Lukashenko’s sons.

    The scenes at the pro-war rally at the Luzhniki Stadium last year, with Putin using Olympic athletes to promote his aggression only served to underline this issue.

    Thirdly, we have ongoing serious concerns about how these provisions will be implemented effectively, robustly and consistently.

    For example, there are issues around the consistent definition of ‘teams’ and whether pairs of athletes could be allowed. This issue is one that needs further clarification.

    Let’s be clear on why this matters. You cannot compete in a team event at the Olympics other than by virtue of being the same nationality and representing your country.

    There are no options to pair up across country borders, so there can be no place for any teams, of any numbers

    We are already seeing a great deal of confusion across sports as international federations take different approaches on the issue of allowing Russian and Belarusian athletes back into competition…

    And our fear is this will only escalate over coming weeks, exacerbated by the current lack of clarity on future participation at Paris 2024 for those Russians and Belarusians who may have qualified at events this summer.

    In all of these discussions we must not lose sight of the issues at stake.

    More than 220 Ukrainian athletes and coaches have so far lost their lives at the hands of Russian aggression.

    Countless more have been forced to flee or defend their homeland from invading forces.

    Our countries all have the luxury of talking about our participation in future sporting events – events that will bring joy to millions and showcase our greatest athletes.

    Meanwhile Ukrainian sport facilities have been destroyed or severely damaged by this war.

    None of us should countenance the idea of a Ukrainian athlete being forced to share a pitch, a court, a field, a starting line with state sponsored athletes from Russia and Belarus.

    The IOC must clarify their position or go back to the drawing board. Resolve the issues I have set out today.

    Implement an approach that guarantees only truly neutral athletes can participate.

    Then we can get back to sport.

    Thank you all for your time today.

  • Alex Burghart – 2023 Statement on the List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

    Alex Burghart – 2023 Statement on the List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

    The statement made by Alex Burghart, the Cabinet Office Minister, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2023.

    I am pleased to confirm that the latest list of Ministers’ interests was published last week on 19 April by the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Laurie Magnus. The list has been deposited in the Library of the House and is also available online on gov.uk.

    I note that the hon. Lady’s question talks of a register of ministerial interests. I am afraid that I must point out, for the sake of clarity, that that is not an accurate term. It is important that I provide a little explanation about the list, what it contains and the role it performs. The ministerial code makes it clear that

    “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.”

    It is their personal responsibility

    “to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict, taking account of advice received from their Permanent Secretary and the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ interests.”

    On appointment, each Minister makes a declaration of all interests. They remain under an obligation to keep that declaration up to date throughout their time in office. Ministers are encouraged to make the fullest possible disclosure relating to themselves, their spouses and partners, and close family members, even where matters may not necessarily be relevant. The information supplied is then reviewed and advised upon by their permanent secretary and also by the independent adviser. Where needed, steps are taken to avoid or mitigate any potential conflicts of interest. That is the process by which Ministers’ interests are managed. It is thorough and ongoing, and it provides individual advice to all Ministers that reflects their circumstances and responsibilities.

    Twice a year, a list is published, covering those interests that are judged by the independent adviser to be relevant to each Minister’s portfolio. The list is not a register. It is designed to be read alongside the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is maintained by this House, and the register of Members’ interests that operates in the other place. For that reason, the list does not generally duplicate the information that is available in the registers.

    The independent adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, makes it clear in his introduction to the list published last week that it would not be appropriate for all the information gathered as part of the ministerial interests process to be made public. He states that such a move would

    “represent an excessive degree of intrusion into the private affairs of ministers that would be unreasonable, particularly in respect of”

    hon. Members’ families. I am sure hon. Members will understand that the system is designed to gather the fullest amount of information, provided in confidence, so that the most effective advice can be given.

    All Ministers of the Crown uphold the system that I have described. That is true for all Ministers, from the Prime Minister, who has been clear that all his interests have been declared in the usual way, all the way down to, and including, an assistant Whip. In the latest list, the independent adviser highlights the importance of Ministers and their permanent secretaries remaining alert in the context of their respective portfolios if Ministers’ interests change. That is, of course, right. Importantly, though, Sir Laurie Magnus provides his opinion as independent adviser on Ministers’ interests that

    “any actual, potential and perceived conflicts have been, or are in the process of being, resolved”.

