Tag: Speeches

  • James Duddridge – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Tackling Violent Extremist Organisations in Africa

    James Duddridge – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Tackling Violent Extremist Organisations in Africa

    The parliamentary question asked by Sir James Duddridge, the Conservative MP for Rochford and Southend East, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)

    What steps his Department is taking to help tackle violent extremist organisations in Africa.

    The Minister for Armed Forces (James Heappey)

    We are concerned by the growth of Daesh and the continued presence of al-Shabaab and Boko Haram across Africa. We are working closely with our partners across the continent, as well as with our international allies, to ensure that we counter the shared threats of violent extremism and terrorism. Obviously we are supportive of the missions led by the United Nations and the African Union, but we are also increasingly looking at how the UK can support regional solutions for regional problems, and how the UK works with friends such as Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria to support their leadership in the Sahel, the Lake Chad basin, the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia.

    Sir James Duddridge

    The Minister talks about recognised current terrorist organisations, but what assessment has he made of the Wagner Group in Africa, and would he recommend its proscription as a terrorist organisation?

    James Heappey

    Wagner’s presence in Africa is obviously deeply unhelpful, and it is cynical and opportunistic. It has no interest in the countries in which it operates; it is simply there to extract the maximum value for Russia, and potentially to cause as much chaos as it can for those of us who are trying to help on the continent. However, the Government do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is being considered for proscription.

  • Gagan Mohindra – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Supporting Defence Jobs

    Gagan Mohindra – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Supporting Defence Jobs

    The parliamentary question asked by Gagan Mohindra, the Conservative MP for South West Hertfordshire, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.

    Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)

    What steps his Department is taking to support defence jobs in the UK.

    Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)

    What steps his Department is taking to support defence jobs in the UK.

    The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)

    The most recent estimate shows that Ministry of Defence investment supports 219,000 jobs in industries across the United Kingdom. Continued high and focused investment in defence, along with the changes that we continue to make as part of our defence and security industrial strategy, will contribute to further economic growth and prosperity across the Union.

    Mr Mohindra

    I thank the Minister for that answer. Ahead of Armistice Day last month, I was contacted by Northwood military headquarters in my constituency to help organise a tour of this place for the submarine service. I thank Captain James Clark and Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces for their help in making that happen. Does the Minister agree that during this time of global turbulence we should do all we can to support and champion the members of our armed forces?

    Alex Chalk

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to him for taking the time to visit the Northwood military headquarters. There are 1,600 active service personnel at Northwood HQ, and their work is crucial to protecting our people, territories, values and interests at home and overseas. He is right to pay tribute to them, and I join him in that.

    Antony Higginbotham

    Thanks to this Secretary of State for Defence, Lancashire is home to the newest part of the armed forces, the National Cyber Force. That brings huge opportunities to our county, not only through the thousands of armed forces personnel who will eventually be stationed there, but with the cyber-security companies that we hope will cluster around the site in the years ahead. To really seize the opportunity, however, we need to ensure that we give local people the skills they need to join the NCF or other cyber-security businesses. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what steps we can take to ensure that the MOD supports the growth of its cyber-cluster, centred on the NCF, and the links between the NCF and local education providers?

    Alex Chalk

    I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the close interest he has taken in the establishment of the National Cyber Force in Samlesbury, which has cemented the north-west’s position as a key UK cyber-cluster. He will be aware that last week we announced the trilateral international partnership between the UK, Japan and Italy to develop next-generation Tempest fighters, which will also benefit the north-west. He is absolutely right that, with regard to skills, we need to encourage the creation of local partnerships between Government, industry and universities. I am pleased to note that Lancaster University has announced a £19 million investment in data and cyber-security research, teaching and innovation. I would, of course, be delighted to meet him.

    Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)

    The Defence Committee recently had before us representatives from Boeing, which has been awarded some £6 billion-worth of contracts in recent years. A representative confirmed that Boeing directly employs only 1,600 people in the UK. Does the Minister not agree that that is a pretty poor return on the investment and that it certainly would not be the case in the United States?

    Alex Chalk

    I met Boeing recently, and we are always keen to see investment in the UK. We are absolutely delighted that, because of the pipeline of investment that the Government have commissioned—from ships to cyber to space—we are investing in jobs and capability, and we are ensuring that we take expertise from wherever it is in the world, securing jobs in this country.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Secretary of State.

