Tag: Speeches

  • Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech at the Creative Coalition Festival

    Lucy Frazer – 2023 Speech at the Creative Coalition Festival

    The speech made by Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on 28 February 2023.

    I’m absolutely delighted to be here – and I want to thank Caroline and Creative UK for inviting me to speak at today’s event.

    As you might have realised, it’s been a whirlwind few weeks in government and during that time we’ve seen departments being broken up, and new ones created.

    But I think those changes have left my department, DCMS, in really a strong position.

    We can now dedicate all of our energy on the sectors at the heart of our portfolio – particularly the creative industries.

    They are a key priority for the Prime Minister.

    They are a priority for the Chancellor, who has highlighted the creative industries as one of his key growth sectors for the UK economy.

    And they are a priority for me as Culture Secretary.

    In my first few weeks in the role, I’ve been lucky enough to go on a whistlestop tour of Britain’s creative landscape.

    I’ve been up to the Corrie set, and to the Brits.

    I’ve sat on the front row at London Fashion Week, and cheered on UK filmmaking at the BAFTAs.

    And during those last few weeks I’ve seen with my own eyes just how much talent we have in this country:

    the writers, the musicians,

    the lighting and sound technicians, the designers and the producers.

    But those people aren’t just making nice things.

    They are the workforce powering our country – pumping £116 billion into the national purse every year.

    The creative industries enrich our lives in every sense of the word.

    When they thrive, the country thrives.

    And while I’m new to DCMS, as a minister in other departments, I’ve seen just how much the arts can affect lives.

    As prisons minister I saw firsthand how pivotal drama and art can be to rehabilitation,

    in helping people find purpose, meaning and hope, and improve their skills for life outside their four walls.

    As the housing minister, we constantly talked about the importance of “place”…

    …how the quality of the buildings we inhabit and the beauty of the architecture around us affects the way we feel about our home towns and cities.

    And at the Treasury I saw how we can support companies to grow, expand and recruit.

    I am going to bring that experience to bear in this role, to push the creative industries to a new level of growth in the coming years.

    Now, it’s worth noting the huge level of support that the government is already giving to the creative industries.

    We are currently spending:

    Over £21 million through the UK Global Screen Fund, to promote the independent screen sector.

    Over £8 million to support new video games businesses to develop new products and talent through the UK Games Fund.

    £17 million to boost creative investment in six regions across England.

    Over £100 million in funding from UK Research and Innovation, to help us become world leaders in virtual production, and support smaller businesses to experiment and innovate.

    And today I can announce that we are spending another £2.5 million to support R&D in the creative industries in different places across the UK.

    Those are the things we are already doing to get the sector firing on all cylinders.

    But to push things to the next level, I’m going to focus on at least two things:

    People.

    Places.

    On people, I know that a key challenge for the sector is skills.

    Our film and TV industries, for instance, are booming.

    They’re creating thousands of jobs. Now we need people to fill them.

    Yet a recent survey of young people by the BFI and careers app ERIC found only 6 per cent believed a career in the screen industries, for example, was achievable.

    So we need to work together to give people the right skills and awareness from a young age, so that they can join these booming industries and enjoy fulfilling, well-paid jobs.

    On places, I want to use the creative industries to drive growth in every corner of the UK.

    Right now, more than half of creative jobs are in London and the South East.

    And we can do so much more.

    This is one of our strongest industries, and we need the entire country to feel its benefits.

    And there’s a clear route to doing that.

    Right now, there are certain hotspots outside London and the South East where creativity is absolutely booming.

    Where certain creative industries form natural “clusters”.

    So Leamington Spa, for instance, has become one of the video game capitals of the UK,

    While Belfast is a hub for film and TV production.

    I’m very interested in how we can boost those clusters,

    And a need to work across government so that we build homes and train stations in areas where our creative industries are thriving.

    I’m interested in how we can give businesses in those areas even more opportunities to innovate, to access investment, and to export the best of British creativity abroad.

    And finally, I want to understand how the tax system can best support the creative economy, and how it can encourage people all over the country to start and expand their own creative businesses.

    And I will set out how I intend to deliver them through the upcoming Creative Industries Sector Vision.

    DCMS has worked very closely with industry on the Sector Vision, and last week I met with some of the leading voices of the sector to discuss that project,

    during the first face-to-face meeting of the Creative Industries Council since before the pandemic.

    And when the Sector Vision is published, it will kickstart a whole new round of engagement together.

    It will outline how we will continue to work together, both government and industry, on a range of issues affecting creative businesses.

    It will give us the framework to partner up with the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on research and development…

    …and to work with the Department for Education on building a highly skilled and innovative workforce.

    And it will lay out how we intend to capitalise on this really exciting era for the creative industries…

    …An era where film and TV alone are now worth more than the entire car industry in the UK.

    This is where the jobs are, this is where growth is.

    So I want to capitalise on that moment, and use it to drive the sector to new heights, for the benefit of the entire country.

    So look out for its publication.

    And in the meantime, I want to thank everyone in this room for all the dedication and passion you bring to your work every single day.

