Tag: Speeches

Stewart McDonald – 2020 Speech on Security in the Middle East

Below is the text of the speech made by Stewart McDonald, the SNP Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We on these Benches of course hold no candle for General Soleimani or, indeed, for the actions of the Iranian Government, but I would simply say to the Secretary of State that it is not anti-American to question and press the Government on what they are doing in relation to their closest ally. He says that the US is confident that General Soleimani had co-ordinated the 27 December attacks and was planning further attacks, but how confident is he that that is correct? There is certainly no consensus on Capitol Hill among congressional leaders that that is the case. The Secretary of State mentioned that he had seen intelligence that had perhaps convinced him, but have the UK Government done their own legal analysis of whether the strike was lawful? I ask him simply: does he believe that the strike was lawful? And why has it taken four days for the Government to convene the National Security Council, given the gravity of the situation we now face?

On UK forces, the Secretary of State tells the House—this is the killer paragraph—that all training has been “suspended” and “contingency planning” is going on, which can be taken to mean planning to leave Iraq, so can it be taken as read that there is now no active fight against ISIS in Iraq because of the actions of the President of America?

On de-escalation, will the Secretary of State mount the most robust and unapologetic defence of international law and order? Does he agree with the International Committee of the Red Cross that the threat to target cultural sites, as made by the US President, would be unlawful? Will he work to ensure that the UN Security Council can finally step in and do its job? Will he condemn the fact that the Foreign Minister of Iran has been prevented, against international law, from taking part in UN proceedings? On the JCPOA, I welcome what the Secretary of State has to say, but we really need some detail as to how he will get the plan resurrected with Iran and the United States.

We hear a lot at the Dispatch Box about the international rules-based order, but our closest ally is ripping it up before our eyes, whether we like it or not. I ask the Secretary of State to be unapologetic in standing up for it and to mount the most robust defence of it—America is a close friend, and that is what a close friend should do. If the Secretary of State does that, he will have the support of those on the SNP Benches.

January 8, 2020
Jeremy Corbyn – 2020 Speech on Security in the Middle East

Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. Could he tell us where the Prime Minister is, and what he is doing that is so much more important than addressing Parliament on the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, an extremely dangerous and aggressive act that risks starting yet another deadly war in the middle east?

On Friday, I sent the Prime Minister a letter posing a series of questions. He has not answered any of them. Instead, today he is hiding behind his Defence Secretary. Is it not the truth that he is scared to stand up to President Trump because he has hitched his wagon to the prospect of a toxic Trump trade deal? At this highly dangerous moment, we find the Government giving cover and even expressing sympathy for what is widely regarded as an illegal act, because they are so determined to keep in with President Trump. This assassination puts British troops and civilians, as well as the people of the region, in danger.

As the Secretary of State will confirm, I have long spoken out against the Iranian Government’s human rights record, including when he and I visited Iran together in 2014. This is not a question of Soleimani’s actions or record in the region. Whatever the record of any state official, the principle and the law is that we do not go around assassinating foreign leaders. Without the clear demonstration of an immediate threat, it is illegal. So do the Government regard the assassination as legal under international law? If so, how? Do the lawyers in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence regard it as legal?

If the Secretary of State really believes that this was an act of self-defence, what evidence has he or the Prime Minister seen of an imminent attack on the US? The Secretary of State says that the United States is confident that attacks were imminent, but US officials have been quoted in the press as saying that the evidence was “razor thin”. How would the Secretary of State describe it?

In the past few days, the US President has threatened to target Iranian cultural sites, and to attack Iran in a manner that is—I quote him directly—“disproportionate”. Both actions would be war crimes, yet the Government still seem unable to condemn such threats. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary said that the onus was entirely on Iran to de-escalate. I wonder whether, if Iran had assassinated an American general, the British Government would be telling Washington that the onus was entirely on the US to de-escalate.

We talk about this as a conflict between the US and Iran, but the worst consequences are likely to be felt by Iraq, a country on the brink of further terrible violence and instability. President Trump has threatened Iraq with

“sanctions like they’ve never seen before”

after its elected—yes, elected—Parliament voted to ask US and other foreign forces to leave their country. He has said he will not withdraw entirely unless the US is compensated for the “extraordinarily expensive air base” that was actually built by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. The Prime Minister—when he finally resurfaced from his trip—said that he was committed to the sovereignty of Iraq, so will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will respect Iraqi sovereignty if the Iraqi Government ask all foreign forces, including British forces, to leave?