    John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)

    We welcome the Government’s commitment to job creation; the problem is that they are creating jobs abroad, including in Spain. The Defence Secretary has just picked a Spanish firm to build the Royal Navy’s three new fleet support ships. At least 40% of that work will go abroad and the best that the Defence Secretary could tell the Scottish Affairs Committee the other day was that the contractor will

    “fully assemble the final ship in a UK yard.”

    As a result of the Defence Secretary’s decision, how many jobs will be created in Spain and not in the UK?

    Alex Chalk

    Respectfully, I completely reject the tenor of that question. We should be celebrating the fact that, as a result of the commitment that we are making to UK shipbuilding, there will be 2,000 jobs in the UK and there will be shipbuilding industries in Appledore and in Northern Ireland. That comes on top of the 1,700 jobs secured as a result of the Type 26, the 3,000 jobs as a result of cyber investment and further jobs in respect of the future combat air system. This Government are investing in defence, in shipbuilding, in land, in sea and in air. We will continue to do exactly that.

    John Healey

    Well, the Minister told me in answer to a parliamentary question that the

    “number of jobs sustained in Spain…is a matter for the contractor”.

    We could have had 100% of the jobs in Britain. This is a dodgy decision, whichever way we view it. On 21 November, I received confirmation in a written answer that the prime contractor for this £1.6 billion contract will be a company that was registered only in May, with no trading history, with capital of just £10,000 and with two directors, both living in Spain. What guarantees can the Minister give the British taxpayer and the Royal Navy that this contract will not betray British jobs and UK industry?

    Alex Chalk

    What I genuinely do not understand is why the Opposition are not welcoming a deal that is bringing more than £70 million into Belfast, securing jobs in the shipbuilding industry in this country and ensuring, by the way, that the base of industrial support goes beyond the traditional Scottish yards to include yards in Belfast and, indeed, in Appledore. That is good news. As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about other countries playing a role, let us not forget that one of the great successful procurements is the F-35. That is an American plane—of course it is—but who produces 15% of the components? The United Kingdom does. That is exactly what happens in these sorts of contracts, and it gets value for money for taxpayers.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the SNP spokesperson.

    Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)

    All credit to Babcock—maybe the Minister will join me in congratulating it—for securing the Natural Environmental Research Council’s £45 million fleet renewal programme. Of course, Babcock and BAE should be gearing up to do 100% of the fleet solid support ships in a distributed model across the UK, but they are not, because this Tory Government have awarded a £1.6 billion contract for three ships to Navantia in Spain. When Sir John Parker, in his national shipbuilding strategy—[Interruption]—maybe the Secretary of State could pipe down a second. When Sir John Parker stressed that the Ministry of Defence should embrace smart procurement, invest in yards and apprenticeships, and commission ships with an eye to export, did the Government realise that he was talking about yards in the UK, not in Spain?

    Alex Chalk

    I listened very carefully to that question but, with respect, we will not take lectures from an SNP Government who put a ship in the water in 2017—a ferry that has now failed to be developed. We are proud that we have got behind the Type 26, which is benefiting the Scottish economy, and indeed the British economy, with an additional 2,000 jobs as a result of the five vessels that we have continued to commission. This Government are investing in broad-based maritime capacity in this country, now and in the future, and developing our capability here in Britain.

    Dave Doogan

    We hear all the time about the strength of the Union for orders into Scottish yards, but Scotland, still stuck in this necrotic Union, loses out no matter what happens, when this Secretary of State awards work to Cádiz that should have gone to the UK—it’s heads, the UK wins; tails, Scotland loses. I wish Appledore in Devon and Harland and Wolff in Belfast all the best, but without the requisite workforce or skills, they are simply the Union flag gift-wrapping that this Defence Secretary has given to the Spanish shipbuilding industry. I ask the Government and the increasingly ridiculously titled shipbuilding tsar: contrary to his own claims, when the bulk of this work is delivered in Spain, will this Secretary of State and his ministerial team resign?

    Alex Chalk

    It is very important that the House is not misled in any way. It is not the case that the bulk will be built in Spain. Quite the opposite: the majority will be built in the United Kingdom. All the assembly and all the integration will happen here in the United Kingdom. I hope the hon. Gentleman will celebrate the fact that the Type 26, built in Scotland, secures 1,700 jobs and includes the potential for exports. Govan, Rosyth, Scotstoun—all those yards are being nurtured and supported by the power and might of the UK Union. That means that Scotland’s place is better in the Union, and the British Union is advantaged as well.