    I know creative work can be a real labour of love.

    And it’s one of the reasons why I’m looking forward to working with all of you in the coming months.

  • James Bevan – 2023 Speech on How To Get An Organisation To Net Zero

    James Bevan – 2023 Speech on How To Get An Organisation To Net Zero

    The speech made by Sir James Bevan, the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, at Chapter Zero in London on 28 February 2023.

    Introduction

    Most of the really useful lessons in life I’ve learned from getting things wrong. I have often only found how to do something successfully by failing to do it the first time. And sometimes the second and third as well. But I have always learned from those mistakes – eventually.

    This is one of those stories. It is a story of a work in progress, because while I and the organisation I lead, the Environment Agency, want this story to have a happy ending and are confident that it eventually will, we are still finding out what works and what doesn’t as we seek to get there and we don’t have all the answers yet: in fact, nobody does. But what I’m going to tell you is still, I hope, news you can use. And it’s possibly the most useful news there is, because it’s about how to tackle the biggest challenge of our time: the climate emergency.

    What we decided to do

    In 2019 we committed the Environment Agency to be net zero for carbon by 2030: that is, we would become an organisation that was no longer a net emitter of carbon and thus would no longer be contributing to climate change.

    We did that for three main reasons.

    We did it because the EA is a major player in helping the country as a whole get to Net Zero – for example by regulating down most of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change and advising on how to mitigate its extent and adapt to its effects – and we did not think we could credibly tell others what to do if we were not doing it ourselves.

    We did it because much of what we do ourselves – building flood defences, tackling drought risk, helping design and create more resilient places – is all about tackling the impacts of climate change, and since we are trying to solve that core problem we did not want to be contributing to it ourselves.

    But we mainly did it because it was the right thing to do. Climate change is the biggest of all threats to our world, and everyone needs to play their part in tackling it.

    How we are seeking to do it

    When we made that commitment we also took some important decisions about how we were going to achieve it. We would aim to do it through the classic twin-track approach: by cutting all our own carbon emissions as far as possible – and we set ourselves a target for that of cutting them by at least 45% by 2030 – and by offsetting the rest of our emissions through tree planting, habitat creation and other measures that take carbon out of the atmosphere and lock it up safely so it doesn’t drive any more climate change.

    We also decided to adopt what was at the time the most comprehensive and scientifically sound definition of net zero. That meant we included in our target not just all the carbon the EA produces itself in its own operations, which is a lot – we pump a lot of water around the country to manage drought risk and alleviate flooding, pour a lot of concrete in our flood defence schemes, have a big vehicle fleet, hundreds of offices and over 12,000 employees, whose commuting we also included – but also all the carbon produced by our supply chain as well, which was considerably more.

    Other definitions of successful Net Zero were then and are now available, most of which at the time would have given us a much lower carbon target and made our task a lot easier. But we like a challenge in the EA. And we wanted the outcome to be as ambitious and impactful as possible.

    There was one further challenge element in all this, which was that there was no additional money to do it. We are funded mostly by government grant and the charge income we receive from those for whom we provide services, and neither of those income streams was going up. So we’d have to fund this from within our existing budgets.

    How it felt

    We have a saying in my executive team: “Everybody must be heard. We don’t all have to agree. But we do have to make a decision.” And on this decision everyone was indeed heard, we didn’t all agree, but we did eventually make a decision.

    There was little debate over the principle of whether we should aspire to be a Net Zero organisation: everyone thought that was right. But there were two main areas where views differed.

    The first was over the impact on our operations if we made that commitment. The EA exists to protect people and wildlife, and nobody wanted to compromise our ability to do that by chasing a net zero target that might undermine our ability to carry on pumping water out of homes or building flood defences, or all the other things we do to protect lives and livelihoods and create a better place. We settled that debate by agreeing that our commitment would be to do both things at the same time: we would aim to get to Net Zero by 2030 while continuing to deliver all the outcomes we exist to deliver for all the people and places we serve: reducing flood risk, regulating industry, preventing pollution, enhancing nature and so on. So there would be no stopping doing any of these things: instead we’d need to do at least some of them differently, sometimes radically so.

    The second debate was a more philosophical one, which was this: at the time of the decision, we didn’t actually know whether or indeed how we could reach our proposed 2030 target. So was it right to make a commitment to do something without knowing precisely how to do it? That is exactly the sort of clear-eyed practical question you’d expect from an organisation like the EA which always wants to operate on an evidence-based basis, and when it sets out to do something always wants to be sure it will achieve it. For the EA, committing to do something we didn’t know exactly how to do – which meant we were taking a big leap in the dark – was very counter-cultural.

    In the end we were inspired by something that many have called humanity’s greatest ever achievement: the US Apollo Programme. In September 1962 President Kennedy publicly committed the United States to putting a man on the Moon by the end of that decade and bringing him safely home again: a SMART target if ever there was one – specific, measurable and time-bound.