We know that the British Government were not consulted by the Trump Administration in advance, despite there being obvious British interests at stake. Let me also ask what the Government are doing to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other dual nationals who are currently in detention in Iran. This must be an utterly terrifying time both for them individually and for their families.

It is not in anyone’s interests for this to escalate to an all-out war. All sides should exercise maximum restraint and allow for meaningful dialogue, led by the UN Secretary-General’s office. To prevent war, we need a strong plan for diplomacy, so are the Government in contact with the UN Secretary-General? And let us not forget that there was a diplomatic plan: the Iran nuclear deal. It was working, until President Trump came along and tried to rip it up.

Time and time again over the last two decades, the political and military establishments have made the wrong call on military interventions in the middle east. Many of us opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the failed invasion of Afghanistan, and I opposed the bombing of Libya in 2011. Have we learnt nothing from those events? This House must rule out plunging our country into yet another devastating war at the behest of another state.

January 8, 2020
Ben Wallace – 2020 Statement on Security in the Middle East

Below is the text of the statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 7 January 2020.

Happy new year, Mr Speaker, and it is good to see you in the Chair. With permission, I would like to make a statement on the security situation in the middle east.

I have deep regard for the nation of Iran; I chaired the all-party group on Iran in this House for eight years and have visited the country a number of times. Indeed, the last time I visited I was with the Leader of the Opposition—we went together to visit the Iranian Government and the people. It is a wonderful place with a dynamic population, and the world owes a great deal to its culture and its history, but in recent times, Iran has felt that its intentions are best served through the nefarious use of proxies and the use of subversion as a foreign policy tool. It has provided practical military support to the murderous Assad regime in Syria, stoked conflict in Yemen, armed militia groups in Iraq and repeatedly harassed international shipping, including UK shipping, in the strait of Hormuz. It has also shown a total disregard for human rights, holding dual nationals in prison and causing unimaginable suffering not just to those in jail, but to their families at home. Such behaviour does nothing to enhance Iran’s reputation with its neighbours and has had a seriously destabilising impact in the region.

One of the foremost architects of Iran’s malign activity was the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. One of its commanders and leading enablers was General Qasem Soleimani, who, on 2 January, was killed by a US drone strike. General Soleimani was no friend of the UK or our allies in the region. He was not an advocate of a more peaceful and prosperous middle east. His clandestine operations saw him supply weaponry to proxy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He encouraged proxies to develop weapons such as improvised explosive devices that killed and maimed UK soldiers and other western forces, and we should not forget how he fomented instability in places like Basra, where British forces were stationed.

The United States Government have asserted that General Soleimani organised the strike on 27 December by the militia group Kata’ib Hezbollah, which targeted a US military base in Kirkuk, Iraq, and killed a US civilian contractor, and the US is confident that General Soleimani came to Baghdad to co-ordinate imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. The UK will always defend the right of countries to defend themselves. The House will want to know that since October 2019, coalition bases, which contain both United States and United Kingdom personnel, and the Baghdad international zone have been attacked 14 times. One attack on K-1 base involved 32 rockets. Our challenge now is to deal with the situation we find ourselves in. The US consistently showed restraint though all those previous attacks, even when its right to self-defence was well established.

Since the early hours of Friday morning, the Government have responded to these events. Further conflict is in no one’s interest. The only beneficiaries would be the terrorists and extremists, seeking to use the chaos as cover to advance their abhorrent objectives, so we are urging all people—all parties—to de-escalate as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the safety and security of British citizens and our interests in the region are of paramount concern. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has strengthened its travel advice to both Iran and Iraq and will keep it under constant review. We urge British nationals in the region, or those intending to travel, to regularly check gov.uk for further updates.

We have taken other urgent measures to protect British nationals and interests. The Department for Transport is reviewing the threat state and advice to red ensign shipping on a daily basis, and, supported by the Ministry of Defence, we will issue guidance imminently. At that same time, the MOD is changing the readiness of our forces in the region, with helicopters and ships on standby to assist if the need arises. To ensure the safety and security of our personnel we have also relocated non-essential personnel from Baghdad to Taji. Coalition forces in Iraq, including British forces, have suspended all training activities, and as part of prudent planning a small team has been sent to the region to provide additional situational awareness and contingency planning assistance.