  • Dave Doogan – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    Dave Doogan – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    The speech made by Dave Doogan, the SNP MP for Angus, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2023.

    It is very welcome to have our civil servants evacuated, and all credit goes to the men and women in uniform who delivered that operation, but the political decision to evacuate an embassy in these circumstances should be neither complex nor lengthy, so the Government might wish to cease congratulating themselves on that, especially as, in terms of deploying our military professionals to support ordinary citizens trapped in Sudan, the UK is trailing as usual, just as it did at the start of the covid crisis. When other nations stepped up to repatriate their people, as is expected in such circumstances, the UK dithered and mithered.

    Can the Minister explain to the House the root cause of this unfathomable inertia? Is there a tension between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence? If so, is the Foreign Office saying go and the MOD saying no, or is it the other way around? The official UK Government advice is that a ceasefire is the answer to this crisis, but what comfort is that to the thousands of UK nationals still on the ground? We might as well tell them to hold their breath while they wait for the food and water to run out.

    Meanwhile, this weekend France evacuated 388 citizens, including Dutch citizens; Germany airlifted 101 citizens to Jordan; Italy and Spain have evacuated their citizens and those of Argentina, Colombia, Portugal, Poland, Mexico, Venezuela and Sudan; Turkey has evacuated 640, including people from Azerbaijan, Japan, China, Mexico and Yemen; and Ireland, without a tactical airlifter to its name, has evacuated Irish nationals and is evacuating 140 more today. What it is to have friends in the world. On Radio 4 this morning, the Minister said that UK nationals in Sudan would be frustrated. They are terrified, not frustrated. He also said no fewer than three times that if UK nationals chose to flee independently, they would do so at their own risk, which rather exposes Foreign Office priorities in this crisis. The risk assessment taken by Ministers advises UK nationals to stay put. Did they factor in any assessment of access to food and water, of failing sanitation or of escalating violence making future evacuations even harder?

    Mr Mitchell

    I do not agree with the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. This was done because diplomats were specifically being targeted. He will have seen that the European Union representative was held up at gunpoint, and I have already mentioned that the British embassy was caught between the two sides in this. This was extremely dangerous, and I have already mentioned what happened to the French. It was the decision that our diplomats were in extreme jeopardy that led to the operation I have described.

    As I said earlier, we of course have a duty of care to all our citizens. That is why we are doing everything possible, within the art of the possible, to bring them home, but we have a specific duty of care to our staff and our diplomats. Because of the extreme danger they were in, the Prime Minister took the decision to launch the operation that was fortunately so successful.

  • Alicia Kearns – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    Alicia Kearns – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    The speech made by Alicia Kearns, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2023.

    I echo the thanks that have been expressed to the staff from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence who evacuated our diplomats and their families.

    The central tenet of the contract between British nationals and their Government, or indeed the nation state, is trust, and at this point trust is being stretched: trust that we will evacuate those people and convey them to a place of safety when they are in need. I recognise the complexity and risk, I recognise that we have thousands of nationals in Sudan while others have just hundreds, and I recognise there is reportedly a military reconnaissance team on the ground—perhaps the Minister can confirm that—but I urge my right hon. Friend, who is very honourable, to get our people home, because that is what the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence train our people to do.

    If, however, we are following the United States policy of non-evacuation or limited evacuation, we must have the moral courage to tell our British nationals that that is the case, because they are running out of food, water, electricity and internet signal, and some are killing their pets because they know that they can no longer feed them. We have a duty to empower them with the information that they need in order to make the right decisions for themselves and their families, but I urge the Minister to accept that time is running out and we need to do the evacuation now.