    When NASA heard about this pledge – which they did at the same time as everyone else listening to the speech – they were incredulous. They had no idea how that would be done, and even if they had known, very few of them thought it could be done in the seven years that the President had promised. And yet we all know how that story ended: with Neil Armstrong stepping onto the lunar surface in July 1969. We thought that if the US could put a man on the Moon inside seven years without initially knowing how to do it, the Environment Agency could probably get itself to Net Zero in eleven years on the same basis.

    The EA Board readily and unanimously endorsed that decision. They were then, and remain now, our biggest supporters and champions as we seek to deliver it.

    How we set about it

    Which was the next challenge. Once the decision in principle to make the EA Net Zero in 2030 had been made, there remained the small matter of how we were going to do it.

    At Harvard Business School they drill into every aspiring CEO the same message: the main thing is to make sure that the main thing really is the main thing. So we made the climate emergency the Main Thing for the EA. We put it at the heart of everything we did and now do.

    At the strategic level we made it the centrepiece of our Five Year Action Plan that drives what the whole organisation does. We put it at the heart of our new Flood Strategy, which among other things dictates how we spend most of our money. And we ensured that every time our executive leadership took a decision on any big issue, one of the questions we always asked before that decision was: how will this help us tackle the climate emergency?

    At the operational level we put in place governance arrangements to monitor and oversee delivery of our new Net Zero goal. We established Senior Responsible Officers for the key elements of it. But – critically – we made achieving that goal the business of every single EA employee. We helped our people understand what the goal involved and why we were aiming for it, including by putting everyone through training at our online Climate Academy. And we encouraged all our teams to think for themselves and identify ways in which they could change what they did and how they did it in order to help us get there. Then we stood back and waited to see what would happen.

    What happened was astonishing. President Kennedy’s commitment to an audacious but inspiring goal triggered a massive upwelling of enthusiasm and innovation from staff all across NASA. Exactly the same thing happened in the EA in relation to Net Zero. While some of the measures we put in place to get us there were necessarily driven from the top down – such as the decision that we would use low carbon concrete or alternative materials wherever they were available for all our construction – many of the things that happened came from the bottom up: initiatives invented by our local teams to cut, absorb or avoid carbon while delivering the day job.

    Progress to date

    I said this was a work in progress. We are now four years into our eleven year sprint to 2030, with seven still to go. How are we doing?

    Not bad: in 2019/20 (our zero baseline year) our direct operational carbon emissions totaled 31, 284 tonnes, mostly from pumping water to reduce flood or drought risk and pouring concrete to build flood defences. By the end of last year (2021/22) we had got that figure down to 20,485 tonnes, a cut of more than a third. We report on these figures publicly every quarter – another incentive to keep improving.

    We are finding new ways to do what we do. Example: using natural flood management techniques that don’t emit and actually absorb carbon such as planting trees, restoring rivers to their natural curves, creating hollows to store rainwater, all to absorb water and slow the flow which could otherwise cause flooding. We are also looking at more advanced technology like electric plant and vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cells.

    Meanwhile we are starting to offset our remaining emissions. We have built a pipeline of potential projects to absorb and offset as much as we can, using land we own ourselves as well as potential partnerships with others. These UK- and nature-based projects will include tree planting, creating wetlands and other new habitat like salt marsh. Example: The Lower Otter restoration project in Devon, which will not only reduce flood risk to the local community, but will also create 55 hectares of intertidal saltmarsh, providing habitat for wildlife and sequestering carbon.

    Will we get there?

    Will we get there by 2030? Honest answer: I don’t know. As we’ve gone further it’s got harder. As we have improved our data we’ve found that we were emitting more carbon than we thought we were when we made the 2019 decision, which means we have more to do to get to Net Zero in 2030 than we originally understood. We are finding it a lot more difficult than we thought it would be to secure credible offsetting measures for the remainder of our carbon output: there are a lot of fake or doubtful “offset” schemes, and we only want to invest in the ones that are real. Our preferred approach to offsetting is for nature-based solutions and it will take time for those to have effect: however innovative we are, we can’t change the fact that trees take a long time to grow.

    So right now I simply don’t know whether we can hit our original 2030 target. On our current emissions track and what we know we can currently offset, we won’t. Personally, I think we will. But that depends on several questions to which we don’t yet know the answer: on whether we can make deeper reductions in our own carbon footprint than originally planned, which in turn depends on technology not yet mainstream, affordable or even invented; on whether we can quickly find more offsetting arrangements that make a real difference; and on whether we can secure the funding we need to invest in that new technology and those offsets.

    But seven years away from their goal, NASA also thought they weren’t going to make it. And EA staff are just as clever, innovative and dedicated as those who put Neil Armstrong on the Moon. So we are going to carry on driving towards that target, do what we can, use what we have, and see where we get to.

    And while I would love to hit our 2030 target, not least since I have a big personal stake in doing so, if we don’t make it exactly on time it doesn’t mean that this isn’t something that’s worth doing. What matters is outcomes: driving down our emissions and locking up the rest as fast as possible. And to achieve that the most important thing is that we keep the goal in sight, that we get there as soon as we can, and that we continue to think differently about what we do and how we do it. Because if we are to tackle the climate emergency successfully – and I think we can and we will –– our thinking needs to change faster than the climate.