On 5 January, Iraq’s Council of Representatives voted to end permission for coalition activities in Iraq. As the vote is only one part of the process, we are discussing its implications with our Iraqi interlocutors. Today I simply remind the House that the coalition is in Iraq, at the request of the Iraqi Government, to help protect Iraqis and others against the very real threat from Daesh. Our commitment to Iraq’s stability and sovereignty is unwavering and we urge the Iraqi Government to ensure the coalition can continue its vital work countering this shared threat.

The main focus of the UK Government is to de-escalate this issue. None of us wants conflict. None of us wants our citizens, our friends and our allies to be at risk. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, from the outset, has spoken to President Trump, President Macron, Chancellor Merkel and President Erdoğan and will continue to engage with other world leaders. The Foreign Secretary and I have been talking to our counterparts. Only this morning, I met with His Royal Highness the Saudi Vice-Minister for Defence, and in tandem we are working with the E3 to reboot the joint comprehensive plan of action—the nuclear deal—which we believe is a vital step to achieving a more stable Iran.

In the coming days, we will be doing all we can to encourage Iran to take a different path. No one should be under any illusion: long before the death of General Soleimani, Iran had stepped up its destabilising activities in the region. Whether it was targeting dissidents in Europe or hijacking civilian ships, this aggressive behaviour was never going to go unchallenged. Her Majesty’s Government urge Iran to return to the normal behaviour of the country it aspires to be and to resist the urge to retaliate.

January 8, 2020
Ursula von der Leyen – 2020 Speech to the LSE

Below is the text of the speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, at the LSE in London on 8 January 2020.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure to be back here at the London School of Economics – a place which brings back so many happy memories for me. The year I spent here taught me so much – both in and out of LSE. As anyone who knew me at the time will tell you, I spent more time in Soho bars and Camden record stores than I did reading books in Senate House Library. In order to spare my own blushes, I will spare you all the details!

But what I can say is that the time I spent here opened my eyes. I got to know a warm, vibrant, colourful, multicultural society – the likes of which I had not really experienced before. I saw people from different walks of life going out together, enjoying life, breathing in freedom. I immersed myself in this melting pot of cultures, traditions and music. And I truly fell in love with this city and this country.

This country, strong-willed, open-minded and big hearted. Proud and patriotic. Kind and generous in spirit. Full of traditions and contradictions.

Of course, certain things took longer for me to learn. The sense of humour for example, or the subtle meanings hidden in every sentence. But this only deepened my fascination and my admiration for the UK which remains as strong today as it was back then.

In the period just before and after the referendum, I thought a lot about my time here in London. I say this not just because of my love for this country. But also because of what the United Kingdom has brought to Europe and the European Union.

In a very understated British way, we do not always talk enough about this. Before the ashes of the Second World War had even settled, it was Winston Churchill who made the best case for a united Europe. I read out passages from his 1946 Zurich speech the last time I was here – it is the most eloquent and powerful case for the European Union you could ever wish to read. And while the UK initially chose to be on the outside, it eventually took its place on the inside – making us both that much stronger. The relationship may not have always been smooth or perfect – what relationship ever is. But, in my opinion, the good far outweighs the difficult.

As President of the European Commission, I want to pay tribute today to all those British people who contributed so much to the 45 plus years of EU membership. I think of the British pragmatism and leadership when it came to opening up our Union to members of our family who had been out in the cold for so long. The successive EU enlargements were historic steps for our continent and they bear the British hallmark. I think of those who helped to build our institutions.

People like Commissioner Arthur Cockfield who was known as the ‘father of the Single Market’. Or Roy Jenkins, President of the European Commission while I was at LSE, who did so much to pave the way for our single currency. I think of the European civil servants of British nationality who devoted their lives and careers to Europe and have done so much to build our Union.

They will always stay a part of our family.

I think of the British servicemen and servicewomen who have helped to keep the peace from the Balkans to the Baltics. And I think of the millions of ordinary British people who have taken to the streets in pro-EU marches in the last few years.

Of course, for them, and for many millions more, the result of the referendum was a bitter pill to swallow. But it is people who make politics. And the decision of the British people in June 2016 was clear.