  • G7 + Ukraine – 2022 Joint Leaders’ Statement

    G7 + Ukraine – 2022 Joint Leaders’ Statement

    The statement made by the G7 and Ukraine on 12 December 2022.

    We, the Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7), met on 12 December, to reflect on progress of our cooperation under Germany’s Presidency to jointly address global challenges at a time of severe geopolitical crisis and critical moment for the world economy. We were joined by Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This year in the face of Russia’s illegal, unjustifiable and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine, we stood more united than ever, together with Ukraine and in unwavering commitment to our shared values, the rules-based multilateral order and international cooperation.

    Today, we reaffirm our unwavering support for and solidarity with Ukraine in the face of ongoing Russian war of aggression for as long as it takes. We condemn Russia’s continuous inhumane and brutal attacks targeting critical infrastructure, in particular energy and water facilities, and cities across Ukraine, and recall that indiscriminate attacks and attacks on the civilian population or civilian objects, constitute a war crime. We also condemn those who are facilitating Putin’s illegal war. We are determined to help Ukraine repair, restore and defend its critical energy and water infrastructure. We will help Ukraine in meeting its winter preparedness needs, will continue to support Ukraine’s civilian resilience, and will further enhance our efforts on this during the international conference to be held in Paris on 13 December. We are determined that Russia will ultimately need to pay for the restoration of critical infrastructure damaged or destroyed through its brutal war. There can be no impunity for war crimes and other atrocities. We will hold President Putin and those responsible to account in accordance with international law. We reiterate that Russia’s irresponsible nuclear rhetoric is unacceptable and that any use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would be met with severe consequences.

    Building on our commitments so far, we will continue to galvanise international support to help address Ukraine’s urgent short-term financing needs. We ask our Finance Ministers to convene shortly to discuss a joint approach for coordinated budget support in 2023. We affirm that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should be central to this effort.

    We firmly support efforts to secure Ukraine’s immediate financial stability and its recovery and reconstruction towards a sustainable, prosperous and democratic future, in line with its European path. We will build on the outcomes of the International Expert Conference on the Recovery, Reconstruction and Modernisation of Ukraine held on 25 October in Berlin, as well as at the Ukraine Recovery Conference on 21-22 June 2023 in London. In particular, with a view to supporting Ukraine’s repair, recovery and reconstruction, together with Ukraine and our international partners and in close coordination with relevant International Organisations and International Financial Institutions, we will establish a multi-agency Donor Coordination Platform. Through this platform, we will coordinate existing mechanisms to provide ongoing short- and long-term support – with particular responsibility by the Finance Track for short term support – , coordinate further international funding and expertise, and encourage Ukraine’s reform agenda as well as private sector led growth. We will also set up a Secretariat for the Platform. We will each designate a senior government representative to oversee the set-up of the platform and ongoing coordination efforts, and ask them to convene as soon as possible in January 2023.

    With a view to a viable post-war peace settlement, we remain ready to reach arrangements together with Ukraine and interested countries and institutions on sustained security and other commitments to help Ukraine defend itself, secure its free and democratic future, and deter future Russian aggression in line with its rights enshrined in the UN Charter.

    We will continue to coordinate efforts to meet Ukraine’s urgent requirements for military and defense equipment with an immediate focus on providing Ukraine with air defense systems and capabilities.

    We also reiterate our strong condemnation of Russia’s continued seizure and militarization of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, the abduction and reported abuse of Ukrainian personnel, and the willful destabilization of its operations. We support the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) efforts to establish a Safety and Security Zone.

    Russia’s war of aggression must end. To date, we have not seen evidence that Russia is committed to sustainable peace efforts. Russia can end this war immediately by ceasing its attacks against Ukraine and completely and unconditionally withdrawing its forces from the territory of Ukraine. We welcome and support President Zelenskyy’s initiative for a just peace.

    We remain committed to our unprecedented coordinated sanctions measures in response to Russia’s war of aggression. We will maintain and intensify economic pressure on Russia and those who evade and undermine our restrictive measures. We will continue to shield vulnerable countries that are severely impacted by the repercussions of Russia’s war of aggression and its weaponization of energy and food.

    We reaffirm our intention to phase out Russian-origin crude oil and petroleum products from our domestic markets. During the week of 5 December 2022, the price cap on seaborne Russian crude oil entered into force in our respective jurisdictions, delivering on our commitment to limit Russia from profiting from its war of aggression against Ukraine, to support stability in global energy markets and to minimize negative economic spillovers of Russia’s war of aggression, especially on low- and middle-income countries. We encourage third countries that seek to import seaborne Russian-origin crude oil and petroleum products to leverage the price cap. We reiterate our decision that the price cap on Russian origin petroleum products will enter into force on 5 February 2023.