    Mr Mitchell

    I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments, and I am grateful to her for thanking the crisis centre, which is working night and day. I can assure her that while the United States made it clear that it was taking its diplomats out in the early operation that both it and we conducted, it has also made it clear that, as things stand, it is not planning to take any of its citizens out. We have not made that clear. Indeed, we made it clear that we are working at all levels to try to ensure that we can do so. We are looking at every single conceivable option, and we will—as my hon. Friend has suggested—do everything we possibly can to help in every way we can.

  • Lyn Brown – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    Lyn Brown – 2023 Speech on Sudan

    The speech made by Lyn Brown, the Shadow Foreign Minister, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2023.

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for keeping me informed over the weekend. The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), is returning from Kenya this evening; he continues to discuss developments with African leaders there.

    I join the Minister in paying tribute to the bravery and professionalism of our armed forces involved in the operation to evacuate British diplomats and their families from Sudan. On behalf of the Labour party, I thank the 1,200 UK personnel involved in that very difficult mission, including those from 16 Air Assault Brigade, the Royal Marines and the RAF.

    Our relief at the success of the mission does not alleviate our concern for the several thousand British nationals who are still trapped in Sudan amid growing violence. Many will be frightened and desperate to leave, but uncertain of their next move and of the assistance that the Government will be able to offer. What they need to hear is a clear plan for how and when the Government will support those who are still in danger and communicate with them.

    While we maintain the unified international pressure for a permanent ceasefire, we are clear that the Government should be evacuating as many British nationals as possible, as quickly as possible. None of us is any doubt as to the complexity of the task or the difficulty of the situation on the ground, yet we know that our partner countries have evacuated significant numbers of their nationals already: 700 have been evacuated by France and Germany, 500 by Indonesia, 350 by Jordan, 150 each by Italy and Saudi Arabia, and 100 by Spain. African partners, including Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya, are also planning action, and France included UK nationals in its airlift. We thank it for that, but it raises some serious questions.

    Can the Minister address why partner countries have been able to evacuate sizeable numbers of their nationals so far, as well as diplomats and their dependants, but the UK has not? Can he confirm whether the Government have evacuated any UK nationals who were not employees of the embassy or their dependants? Can he confirm how many UK nationals have been evacuated by our international partners? Were the embassy staff able to complete a full and proper shutdown, including dealing with any sensitive material? Given the communication difficulties, how can we effectively co-ordinate a second phase of the evacuation?

    Naturally, questions will be asked about whether the Government have learned the lessons of the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal. We need to understand why the international community and the UK Government as Security Council penholder were seemingly wrong-footed by a conflict that we know was a clear and recognised risk. Can the Government give us a current assessment of Wagner’s role in supporting the RSF?

    The immediate priority, however, must be to give our nationals a way to escape violence that is not of their making. We should remember that this conflict is not of the Sudanese people’s making, either; the responsibility for it lies squarely with a few generals who are putting personal interests and ambition above the lives of fellow citizens. The resistance committees are organising mutual aid despite terrible risks. People fleeing Khartoum by road are being sheltered and supported in the villages they pass. People who only want peace, justice and democracy are showing again their solidarity and extraordinary resilience.

    Will the Minister detail the steps that the UK will be taking with partners to address the looming humanitarian crisis that this conflict is driving? The international community, including all our partners, needs to send a clear and united message. The generals cannot secure any future that they would want through violence. The fighting needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.

    Mr Mitchell

    I thank the hon. Lady very much for her comments, particularly about the work of the armed forces. She is entirely right about the bravery with which they executed this operation so well, and about its incredible difficulty.

    The hon. Lady asked about the British nationals who are trapped in Khartoum and in Sudan more widely, and I can tell her that we are looking at every single possible option for extracting them. She acknowledged that this had been a complex area, and I can only say to her that it certainly was.

    The hon. Lady referred to our partner countries. As we know, when the French were seeking to evacuate their diplomats and some people from the wider French Government platform, to whom she referred, they were shot at as they came out through the embassy gateway, and I understand that a member of their special forces is gravely ill.

    The hon. Lady asked why the UK diplomats were evacuated. That was because we believed they were in extreme danger. Fighting was taking place on both sides of the embassy, which was why the Government decided that it was essential to bring them out. We have a duty to all British citizens, of course, but we have a particular duty of care to our own staff and diplomats.