    What I’ve learned

    What have I learned from all this?

    I’ve learned that getting to Net Zero is easy to say but difficult to do, and a good deal harder than I thought it would be. There are technical challenges: there are, for example, currently no ultra low emission options for some of the heavy plant we need to do what we do. There are resource challenges: we haven’t been able to fund things like electric charge points for all our offices and depots or convert our whole vehicle fleet to low or no emissions. And there are still cultural challenges: getting everyone in the organisation and all our supply chain partners to Think Carbon and put as much emphasis on reducing or avoiding it as they do on meeting their other operational targets.

    But I’ve also learned that the decision to make ourselves a Net Zero organisation was the right thing to do, not least because it is giving us a whole set of benefits that I didn’t anticipate.

    Not only did the decision unlock a massive amount of enthusiasm, experimentation and innovation from many of our staff, but it is also changing the EA culture for the better, making us more entrepreneurial, readier to experiment and innovate, and less risk-averse. That will stand us in good stead in the future for everything else we want to do. And the fact that the EA is visibly and explicitly committed to tackling the climate emergency, symbolised most powerfully by our 2030 commitment, has played a significant role in helping us recruit the talented staff we need at a time when the employment market is very tight and we cannot compete with the private sector on pay. That too will stand us in good stead in the future.

    I promised you News You Can Use. How would I distill my advice to other leaders who want to get their own organisations to Net Zero? Here are my Top Ten tips.

    1. It’s all about leadership. Organisations behave like their leaders. So if you are serious about getting yours to Net Zero, show it and mean it. Your Board and your executive leadership team need to be united behind the goal and visibly committed to reaching it. Staff are very quick to identify when their leaders do and don’t mean what they say.
    2. The main thing is to make sure the main thing really is the Main Thing. If you want your organisation to get to Net Zero, you need to put it at the heart of your day to day business as an essential outcome that everyone is responsible for delivering, not treat it as a nice-to-have add-on or the responsibility of a few people in a Net Zero unit.
    3. Too much communication is never enough. Talk regularly to your own staff about the goal, why it matters, and where you are making progress: nothing succeeds like success.
    4. What gets measured gets done. Have a Net Zero metric as one of your Key Performance Indicators, review progress regularly, and intervene if you are off course.
    5. Reinforce the behaviour you want: recognise and reward those who are helping get there and tackle those who aren’t.
    6. Governance matters: work out how you are going to oversee delivery of your target, be clear who is responsible for what and hold them to account.
    7. Experiment. Be prepared to take a risk that something won’t work: at the very least you’ll learn how not to do it.
    8. Learn from others. Look at what other organisations are doing, share your own successful ideas and adopt theirs: none of us is as good as all of us.
    9. Don’t be afraid of stretching targets. You will come under regular pressure to adjust or dilute the targets or the deadline or both to make them easier to achieve. Don’t, unless you think it will lead to better outcomes. Unless your organisation is really stretched by the targets, you won’t garner the momentum you need to get there.
    10. The journey is as important as the destination. Even if you don’t hit your deadline, it’s still worth the effort: you will energise your organisation, stimulate innovation, attract more talent, and learn things you didn’t even know you didn’t know.

    Conclusion

    Since I’ve been channelling President Kennedy, let me end with another quotation from him. This is for anyone considering whether to commit themselves or their organisation to tackling the climate emergency and setting a Net Zero target: “If not us, who? And if not now, when?”

  • Independent Expert Panel – 2023 Report into the Behaviour of Neil Coyle

    Independent Expert Panel – 2023 Report into the Behaviour of Neil Coyle

    The report published by the Independent Expert Panel on 3 March 2023.

    Text of report (in .pdf format)

  • PRESS RELEASE : Independent Expert Panel recommends suspending Neil Coyle MP for five days for breaching Parliament’s Bullying and Harassment Policy [March 2023]

    PRESS RELEASE : Independent Expert Panel recommends suspending Neil Coyle MP for five days for breaching Parliament’s Bullying and Harassment Policy [March 2023]

    The press release issued by the Independent Expert Panel on 3 March 2023.

    The Independent Expert Panel (IEP) has today [3rd March] published a report recommending that Neil Coyle MP is suspended from the House of Commons for a total of five days for breaching Parliament’s Bullying and Harassment Policy.

    Following two separate complaints and investigations by independent investigators, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards upheld two allegations of harassment against Mr Coyle. The first complaint was from a parliamentary assistant working for another MP, and the second from a parliamentary journalist and member of the Parliamentary press gallery.

    Both complaints were made under Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS).

    In the first case (BH22/1004) it was established that Mr Coyle had engaged in foul-mouthed and drunken abuse of the parliamentary assistant. The episode took place in Strangers’ Bar in the House of Commons. Mr Coyle did not appeal that decision so the IEP were left to consider sanction. The IEP sub-panel considering sanction found that Mr Coyle’s behaviour would have been:

    […] shocking and intimidating for any complainant, particularly a junior member of staff.