    Russia’s war in Ukraine is exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy, with direct impacts on the cost of living of people in our own countries, and on the world’s most vulnerable. We will continue to use all available policy tools to maintain global financial, macroeconomic and price stability and long-term fiscal sustainability, while providing targeted support to those most in need and working collaboratively to strengthen our collective economic security to external shocks and wider risks. We will make public investments and structural reforms to promote long term growth. We will further coordinate to respond to the urgent needs of most vulnerable countries and will encourage private investment in developing and emerging markets as a key enabler of sustainable economic pathways.

    We will keep up our ambition to address global food insecurity, including through the Global Alliance for Food Security. We will keep supporting the delivery of grain and fertilizers to vulnerable countries in need and welcome the recent operations led by the World Food Programme (WFP) on this front. We welcome the extension of the Black Sea Grain Initiative (BSGI) alongside further efforts to bring Ukrainian food to the world, namely the European Union’s Solidarity Lanes and the “Grain from Ukraine” Initiative.

    Reaffirming our steadfast commitment to implement the Paris Agreement and the outcomes of COP26 and COP27, we commit to urgent, ambitious, and inclusive climate action in this decade to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre industrial levels. We reaffirm our commitment to reach net-zero emissions no later than 2050. To that end, and building on our statement adopted in June in Elmau, we endorse the Climate Club’s terms of reference as established by the Climate Club Task Force and hereby establish an open and inclusive international Climate Club. Focusing in particular on the decarbonisation of industries, we will thereby contribute to unlocking green growth. We invite international partners to join the Climate Club and to participate in the further elaboration of its concept and structure. In doing so, we will continue working closely together with relevant international organizations and stakeholders. We ask the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in tandem with the International Energy Agency (IEA), to host an interim secretariat working together with other international organizations.

    Recalling our commitment to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, we will work intensively towards a successful outcome at CBD COP15, in particular the adoption of an ambitious and effective global biodiversity framework, with clear and measurable targets and its prompt and swift implementation. In this regard we are committed to mobilising resources from all sources and to substantially increasing our national and international funding for nature by 2025 to support the implementation of ambitious global framework. We encourage countries beyond the G7 to join us in this endeavor.

    Accelerating our contributions to the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) to make our global partners a better offer on sustainable, inclusive, climate-resilient, and quality infrastructure investment, we welcome the progress on the Just Energy Transitions Partnerships (JETP) with South Africa and Indonesia as flagship projects for multilateral cooperation, just energy transition and sustainable investment and look forward to swiftly concluding negotiations on a JETP with Vietnam, as well as to making further progress with India and Senegal. We will intensify our cooperation within a PGII working group to deliver on our joint ambition to mobilize up to 600 billion dollars by 2027, and on JETPs, we will coordinate through the JETP working group.

    Reaffirming our full commitment to realise gender equality and to consistently mainstream gender equality into all policy areas, we welcome the key recommendations by the Gender Equality Advisory Council (GEAC) and look forward to receiving the GEAC’s full report by the end of the year. We thank this year’s GEAC for its important work, reiterate our intention to convene the GEAC as a standing feature of all G7 Presidencies, and look forward to further strengthening it.

    This year, we have achieved progress to improve the global health architecture with the WHO at its core, our capacity to prevent, prepare for and respond to future global health emergencies and to achieve universal health coverage, especially through the G7 Pact for Pandemic Readiness endorsed in Elmau. We welcome the successful Seventh Replenishment of the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund). We will step up our efforts on training and qualifying health workforce as well as strengthening surveillance capacities to detect outbreaks and variants as early as possible by integrating the One Health approach. We will continue to support science to develop safe and effective vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.

    Under the German Presidency, we, the G7, together with other international partners, have demonstrated our resolve to jointly addressing both major systemic challenges and immediate crises of our time. Our commitments and actions pave the way for progress towards an equitable world. As we look to the 2023 G7 Summit in Hiroshima under the Japanese Presidency, and in our support to the Indian G20 Presidency, we stand strong, united and absolutely committed to rebuilding a peaceful, prosperous and sustainable future for all.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Speech on Human Rights Day

    James Cleverly – 2022 Speech on Human Rights Day

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 12 December 2022.