    The hon. Lady asked about the destruction of material, and I can tell her that there was time for all the normal procedures to be adopted in that respect. She asked about our role as the penholder at the United Nations. As she will know, we have already called a meeting and will call further meetings as appropriate, and we are discharging our duties as penholder in every possible way.

    The hon. Lady mentioned the comparison with Afghanistan, and asked whether we had learned lessons. We most certainly have learned lessons from Afghanistan, but the position in Sudan is completely different. First, in Afghanistan there were British troops on the ground; there are no British troops on the ground in Khartoum, or in Sudan as a whole. Secondly, in Afghanistan the airport was open and working, whereas the airport in Khartoum is entirely out of action. Thirdly, there was a permissive environment in Afghanistan. We had the permission of the Taliban to take people out. There is no such permissive environment in Sudan and its capital city.

    Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the humanitarian crisis. She is right: humanitarian workers have been shot at, five of them have been killed, and, prudently, those involved in the humanitarian effort are withdrawing their people. This is a total and absolute nightmare of a crisis, in which 60 million people are already short of food and support, and—as the hon. Lady implied—it will only get worse unless there is a ceasefire and the generals lay down their arms and ensure that their troops go back to barracks.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Statement on Sudan

    Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Statement on Sudan

    The statement made by Andrew Mitchell, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2023.

    With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make this further statement to the House about the situation in Sudan on behalf of the Government and the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the funeral of a close family member.

    Ten days ago, fierce fighting broke out in Khartoum. It has since spread to Omdurman, Darfur and other Sudanese cities. As Members of the House will know, a violent power struggle is ongoing between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces.

    The situation in Sudan is extremely grave. More than 427 people have been killed, including five aid workers, and over 3,700 people have been injured. Before this violence began, the humanitarian situation in Sudan was already deteriorating. We now estimate that approximately 16 million people—a third of the Sudanese population—are in need of humanitarian assistance. These numbers, I regret to inform the House, are likely to rise significantly.

    Although the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces announced a 72-hour ceasefire from 0500 hours London time on 21 April to the mark the holy festival of Eid, it did not hold. Given the rapidly deteriorating security situation, the Government took the difficult decision to evacuate all British embassy staff and their dependants to fulfil our duty as their employer to protect our staff. This highly complex operation was completed yesterday. The operation involved more than 1,200 personnel from 16 Air Assault Brigade, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. I know the House will join me in commending the brilliant work of our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, as well as the bravery of our servicemen and women for completing the operation successfully, in extremely dangerous circumstances.

    I also pay tribute to our international partners for their ongoing co-operation in aligning our rescue responses, and I express my admiration for the work of the crisis centre in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, where more than 200 officials are working 24/7 and seamlessly across Government to co-ordinate the UK response.

    The safety and security of British nationals continues to be our utmost priority. Our ability to support British nationals has not been impacted by the relocation of British embassy staff. The evacuated team will continue to operate from a neighbouring country, alongside the Foreign Office in London, which is working throughout the day and night to support British nationals and push for a ceasefire in Sudan.

    We are asking all British nationals in Sudan to register their presence with us. The roughly 2,000 British nationals registered with us already are being sent, sometimes with great difficulty, at least daily updates by text and email. This step helps enable us to remain in contact with them while we find a safe passage from Sudan. Movement around the capital remains extremely dangerous and no evacuation option comes without grave risk to life. Khartoum airport is out of action. Energy supplies are disrupted. Food and water are becoming increasingly scarce. Internet and telephone networks are becoming difficult to access. We continue to advise all British nationals in Sudan to stay indoors wherever possible. We recognise that circumstances will vary in different locations across Sudan, so we are now asking British nationals to exercise their own judgment about their circumstances, including whether to relocate, but they do so at their own risk.