As much as we regretted it, the European Union has always fully respected that decision. You have seen this throughout the last three and a half years. Our negotiations were hard and long but the European Union negotiated in good faith, trying to find solutions that defend our own interests and respect the UK’s choices.

It is an agreement that we negotiated with our people and the integrity of the European Union in mind. It is one that preserves the remarkable peace and progress on the island of Ireland in the last 20 years. I will not go into the ins and outs of the negotiations on the divorce. This is done and dusted as far as I am concerned.

Before the end of the month, I expect both the British and European Parliaments to ratify the agreement. And so, in just over three weeks, on 31 January, the UK will spend its last day as a Member State.

This will be a tough and emotional day.

But when the sun rises again on 1 February, the EU and the UK will still be the best of friends and partners. The bonds between us will still be unbreakable. We will still contribute to each other’s societies, like so many Brits have done in the EU, and as so many EU citizens do here every day in the UK – whether as teachers, nurses, doctors or whether working as CEOs or in NGOs. We will still have a lot to learn from each other.

The UK is home to thriving creative and cultural sectors, to cutting-edge digital innovation and scientific excellence in some of the world’s best universities with brilliant minds, many of them from all over Europe. We will still share the same challenges, from climate change to security. We will still be allies and like-minded partners in NATO, the United Nations and other international organisations. We will still share the same values and the belief that democracy, freedom and the rule of law must be the foundation of our societies. We still share the same history and geography. And whatever happens, our continent will still share the same destiny, too. So as one door will unfortunately close, another one will open.

Now is the time for us to look forward together. It is time for the best and the oldest of friends to build a new future together. But as only true friends can, I want to be very honest about what lies ahead of us.

During the Withdrawal Agreement negotiation, there was always the uncertainty around whether Brexit would happen. It was an uncertainty that made the negotiation inevitably tense. This fresh negotiation will take place against a backdrop of clarity and mutual interest in making it work. The European Union is ready to negotiate a truly ambitious and comprehensive new partnership with the United Kingdom. We will make as much of this as we can. We will go as far as we can.

But the truth is that our partnership cannot and will not be the same as before. And it cannot and will not be as close as before – because with every choice comes a consequence. With every decision comes a trade-off. Without the free movement of people, you cannot have the free movement of capital, goods and services. Without a level playing field on environment, labour, taxation and state aid, you cannot have the highest quality access to the world’s largest single market.

The more divergence there is, the more distant the partnership has to be. And without an extension of the transition period beyond 2020, you cannot expect to agree on every single aspect of our new partnership. We will have to prioritise. The European Union’s objectives in the negotiation are clear. We will work for solutions that uphold the integrity of the EU, its single market and its Customs Union. There can be no compromise on this.

But we are ready to design a new partnership with zero tariffs, zero quotas, zero dumping. A partnership that goes well beyond trade and is unprecedented in scope. Everything from climate action to data protection, fisheries to energy, transport to space, financial services to security. And we are ready to work day and night to get as much of this done within the timeframe we have.

None of this means it will be easy, but we start this negotiation from a position of certainty, goodwill, shared interests and purpose. And we should be optimistic. We need to be optimistic! We need to be optimistic for those young people leaving school in the next few years who want to study and learn abroad. We need to look at how British and EU researchers could work together to find solutions to our most pressing challenges or to develop the new technologies the world needs. And we must ensure that we continue to work together on upholding peace and security in Europe and around the world. We must build a new, comprehensive security partnership to fight cross-border threats, ranging from terrorism to cyber-security to counter-intelligence. Events in recent years in Salisbury, Manchester, London and right across Europe have underlined the need for us to work together on our mutual security.

The threat of terrorism is real and we have to share the necessary information and intelligence between Europe and the UK to stop terrorists from crossing borders and attacking our way of life.

The nature of today’s threats means that no one can deal with these challenges on its own. This is even more true for foreign policy. Even though Britain will be outside the European decision-making structures, there will be plenty of need for common responses to address foreign, security and development challenges near and far. Be it in our immediate neighbourhood in the East and South, or in the Horn of Africa, Sahel and Sub-Saharan Africa; Or be it in the wider Middle East or different parts of Latin America and Asia. The truth is that Brexit will not resolve any of the existing challenges for the EU nor the UK. Even being apart and not bound by the Treaties, it will require intensive cooperation on our foreign and security policies. That is essential, because we share so much experience and we stand for so many of the same values. We have to uphold these values, not only when it is easy, but above all when it is hard.