    As you gather to mark International Human Rights Day:

    • in Ukraine, civilians gather in shelters from bombardment, as prosecutors gather evidence of atrocities and sexual violence, committed by Vladimir Putin’s forces
    • in Iran, brave peaceful protestors continue to gather on the streets in spite of the brutal crackdown. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps report that the average age of those arrested is 15. We know many are young girls, who have gathered the courage to call for freedoms they’ve never had before
    • in Afghanistan, women and girls are also being targeted. And erased from all spheres of public life
    • and in China and Russia, we’ve seen protestors so concerned about speaking out, that they hold aloft blank sheets of paper

    2022 has been a bad year for the respect for human rights in many, many countries.

    If you take a step back for a moment, all this evidence confirms my belief, that autocracy and repression are always fundamentally wrong, and fundamentally destabilising. And that human rights, and transparent democratic government, are in the interests of all people, all economies and the long term stability of every nation.

    That is why I believe in human rights. There are now 8 billion people on this planet, and each and every one should be able to enjoy their rights and fundamental freedoms, as set out in the Universal Declaration and subsequent Conventions, and I will do all I can as Foreign Secretary to ensure that they can.

    On Friday, on International Anti-Corruption Day, the UK government announced a package of sanctions targeting those involved in serious human rights abuses and violations, and serious corruption. Sanctions are one of a wide range of diplomatic and development tools that we will use to promote human rights, to promote freedoms, and to promote democracy.

    We will continue to shine a spotlight on human rights violations – including through the UN Human Rights Council.

    We will not shy away from difficult conversations – be it on the arbitrary detention, torture or forced labour in supply chains.

    We will offer advice and expertise to improve human rights adherence – as we do with countries across the world.

    We will strengthen our partnerships with allies to promote and protect rights and accountability – as we did at the PSVI Conference.

    We will defend the international human rights system – and use it to hold those who violate or abuse human rights to account.

    Hand-in-hand with standing up for human rights, we will continue to build democratic resilience, promote civil space, and nurture the institutions of free and open societies. Central to which, we will continue to support and work with civil society, particularly human rights defenders and free media.

    Because human rights cannot be fully enjoyed without democratic freedoms. And democratic freedoms cannot be fully realised where there is a lack of respect for human rights.

    Human rights, underpinned by democratic values and the rule of law, have the power to unite, to transform lives, and to change the world for the better. As Foreign Secretary I will work tirelessly with all our allies to promote and protect them.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at REPowerEU: Outlook on EU Gas Supply in 2023

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at REPowerEU: Outlook on EU Gas Supply in 2023

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 12 December 2022.

    Good afternoon,

    I am very happy to welcome here Fatih Birol. We had a very good discussion on an energy outlook for Europe and how to deal with the unprecedented disruptions that have been caused by Russia’s atrocious war. Russia has indeed cut its pipeline supplies by 80% – if you compare September of this year to September of last year. We all know that these pipeline gas cuts have added unprecedented pressure on the global energy markets, with severe knock-on effects on Europe’s energy system. But I want to emphasise that despite these enormous cuts, we have been able to manage, we have been able to withstand the blackmail. We have acted, and we have acted successfully. Seven months ago, in May, we have presented our response to this Russian blackmail by putting on the table REPowerEU, our plan to reduce the demand for Russian gas by two-thirds before the end of this year. And we have underpinned this proposal with an investment plan of up to EUR 300 billion. In just a few months, we have turned the REPowerEU plan into many different legislative proposals and actions on the ground. And I think it is worth looking at that. Basically, we have taken ten different actions in the last ten months.

    The first one is: we have enormously diversified away from Russian fossil fuels, away from Russian gas supplies towards other reliable, trustworthy suppliers. Second, we are saving energy. We have introduced, as you all know, the target to reduce gas demand by 15%. If we look at the data from early autumn, we are very well on track. It is good that we are saving energy and we have to keep on saving energy. The third point is: we are boosting the roll-out of renewables. If you look at the year 2022, we will have added almost 50 gigawatts of new capacity that is almost doubling the additional capacity of renewable energy, mostly from wind and solar. For us, this is very important because this is not only good for the planet, but we know that renewables are home-grown, they create good jobs here and they create independence and security of supply.