    Ending the violence is the single most important action we can take to guarantee the safety of British nationals and everyone in Sudan. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and I have been in continuous contact with allies and key regional partners since the outbreak of violence to agree a joint approach to both evacuation and de-escalation of violence. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister spoke to his counterparts, including Egyptian President Sisi and the President of Djibouti. The Foreign Secretary was in contact with the Kenyan President, the US Secretary of State and the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Sweden, Turkey, Cyprus and the European Union High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. The Defence Secretary engaged with counterparts in Djibouti, the United States, France and Egypt. I have spoken to the African Union and the Prime Minister in exile of Sudan, upon whom so many hopes rested. Further escalation of this conflict, particularly if it spills over into neighbouring countries, would be disastrous. As we continue to make clear, there must be a genuine and lasting ceasefire.

    We undertake to keep the House informed as the situation develops. Today, all MPs will receive a second “Dear colleague” letter from the Foreign Secretary and me. This will hopefully help to answer a number of frequently asked questions to assist right hon. and hon. Members in supporting their constituents.

    I will continue to be in close contact with the House and provide updates where possible in the coming days. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2023 Message for Eid al-Fitr

    Rishi Sunak – 2023 Message for Eid al-Fitr

    The message issued by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 20 April 2023.

    As Ramadan comes to an end, I would like to send my warmest wishes to Muslims in the UK and around the world as they mark Eid al Fitr.

    Eid is a timely opportunity to acknowledge the shared values which bind us together, particularly your compassion and dedication to contribute to charity and philanthropy. This was evident earlier this year, through the community’s outstanding response to support the victims of the earthquake in Turkey and Syria.

    As families and friends come together to celebrate, I pay tribute to the incredible contribution the Muslim community makes to the country. Whether it be in business, sports, media, our public services, or of course our NHS and armed forces, British Muslims are helping to make the country the success it is.

    Eid Mubarak to everyone observing it today. I look forward to welcoming representatives from the British Muslim community to Downing Street to celebrate.

  • Tom Tugendhat – 2023 Speech to CYBERUK

    Tom Tugendhat – 2023 Speech to CYBERUK

    The speech made by Tom Tugendhat, the Security Minister, in Belfast on 20 April 2023.

    Thank you. It’s an enormous pleasure to be here with you today in Belfast.

    It is also an incredible honour to be here in Belfast on this auspicious occasion. Not just to be here at this conference, but 25 years ago there was the extraordinary moment of the signing of the Good Friday agreement. That wonderful moment that gave hope to a new generation and demonstrated this country, the whole of the UK and the whole of these islands can move on from a difficult past to a much better future.

    It’s a reminder that peace can never be taken for granted, and that service, debate and compromise define what is at the heart of our peaceful and democratic system, and together they must never be neglected.

    It also makes me particularly mindful of my role today. I stand before you as Security Minister of the UK.

    In one respect, that is quite a simple job: keep Britain safe. Of course, that clarity marks a complexity of the challenges we face from terrorism and state threats to organised crime and distributed attacks.

    Those attacks are more your field and its there in the cyber world that the UK faces some of its sternest tests.

    A quick look at the basic figures is enough to bring home the scale and severity of the issue we face.

    New findings released just yesterday from the Cyber Security Breaches Survey show that 32% of businesses experienced at least one cyber breach in the last 12 months.

    This year, for the first time, the survey also tells us how many of these breaches resulted in a cybercrime being committed.

    We can now estimate that 11% of businesses were victim to at least one cybercrime. That cost each of them around £15,000 in the past year.

    We must never lose sight of the fact that behind each of these online statistics is a real-world victim.

    Each is a grandparent defrauded, and stripped of their savings.

    Each is a small business held to ransom, and jobs lost.

    Each is public money stolen, and the taxpayer short-changed.

    The cyber-threat doesn’t just come from criminals. The ongoing war in Ukraine is a constant reminder of the threat we face from hostile actors. Russia has been trying to invade Ukraine’s cyberspace as much as its physical space, threatening critical information, critical services, and critical infrastructure.

    The threat of further cyber fallout from conflict is very real to the United Kingdom and to all our allies.

    At home we are seeing the overlap of state threats, terrorism and organised crime brought together online and off.

    Against this troubling background our mission is clear. We must crack down on cybercrime, we must protect the United Kingdom from the most capable cyber adversaries – states, criminals and terrorists – all are trying to hurt us and all have made the online world work for them, delivering offline political gain and criminal profit.