    It recommended that Mr Coyle should be suspended from the House for two sitting days (and not on a Friday) and that he should make an apology on the floor of the House by way of a personal statement.

    In the second case (BH22/1005) Mr Coyle was accused of bullying and harassment of a parliamentary journalist. On one of aspects of this episode, the respondent was found to have used abusive language with racial overtones. Mr Coyle appealed the Commissioner’s decision on several grounds. The sub-panel considered them carefully and gave detailed reasons for their rejection of all the grounds. It then went on to consider sanction for that case.

    The Chair of the IEP, Sir Stephen Irwin states, “the most striking aggravating factor in [this case] was the racial overtone in the verbal abuse.” He added that “in relation to both episodes, it was clear that very marked abuse of alcohol was at the root of events”. The IEP sub-panel when considering sanction noted the abuse of alcohol in these incidents and concluded that Mr Coyle:

    […] made such comments while under the influence of excessive amounts of alcohol which, while undoubtedly contributing to his behaviour, in no way excuse it, as the respondent rightly accepts. Nonetheless, since the incident, the respondent has taken considerable steps to ensure no repetition of the behaviour, including informing us that he has stopped drinking alcohol.

    It recommended that Mr Coyle should be suspended from the House for a further three sitting days (again, not on a Friday) and that he should make an apology on the floor of the House by way of a personal statement.

    Mr Coyle has accepted the sub-panel’s decisions. The IEP’s report into the case sets out the sub-panel’s full decision and reasoning.

    The Chair of the IEP regretted the fact that there had been breaches of confidentiality. He wrote that, on the day following making the complaint, in the second case “in full knowledge of his obligation to maintain confidentiality, this complainant made public all the details of his complaint, leading to wide publicity and to reputational damage to the respondent, before there had been any investigation or findings as to what had happened”.

    The sub-panel considered such a breach, and commented that:

    Breaches of confidentiality risk undermining this foundational ICGS principle by encouraging or implicitly condoning breaches in subsequent cases. The complainant’s breach of confidentiality also puts at risk the integrity of investigations and the effectiveness of the ICGS as a whole. Witnesses may not be willing to come forward and give evidence if confidentiality is not protected; or they may not feel able to give a full account; or their evidence may be tainted by the media coverage. This may result in valid claims not being brought, investigated, or sanctioned.

  • Committee of Privileges – 2023 Report into the Conduct of Boris Johnson

    Committee of Privileges – 2023 Report into the Conduct of Boris Johnson

    The text of the report issued by the Committee of Privileges on 3 March 2023.

    Text of Report (in .pdf format)

  • Leo Docherty – 2023 Speech at the Pledging Conference on the Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen

    Leo Docherty – 2023 Speech at the Pledging Conference on the Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen

    The speech made by Leo Docherty, the Minister for Europe, on 27 February 2023.

    Friends and colleagues,

    As we have heard, the humanitarian situation in Yemen is dire.

    Millions of people continue to suffer the consequences of years of conflict,

    And this suffering is made worse by the deteriorating economy, and damaged public services.

    I would like to thank the UN, Switzerland, and Sweden for hosting this conference, and all of those generously pledging today.

    Your contributions will save lives and alleviate suffering, and the United Kingdom will continue to play its part. This includes resolving the immediate threats posed by the Safer oil tanker. We have a chance to get Safer done if donors and the UN are bold and brave in the next few months.

    We have provided more than one billion pounds in aid to Yemen since the start of the conflict.

    Over the next financial year, the UK hopes to match last year’s budget and will pledge up to 88 million pounds.

    This will feed at least 100,000 Yemeni people every month,

    provide lifesaving health care and nutrition services through 400 health care facilities,

    and treat 22,000 severely malnourished children this year.

    In addition to funding, we must also ensure that aid is delivered as effectively as possible.

    The recommendations from the 2022 Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation must be implemented to improve the quality of the response.

    But humanitarian teams working on the ground are facing increasing challenges right now.

    Bureaucratic restrictions are hampering aid delivery,

    And mahram, requiring women to be accompanied by a male guardian, is preventing female aid workers from working. Without them, the response cannot meet the needs of women and girls.

    It is vital that the authorities authorise independent assessments and monitoring to ensure aid goes where it is needed most.

    We must also listen to the voices and views of ordinary people in Yemen.

    This will enable the international response to be accountable to the people we are trying to help.

    A return to full-scale conflict has been avoided in Yemen, which is indeed good news.

    Now, is the time to build a better future for the Yemeni people.

    Parties to the conflict must seize this opportunity for peace, which is the only way to end this humanitarian crisis for good.

  • James Cleverly – 2023 Speech at the UN Human Rights Council

    James Cleverly – 2023 Speech at the UN Human Rights Council

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 27 February 2023.

    Mr President, 75 years ago, Eleanor Roosevelt dubbed our newly adopted Universal Declaration of Human Rights ‘an international Magna Carta’. She was referring, of course, to that Great Charter’s role in laying the first of the many foundation stones on which the concept of human rights has been built.