Dear Friends,

As we embark on this new partnership with the United Kingdom, the European Union must also continue to forge its own path in today’s world. One consequence of the Brexit vote has been to strengthen the unity and the faith in Europe as a project for the common good. The truth is that Brexit has highlighted the value of being together in today’s ever more unsettled world.

It reaffirmed our collective belief that we can do more when we do it together. Individually, the nations of Europe are becoming smaller and less influential on the world scale.

In 1950, before our Union was formed, the UK, Italy and Germany were among the ten most populous countries in the world. Today, only one of those is in the top 20. And while Europe’s population is set to decline by the end of the century, Africa’s alone will grow by more than 3 billion. At the same time, new economies are emerging and old partners are retreating back to their own paths.

And we face change and a new set of challenges. Climate change, for example: If there is one area where the world needs our leadership, it is on protecting our climate. This is an existential issue for Europe – and for the world. Last month we launched the European Green Deal. The European Green Deal is not only about emissions. It is about boosting innovation. It is about clean technologies. It is about green financing. It is about quality food. It is about modern mobility. The European Green Deal is our new growth strategy. It will create new businesses all across Europe and new markets across the world. The novelty and difference is that we will and can foster a growth model that is not consuming or extracting – but one that gives back more to the planet than it takes away.

Great Britain is as dedicated as the EU when it comes to addressing climate change and taking global leadership. A whole continent has to mobilise and the whole world needs to be part of the transformation. The European Green Deal will not happen overnight, and it will be demanding. No country can hope to handle climate change alone. But if it is the right thing to do – and if we do it together, we can lead that change.

Dear students,

Over the next month and years, we will have to loosen some of the threads, which have been carefully stitched together between the EU and the UK over five decades.

And as we do so, we will have to work hard to weave together a new way forward.

I say this because Brexit does not only mark the end of something. It also marks a new phase in an enduring partnership and friendship. It will be a partnership for your generation – and I count on you all to make a success of it.

You can choose collaboration over isolation, you can shape your continent’s destiny, you can hold your governments accountable, you can refuse to be satisfied with the status quo and can turn things into how they should be.

I know the last few years have been difficult and divisive. I hope that by being constructive and ambitious in the upcoming negotiations, we can all move forward together. There will be tough talks ahead and each side will do what is best for them. But I can assure you that the United Kingdom will always have a trusted friend and partner in the European Union.

This is the story of old friends and new beginnings. In this good sense: Long live Europe!

January 8, 2020
Luke Hall – 2020 Speech at LGA Finance Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by Luke Hall, the Local Government Minister, at the LGA Finance Conference on 7 January 2020.

Introduction

Thank you for your kind introduction and for inviting me to speak here today.

Can I start by saying how grateful the government is for all of the excellent work the LGA does, supporting local authorities across the country on key issues throughout the year.

We are particularly grateful for your collaboration on last year’s Spending Round. The strong arguments put forward by the sector helped me and the Secretary of State make a persuasive and successful case to Treasury ministers.

The work that you do on political development, with I understand, over 1,000 councillors booked onto the LGA leadership programme this year.

Your work on corporate peer reviews, with over 150 challenges this year.

And the advice, sometimes very forthright advice, that you provide on the sector’s needs to ministers, is incredibly valuable. So we are incredibly grateful to you.

And I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody here who is working in local government and elected members for all your efforts to deliver high quality and efficient services.

I know as a minister, a constituency MP and as someone who has been involved in my community in South Gloucestershire for many years the direct impact that well-run local authorities have on local residents’ lives.

There are many people in this room who have made a big contribution to the sector over the past 12 months, but I would like to single out James Jamieson for his leadership over the last 6 months – it’s been a pleasure to work with you.

And, whilst I didn’t have the opportunity to work with Lord Porter direct, I would also like to publicly acknowledge and thank him for his work as chair – we will continue to see the legacy of your work for years to come.

Every New Year is an opportunity for us to reflect on the one that has just passed, and to look to the year ahead. I hope you will allow me to do that and reflect on our world of local government.

2019

One of the stand out events in 2019 was the rapid one-year Spending Round and the publication, some might say the very last-minute publication, of the provisional local government finance settlement for 2020 to 2021.