    That is no small brief, and it is not one any department, certainly not one Minister, can achieve alone.

    That’s why this event is so important to me. This is why I’m so grateful to Lindy for inviting me and so grateful for the opportunity to speak to you. Because what we can achieve together is an all round ecosystem of cyber security built on the UK’s world class foundations of education, expertise, technology and capability.

    The task of cyber security falls to government of course, but also to individuals, law enforcement, and to you, business.

    Now today, I’d like to reflect on how far we’ve come, and where we need to go. Above all, I want to stress the core message, exemplified by those extraordinary events of 25 years ago – that only by working together can we collectively be safe.

    I’d like to briefly outline my priorities in cyber policy, before affirming areas in which government and industry partnerships must go further if we are all going to succeed.

    The government has already made phenomenal progress in building resilience and countering the threat from our adversaries.

    The latest iteration of the National Cyber Strategy set out the UK’s role as a responsible and democratic cyber power, and laid down the framework on which the UK’s security and prosperity can depend.

    It’s the bedrock of everything we do to keep the UK cyber safe.

    It also important that our laws, the software of our society, are updated.

    That’s why we recently published a consultation on improving the Computer Misuse Act, which is an important part of deterring those who would commit crime, and equipping law enforcement to carry out their duties.

    That consultation is for you to contribute to and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

    We are proposing to include powers to take control of domains and IP addresses used by criminals and enable action against individuals in possession of or using data obtained through the criminal actions of others.

    But I say again, your thoughts matter and I’m looking forward to your input.

    We’re building the National Cyber Crime Unit to take on serious cyber criminals.

    Its operational resources must deliver arrests and disruption, and build on the NCA’s enhanced intelligence picture to target criminals where they are most vulnerable.

    We recently helped to dismantle Genesis Market – one of the biggest online marketplaces selling stolen logins and passwords to criminals across the world.

    We’ve built a network of Regional Cyber Crime Units, ensuring that police units have access to specialists and capabilities.

    I must also mention Ransomware attacks, where the National Cyber Security Centre assesses to be in the top tier of online threats to the UK.

    Ransomware criminals cause harm and hurt. They cost more than cash. Hospitals and their patients in a pandemic were targeted, putting people and lives at risk.

    Now this is a global problem, we are working with global partners.

    With the US and others, the UK is a leading member of the international Counter Ransomware Initiative, and together we are going after these criminals.

    Recently we sanctioned seven Russian cyber criminals who were behind some of the most damaging ransomware attacks in the UK in recent years.

    With those priorities in mind, let me now turn to your role in the cyber community. Against this array of challenges, collaboration between government, law enforcement and industry is key.

    I’d like to propose three areas where we must go further and faster, together.

    First, prevention is always better than a cure.

    Sometimes cyberattacks are sophisticated – but the vast majority are in fact simple, and can be easily prevented by a few simple steps.

    Our aim is to make the UK the safest place to be online, and that starts with all of us working to ensure that everyone understands how to protect themselves.

    The NCSC’s Cyber Aware campaign and the work of City of London Police leading this work, is I hope, of use to you all in providing advice that is simple, consistent and based on our collective latest understanding of the threat picture.

    This room is filled with experts so please be active in shaping the guidance so that your staff and customers can avoid becoming victims in the first place.

    Second, our most capable adversaries will only get better.

    Malign states and crime gangs will look for chances in an open internet. We’ve got to do the same to protect ourselves.

    Five years ago, WannaCry wreaked havoc in the NHS, leading to cancelled appointments and postponed operations on a huge scale.

    North Korea’s cyber weapon was heralded in a new business model for criminals around the world.

    Today, Ransomware is a chronic threat and is sold as a service to groups without cyber skills. The barriers to entry have come down. This is a democratisation of crime, just as much as any other.

    The question that we should all be asking is: what next?

    Breaking the future cyber-criminal business model – and understanding tomorrow’s state action in cyber space is key to pushing for more responsible, democratic behaviour.

    The enemy will evolve and so must we.