    In 1215, it established that sovereign power is limited by legal constraint. That States are answerable to their citizens. And that justice requires due process. Inspired by Magna Carta, generations of lawyers and statesmen in the United Kingdom and around the world created what we now call the rule of law.

    But for centuries, the rule of law stopped at national borders. Until 1948, our predecessors took a gigantic step forward for humankind and made the rule of law universal.

    I’m proud of my country’s long role in the struggle for human rights. A struggle that continues today across the world.

    Russia and Ukraine

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and illegal so-called annexations are a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter.

    The Commission of Inquiry, which this Council established last year, has concluded that war crimes have been committed in Ukraine. Abuses and violations of human rights have been committed by Russian forces on a systematic scale: torture and killing of civilians, rape and sexual violence, forced deportation.

    The Human Rights Council must condemn Russia’s actions. We cannot allow this behaviour to go unanswered. These barbaric acts must never be repeated. The Ukrainian people must have justice.

    That is why this session must renew the Commission of Inquiry’s mandate.

    We remind Russia of the international human rights obligations, which it has freely undertaken. And of its obligations under the UN Charter.

    We call upon Russia to:

    • enable humanitarian access into Ukraine and safe passage for civilians
    • restore human rights, within its own borders and outside, and
    • to immediately withdraw its forces from Ukraine

    Russia

    But the Ukrainians are not Putin’s only victims.

    We call for the release of all those detained in Russia on political grounds, including Alexei Navalny. And for those imprisoned for their opposition to Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine, like Vladimir Kara Murza, to be freed.

    Together with our international partners, the UK has invoked the OSCE’s Moscow Mechanism which evidenced Russia’s repression of its own people.

    We will support the UN Special Rapporteur’s work on human rights in Russia. We will attend the trials of human rights defenders in Russia. And we will use sanctions to hold human rights violators to account.

    China

    Last year, the High Commissioner for Human Rights published a report that found evidence of arbitrary detention, torture, sexual and gender-based violence, forced sterilisation, and the destruction of religious sites taking place in Xinjiang. And it found these abuses may amount to crimes against humanity.

    Surely, such serious and well-evidenced findings merit further and proper discussion by this Council. But instead China has consistently sought to deny these findings and obstruct discussion.

    I now urge China to engage with the Council and uphold the international obligations into which it has freely entered.

    Hong Kong

    Last year, the Human Rights Committee published its report on the implementation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights in Hong Kong.

    Under the National Security Law, independent media outlets have been closed down. The right to freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed in Hong Kong’s Basic Law has been eroded. Those who speak out, including journalists or businessmen like Jimmy Lai, have been arrested.

    We call on the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities to uphold the Sino-British Joint Declaration and urge them to implement the recommendations of the HRC Report.

    Afghanistan

    In Afghanistan, curtailment of women’s human rights, including the ban on women going to university, is unacceptable. We will continue to press the Taliban on these issues.

    Iran

    In Iran, the killing of Mahsa Amini last September was yet another shocking reminder of the regime’s callous disregard for the lives of its own citizens. Since October, we’ve introduced 5 separate sanctions packages targeting those individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights violations.

    We reaffirm our commitment to support the fact-finding mission established by this Council in November. We must ensure that the voice of the Iranian people continues to be heard.

    Conclusion

    Mr President, the United Kingdom will always ensure that human rights are upheld around the world and that we hold to account those who systematically violate them.

    To achieve this, we want this Council to succeed. We will work with our international partners to ensure that it does. And we will back up our words with actions.

    Thank you.

  • Leo Docherty – 2023 Speech at the UN Conference on Disarmament

    Leo Docherty – 2023 Speech at the UN Conference on Disarmament

    The speech made by Leo Docherty, the Minister for Europe, in Geneva on 27 February 2023.

    Every member state of this Conference has the responsibility to work towards a more peaceful and stable world, through disarmament. For the vast majority represented here, that is indeed our shared objective.

    But all too often, we see some States doing the opposite.

    It is over a year since Russia launched their illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    It is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack against a sovereign democratic state.

    And an egregious violation of international law and the UN Charter.

    We continue to see mounting evidence of horrific acts committed by Russia’s forces against civilians.

    The UK and our allies will continue to support the Ukrainian government in the face of this assault on their existence.

    Russia’s announcement last week that it has suspended participation in the New START treaty further shows their willingness to undermine strategic stability.

    We continue to urge Russia to immediately return to full compliance of the Treaty and engage constructively with the USA on this matter.

    We will continue to explore every diplomatic avenue to uphold international law, and strengthen our collective disarmament architecture.

    In addition to major nuclear armed states willing to flout international norms of behaviour, we collectively face a range of challenges.

    We face continuing proliferation concerns about the activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran.

    We are concerned with DPRK’s continued escalation of its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. We condemn these tests which are in clear breach of United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

    We face Assad’s willingness to use chemical weapons.

    And emerging threats posed by new and disruptive technologies.

    To overcome these we must refresh our thinking, and redouble our commitment to build on the foundations of our common disarmament and non-proliferation institutions.