And we believe that the proposals set out in the Spending Round and in our settlement consultation will give local authorities access to the largest year-on-year increase in spending power in a decade: 4.4% in real terms.

The local government finance settlement delivers significant extra resources to the priority areas of adult and children’s social care: an extra £1 billion of grant across adult and children’s services, plus an additional £500 million from a 2% council tax adult social care precept.

I am glad these resources have been welcomed by many for providing significant extra help for local authorities to support the most vulnerable.

We also committed to ensuring that local authorities receive the certainty and stability they need to confirm their plans for next years’ service delivery. We did this in the Spending Round by providing protection for vital services by increasing core settlement resources in line with inflation.

We also maintained key grants from 2019 to 2020 – including continuing all existing social care grants, such as the £2 billion improved Better Care Fund.

There will be a new £900 million round of New Homes Bonus and a continuation of last year’s £81 million Rural Services Delivery Grant, which was the highest paid to-date.

In our manifesto we committed to ensure that ‘local people will continue to have the final say on council tax.’

We have proposed a package of council tax referendum principles which provide local authorities with the flexibility to address service pressures, while ensuring local residents have the final say on any excessive increases.

If the package is approved by Parliament, the expected average council tax increase for 2020 to 2021 would be the lowest since 2016 to 2017.

We have now also confirmed Dedicated Schools Grant allocations for 2020 to 2021, including an increase in high needs funding for schools and colleges of over £700 million. This extra money will enable local authorities to think carefully about where best to invest in provision so that they can establish a more sustainable system in future.

Every school will get more money for every child – “levelling up” funding and helping to spread equality of opportunity for all. This government is determined to invest in the education and future of our young people and the dedicated teachers and staff who support them.

At the same time, we also recognise that it is not just about the money and the cross-Whitehall SEND review that the Department for Education is leading will be looking carefully at what other aspects of the system need to be improved or changed

There will also be an increase in Public Health Grant, to allow you to continue to invest in prevention and essential frontline health services.

Additionally, the NHS’s contribution to the Better Care Fund will grow in line with the additional investment in the NHS in 2020 to 2021 – 3.4% in real terms.

I would like to thank colleagues in local government for your responses to our settlement technical consultation last year.

These allowed us to develop a set of proposals in this provisional consultation that we genuinely believe reflects the priorities of local government in this roll-forward year. Including extra resources where they are needed most and stability in other areas.

I look forward to hearing your views on our proposals through the consultation, which is open until 17 January.

2020

Looking forward to the coming year, we have an exciting agenda in front of us.

One of our first announcements this Parliament was the allocation of £263 million to local authorities to support their work to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping.

In 2020 to 2021 we are providing a total £422 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. This is £54 million more funding than in the previous year – a 13% real terms increase.

In 2018, rough sleeping fell nationally by 2%, the first reduction in a decade. As the Minister for Homelessness I will work tirelessly to build on progress and see these reductions go further – to end rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament.

Looking to the Troubled Families Programme, over the weekend we announced £165 million of new funding for 2020 to 2021 which will provide intensive support for some of the most vulnerable families and place the programme on a stable footing for the future.

We have been clear that we will build on the success of the programme; the latest evaluation results show that the Programme is reducing the proportion of children going into care, of adults going to prison and of juvenile convictions, and helping people back into work.

I am always struck by the extraordinary skills of the family key workers in building trust and gaining a true understanding of the issues confronting the whole family so they can support them in moving forward with their lives.

This new funding will enable local authorities across the country to achieve even more in the year to come.

There will be a longer-term Spending Review, alongside reviews of the allocation and distribution of those resources, and a review and upcoming revaluation of the business rates tax.

We will set out our plans to fix the social care system once and for all, to give everyone the dignity and security that they deserve. We will work with political parties from all sides of the House of Commons to seek consensus around the very best solutions.

And we will publish an ‘English devolution white paper’, aiming for full devolution, so that every part of the country has the power to shape its own future.

The Spending Review will not just settle the amount of resources available to local government over the period and the approach to distributing these, but also important related questions including:

which programmes are the most effective in delivering outcomes for local communities?

how do we balance resources for mainstream programmes with much-needed investment in prevention?

what is the best approach to incentivising local housing supply and economic growth? For which we have already committed to reform of the New Homes Bonus

how do we provide the certainty to support investment in improving services?

and how do we best support local authorities to improve; helping you become more efficient and transform services around the needs of local people? I want to have a wider look at how we can do this more effectively, and will make an announcement soon on next steps.