    Third, new technology will change the world we think we know.

    Dawn has broken on the age of Artificial Intelligence. We’ve only just begun to wake up to the opportunities that will be unlocked in the coming years, and can only guess at the ways in which they’ll transform our world.

    This speech wasn’t written by ChatGPT as you can probably tell. You’re not supposed to laugh at that. Very soon we are going to see Large Language Models such as Open AI’s ChatGPT which are already able to ace the bar exam and indeed write better speeches than this, and suggest new avenues for drug discovery. They’re not thinking yet, it is more pattern recognition and repetition than real thought, but the game is changing already.

    The goal that many are working towards – an Artificial General Intelligence, or AGI – is looking more open and more possible.

    It’s difficult to overstate what this would mean to all of us. Super intelligent computers that learn and develop autonomously would transform our society and our world, and more than almost any other advancement in human history.

    Even in these early stages, AI can enhance our security but it can also threaten it. Our AI capabilities will be at the heart of our mission to protect the UK.

    In Ukraine, AI is already being used to identify malicious Russian behaviour by analysing patterns of activity at huge scale, they are not just finding needles in the haystack but finding out what the haystack itself is saying.

    At home and across our homes in the UK, AI could protect children from predators, unlocking advanced tools and techniques to identify potential grooming behaviour at scale and uncover rings of offenders right across the net.

    However, in our line of work opportunity often comes hand in hand with risk, and AI is no different.

    We already know because we’ve seen it, the cost of the advancement of technology and the challenge it has brought in biological space and we know because we’ve seen it the risks that a pathogen can cause to our world. We need to make sure that we do not see the same risk from AI.

    It’s not hard to see future AGI coding weapons, even now there are threats we must guard against.

    Cyberattacks work when they find vulnerabilities. AI will cut the cost and complication of cyber attacks by automating the hunt for the chinks in our armour.

    Already AI can confuse and copy, spreading lies and committing fraud. Natural language models can mimic credible news sources, pushing disingenuous narratives at huge scale. And AI image and video generation will get better – so called ‘deepfakes’ – which make the danger to our democracy even greater.

    Given the stakes, we can all understand the calls to stop AI development altogether. But the genie won’t go back in the bottle anymore than we can write laws against maths.

    As Robert Oppenheimer once said, ‘technology happens because it is possible’.

    Putin has a longstanding strategic interest in AI, and has commented that ‘whoever becomes leader in this sphere will rule the world’. And China, with its vast data sets and fierce determination is a strong rival.

    But AI also threatens authoritarian control.

    Other than the United States, the UK is one of the only a handful liberal democratic countries that can credibly help lead the world in AI development.

    We can stay ahead but it will demand investment and cooperation and not just by government. Only by working together can we keep Britain in the front rank of AI powers and protect ourselves and our businesses.

    As for the safety of the technology itself, it’s essential that by the time we reach the development of AGI we are confident that it can be safely controlled, and aligned to our values and interests.

    Solving this issue of alignment is where our efforts must lie – not in some King Canute like attempt to stop the inevitable, but in a national mission to ensure that when super intelligent computers do arrive, they make the world safer and more secure.

    Before I finish let me say again what a huge pleasure it is to join you for this outstanding event.

    Last night at dinner I wasn’t with you in the Titanic Hall but instead at Hillsborough castle hearing those that had negotiated the complexity of the Good Friday agreement. I heard about the uncertainty and recriminations and the fear but I also heard about hope and the individual efforts by millions across Northern Ireland, and indeed across the islands of Ireland and Great Britain that changed our lives for the better.

    This morning I’ve heard from others who are taking on a different challenge with its own complexity and uncertainty and indeed its own risk. But I’ve also heard the hope for a better future for us all. As we can cooperate to contain and confront the challenges, I am grateful to you all for everything you have done and continue to do in the name of keeping people safe online.

    This is a ferociously difficult task. But I am constantly inspired and reassured by your talent, expertise and dedication.

    I am very grateful for everything you do and I look forward to us working together to make sure that this revolution, the next revolution, serves us all and keeps us all safe.