    The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – or NPT – remains the cornerstone of international nuclear security. And the only pragmatic route to a world without nuclear weapons in our current security environment.

    The UK remains firmly committed to the NPT, and to fulfilling our obligations under all three pillars of the Treaty.

    We remain committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

    And firmly believe the best way to achieve this is through gradual multilateral disarmament, negotiated within the framework of the NPT, including in this Conference.

    Collectively we have the ability to create a safer and more stable world, where countries with nuclear weapons feel able to relinquish them.

    However, the deteriorating security environment means we must remain realistic about what can be achieved in the short term.

    The UK is focused on preparing the ground for what can pragmatically be achieved over the next NPT review cycle and beyond.

    We are working with other States on the verification and irreversibility challenges, which will need to be addressed as part of final disarmament.

    We will continue to play a leading role on transparency, within the limits placed by our non-proliferation obligations and our overarching national security concerns.

    We will continue to develop concrete initiatives on reducing the risk of the use of nuclear weapons.

    And we will continue to press for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    And the beginning of negotiations, in this Conference, on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty – the logical next step along the road to a world without nuclear weapons.

    Mr President,

    We only have to look to President Putin’s assault against Ukraine…

    and Assad’s on his own people…

    and the lives blighted by the illicit trade in small arms and lights weapons across the world…

    to realise that the use of conventional and chemical weapons remains a present, real and urgent threat.

    The diversion and misuse of conventional weapons – particularly small arms and light weapons – costs hundreds of thousands of lives every year…

    destroys security and sustainable development…

    and fuels conflict, crime and terrorism.

    The effective control of conventional weapons and ammunition should therefore be a goal that unites us all.

    The United Kingdom was proud to sign up to the Political Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas in Dublin in November. I warmly commend the Government of Ireland for its leadership in this endeavour. As Putin’s missiles rained down on Ukrainian homes and civilian infrastructure, the Declaration is a powerful commitment to strengthening the protection of civilians in urban warfare under International Humanitarian Law.

    The UK will continue to play a leading role in tackling the scourge of landmines, cluster munitions and other explosive remnants of war, including as a result of the conflict in Ukraine.

    We must also do more work together to counter IEDs, and prevent non-State actors and violent extremists from obtaining the components to make them.

    The United Kingdom condemns Syria’s use of chemical weapons in Douma and in multiple other attacks.

    It is time for the disarmament community to move from severe condemnation to severe consequences, for those that use them.

    The UK will continue to work for a world free from chemical and biological weapons, and we urge all states to play a constructive part in this process.

    As the Biological Weapons Convention nears its 50th year in force, the UK will strive to make the most of the process we all agreed at last year’s Review Conference to bolster our implementation of this Convention. It represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to meet the evolving threats from biological weapons in the 21st century. We must seize it and endow the Convention with the scientific and technical advice it needs, and explore ways in which new technologies can help assure compliance with its obligations.

    Mr President,

    Just as the threats we face in the nuclear, biological, chemical and conventional domains have evolved, so it is in outer space.

    We are pleased to see progress in the Open-Ended Working Group on reducing space threats through norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours.

    All of our societies and economies rely on a cooperative approach to the use of technologies in space.

    So we encourage all states to engage constructively and work towards a consensus report, that can inform next steps in the UN General Assembly.

    This Conference also has a vital role to play in negotiating agreements on preventing an arms race in outer space, whether legally binding or otherwise.

    To conclude, Mr President.

    The UK is firmly committed to playing a full role in advancing the international disarmament agenda.

    And we are grateful for the cooperation of all partners who approach these thorny issues constructively, and with integrity.

    Let me point out that many of those partners are not members of this Conference, and are being barred from taking up their rightful seats as observers by the Russian delegation. We deplore this obstructionism, and call for all UN Member States to be allowed to participate in the work of this Conference as has long been our practice.

    The challenges facing our collective work are monumental.

    We must take a constructive and open-minded approach to finding new solutions to old problems.

    But we must also stand by the frameworks and agreements that we have so painstakingly built.

    And hold all states accountable to agreed norms and standards, and the commitments they have made.

    Thank you.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Statement on the Turkey and Syria Earthquakes

    Andrew Mitchell – 2023 Statement on the Turkey and Syria Earthquakes

    The statement made by Andrew Mitchell, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in the House of Commons on 1 March 2023.

    With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Turkey and Syria. I know that the House will join me in offering sincere condolences to all those affected by the recent earthquakes.

    Last week when I visited Turkey, I witnessed at first hand the terrible scale of human suffering. I also had the opportunity to speak to Syrian partners and the United Nations about their work on the immediate response. I pay tribute to the hundreds of British personnel engaged in specialist health, humanitarian and rescue work in Syria and Turkey. I saw for myself the outstanding work that Britain is doing on the ground to save lives and support those who are suffering. Throughout these events and our responses, there has been excellent co-ordination across the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Care.