Fair Funding Review

As you know, the review of relative needs and resources is progressing – finding ways to ensure authorities receive the right allocations to meet their needs.

This is a large and complex project – and expectations are high on all sides. We are making good progress and will continue to try to build consensus – or at least the recognition and confidence that everything has been thoroughly tested – as we start to take decisions to narrow the range of options for the future of local authority funding.

But successful delivery of the Fair Funding Review will require everyone to recognise the need for trade-offs which will be necessary in order to deliver the review as planned.

Compromise will be needed to ensure that the formula works for everyone.

The direction of the review has been welcomed by many, but we must deliver a sustainable formula that works for the whole sector.

This is a time when a well-argued sector position with a clear consensus would be helpful, not only in delivering the Fair Funding Review, but also in building a strong position going into the Spending Review.

And we will be consulting on further detail of the proposed reforms as soon as we can, allowing time for your feedback before final decisions are made; and we aim to release some exemplifications in advance of this, to allow dialogue on technical issues.

Business rates retention

We also know that business rates retention has been a popular part of the local government finance system, with many councils benefitting from keeping additional business rates growth.

But we also know there are questions about some aspects of the way the system operates – like the volatility caused by business rates appeals; like whether all councils benefit from the same opportunity for reward; and whether there could be stronger incentives for councils to work together across their areas.

We have been examining these issues alongside local government and are still genuinely welcoming views on the best way forward.

Business rates tax

Everybody here will appreciate how important it is that the system of local government finance works well if we want to deliver top flight public services.

Which is why we have committed to carrying out a fundamental review of the business rates tax.

It is therefore vital that we are hearing the perspectives of those who are administering the system in this review.

It is also important that we consider alongside you how business rates income is used, and how well that meets councils’ funding needs, whilst we consider the future direction of reforms.

Conclusion

We have a bold and ambitious agenda for change, and a working majority in Parliament now gives us the ability to achieve this.

But we will not be able to succeed in this without working in close collaboration with local government. We need your help to achieve these bold and ambitious objectives. I am looking forward to doing just that in the year ahead.

Thank you so much.

January 7, 2020
David Steel – 1986 Speech on Libya

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)

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

Mr. Steel

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose—

Mr. Steel

No, I shall not give way.

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

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

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

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

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

Mr. Steel

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

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

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

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

January 6, 2020
Neil Kinnock – 1986 Speech on Libya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) rose—

Mr. Speaker

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

Mr. Kinnock

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

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

Mr. Onslow rose—

Mr. Kinnock

I shall give way in a moment.

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

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Kinnock

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

Mr. Onslow rose—

Mr. Kinnock

I shall give way in a moment.

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

Mr. Onslow

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

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

The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House.

Mr. Kinnock

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kinnock

I will give way in a moment.

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

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

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

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

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

She was wrong—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

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

Mr. Kinnock

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

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

There cannot be any hon. Member—

Mr. Michael Heseltine (Henley) rose—

Mr. Kinnock

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

Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Kinnock

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

Mr. Heseltine

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

Mr. Kinnock

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

Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Favell rose—

Mr. Kinnock

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

Mr. Favell rose—

Mr. Speaker

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

Mr. Kinnock

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one could have put it better than that.

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

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

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

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

January 6, 2020
Margaret Thatcher – 1986 Statement on Libya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

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

The Prime Minister

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

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

The Prime Minister

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

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

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

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

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

There are many other examples.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

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

The Prime Minister

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

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

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

The Prime Minister

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir.

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

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

Mr. Faulds

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

The Prime Minister

No. This point is particularly important.

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

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

Mr. Faulds

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

The Prime Minister

Many hon. Members—

Mr. Faulds rose—

Mr. Speaker

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

The Prime Minister

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

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

Mr. Wareing

Will the Prime Minister give way on that point?

The Prime Minister

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

Mr. Faulds

Why not give way to me?

The Prime Minister

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

Mr. Wareing

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

The Prime Minister

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

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

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

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

The Prime Minister

I shall not give way now.

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

Mr. Beith

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

The Prime Minister

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

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

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

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

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

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker

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

Mr. Leigh

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 6, 2020