    Today, the death toll across Turkey and Syria stands at more than 48,000, and at least 118,000 people have been injured. Approximately 25 million people have been affected, with homes, businesses and key infrastructure destroyed. The further earthquakes on 20 and 27 February, which have tragically led to additional deaths, show that the danger has not passed. In Syria, this disaster adds to years of turmoil inflicted by conflict, striking hardest in the very place that has borne the brunt of Assad’s war machine.

    I turn to the initial response. Turkey requested international support immediately after the earthquakes. The UK Government delivered aid as swiftly as possible, working closely with Turkey, the United Nations, international partners, non-governmental organisations and charities. That included deploying a 77-strong search and rescue team in Turkey, along with state-of-the-art heavy equipment. We also quickly announced £4.3 million in new support to Syria Civil Defence—the White Helmets—who have carried out search and rescue operations in 60 villages, helping thousands of civilians. The British Government rapidly engaged with the Turkish Government at the highest level, and the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad and I immediately spoke to the senior UN humanitarian officials to ensure a rapid and co-ordinated response in Syria.

    As part of the immediate response, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office set up a field hospital in Türkoğlu, including an emergency department and a 24/7 operating theatre. I saw for myself 150 UK-Med and Ministry of Defence personnel working side by side with Turkish medics to save lives. I was deeply impressed and moved during my visit by the lifesaving work that those teams are doing. Together, they have treated more than 5,000 patients so far.

    Meanwhile, the UK has delivered 465 tonnes of relief items to Turkey and Syria through civilian and Royal Air Force flights. That includes tents and thermal blankets for families made homeless in freezing conditions, as well as solar lanterns, water purification tablets and hygiene kits. On 15 February, we announced a further £25 million in funding to bolster our humanitarian response. That is supporting the work of the UN and aid agencies on the ground in Syria, helping communities ravaged by war, as well as by this natural disaster. It also continues to support the recovery effort in Turkey, led by its Government.

    Beyond our support to the White Helmets, UK-funded charities and NGOs in northern Syria have cared for the injured through mobile medical teams and health centres. The UN has distributed food and other essential items, to which the UK has contributed. Further assistance will be delivered in the coming days as part of the UN’s Syria cross-border humanitarian fund, to which the UK is one of the most significant donors. The fund has already allocated $50 million to scale up the response. There is a particular focus on displaced families, the elderly, women, children and people with disabilities.

    The UK has also supported and bolstered the response through our existing support to key multilateral organisations that are helping in Turkey and Syria. The UN’s global fund, Education Cannot Wait, announced a $7 million grant for Syrian children affected by the earthquake, and the Global Partnership for Education will provide $3.75 million to support the emergency education response. The UK is one of the most significant donors to both funds.

    We are also a long-standing partner and donor to the World Bank, which announced $1.7 billion to assist Turkey, and the United Nations central emergency response fund, which has released $50 million for the crisis. Most significantly, our constituents—the British public—have demonstrated extraordinary generosity through the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, raising more than £100 million. That figure includes £5 million from the UK taxpayer in matched seed funding.

    His Majesty the King visited Turkish diaspora groups and members of the British Syrian community at Syria House, a donation point in Trafalgar Square, on 14 February. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Syria House on 16 February.

    It is clearly vital to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who need it as efficiently as possible in Syria. I will continue to engage with the United Nations to ensure maximum access for as long as is required. We welcome the accelerated pace of United Nations deliveries and are monitoring the situation closely in the Security Council in New York.

    The House will understand that the scale of this tragedy is immense. The UK will continue to stand in solidarity with Turkey and with the people of Syria during these most testing of times. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Robert Neill – 2023 Speech on the Independent Public Advocate

    Robert Neill – 2023 Speech on the Independent Public Advocate

    The speech made by Robert Neill, the Chair of the Justice Committee, in the House of Commons on 1 March 2023.

    I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), a fellow member of the Justice Committee, for the work she has done, and to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).

    The former Prime Minister’s point about the risk of cover-ups by those in authority is an important one. That is why, while I very much welcome what the Secretary of State has said—it is an important step—I hope that when engaging on how best to refine and advance these proposals, he looks again at the Justice Committee’s recommendation that there should be an extension of legal aid availability. Although the situation has already improved, we should be extending non-means-tested legal aid to all cases where there are mass fatalities, or where public bodies are potentially at fault. It is not fair—there is no equality of arms—when those public bodies are represented by teams of lawyers, but the bereaved families have to rely on sometimes getting legal aid and sometimes not, or on pro bono representation. Equality of arms would surely mean representation as a matter of right in those cases.

    Dominic Raab

    I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I think that this policy will create stronger advocacy on behalf of the bereaved, the victims and the families, and having panels with the right expertise, range and status will go a long way towards getting the answers.

    Again, I understand the point about compulsion of evidence. There is not a theological objection to it, certainly as far as I am concerned: it is a question of reconciling competing powers when an inquiry is set up. I will, of course, look at the Justice Committee’s report and recommendations on that issue. In general, of course, inquiries are not supposed to be adversarial, which is why the rules in relation to legal aid are as they are, but we will look at this and work with colleagues in all parts of the House as we introduce these important clauses.