    The fourth point is that, in this context of renewables, we have proposed to speed up drastically the permitting process for renewables. We know that many projects are basically ready to go if the permitting was there, so this has to be faster. Therefore, we have put a proposal on speeding up the permitting process on the table. The fifth point is that we have put in place a minimum gas storage obligation. Our storages are now filled by more than 90%, so we have overshot the target, that is very good, and we are well above the previous five-year average.

    The sixth point is on solidarity. We have proposed default arrangements for the supply of gas between Member States where solidarity agreements are not yet in place to make sure that in an energy emergency, we can ensure that the gas is going and flowing where it is most needed. The seventh point is: we have set up a platform for the joint purchasing of gas, to increase our negotiation leverage and get better prices. I think it is unacceptable that different Member States are outbidding each other on the global market and thus driving up the prices. Therefore, it is important that we join forces for the negotiation on a global level.

    The eighth point is: we have improved our infrastructure. We have four new interconnectors that became operational this year. It is the Baltic Pipe, it is the interconnector Poland-Lithuania, the interconnector between Bulgaria and Greece, and the gas interconnector between Poland and Slovakia. The ninth point I want to highlight is the fact that we have put out a legal framework that enables Member States to skim off the windfall profits, the super profits of energy-producing companies, to take this money and to support by that the vulnerable households and the vulnerable businesses in a targeted manner. And finally, the tenth point is: we proposed a market correction mechanism, also known as the price cap, to limit spikes in gas prices at TTF level.

    Many of these measures have been adopted, some at record speed. And there are many examples that show that change is beginning – for example the massive and rapid uptake of heat pumps in Poland. The result of all these actions is that we are safe for this winter. Russia’s blackmail has failed. However, some of our proposals are still under discussion and they are essential for our energy preparedness. Therefore, I call on the Council to adopt them swiftly, because preparing for the next winter of 2023-2024, starts now. Now that we are turning our focus to the winter 2023-2024, I am very pleased, dear Fatih Birol, that we have worked on that so intensively together. One month ago, your message was very clear and you underpinned your message with figures. You said very clearly the coming winter will be even more challenging. And Europe needs to step up its efforts in several fields. You outlined the risks: It might be possible that Russia cuts the rest of the pipeline gas supply; China could lift the COVID-19 restrictions and thus go back to energy demand on the global market on pre-COVID-19 level; and of course, this year we benefitted from an extraordinary warm winter – this could also be different next year.

    I know from your data that despite the actions that we have taken, we might still face a gap of up to 30 billion cubic metres of gas next year. The actions that we have set in motion will help cover part of this, but more is needed. Here, I want to look at a few priorities we need to focus on. The first one is of course the LNG supply. I am confident that we will secure similar volumes of LNG next year as we had this year. This year, we had up to 130 billion cubic metres of LNG. For this, we of course have to further intensify our outreach to our international partners.

    My second point is: It is now time that we make joint purchasing a reality. We have the Energy Platform in place, now we have to operationalise the joint purchasing mechanism. Every day of delay comes with a price tag. We have discussions with Member States, partner countries and their companies that are ongoing. This evening, I will discuss this with the Norwegian Prime Minister, for example. We can launch the first tender for demand aggregation by the end of March. But for that, we need to have an agreement on the Emergency Regulation we proposed on 18 October, and we need it now.

    And my final point is that the greatest potential for energy in the European Union is in our own hands. We must scale up and accelerate the deployment of renewables. We must go big and we must be fast. With the right policies in place, we can even double the capacity of renewable energy that we will add to the market next year. And the case has never been stronger. In 2022, we had record additions of wind and solar capacity in the European Union. And we expect renewable capacity to rise even further in the coming year, replacing around 12 billion cubic metres of gas. And you are showing us with your additional measures that we can add an additional 7.5 billion cubic metres. So, if you look at the overall scope: efficiency, savings, joint purchasing, renewables – this might be the mixture we need to make up for the missing gas next year. We have taken the action that is necessary. Our proposals are now on the table.

    My last comment is on the bigger picture. Because if we look at the bigger picture, we also see that we need an increase in public investments in the energy transition. Mostly to ensure the competitiveness of our European industry in the energy transition, we need additional public investments at national level and at European level. You know that in the short term, we will propose to boost REPowerEU. REPowerEU is our vehicle, the framework for investment in clean tech. And this is one part of our response to the US Inflation Reduction Act. But we also know that in the mid-term, we have to step up. There, we will work on setting up a sovereignty fund to make sure that Europe continues to be the global leader in clean tech. Where we have to help our industry is now, in this high energy price environment, to bridge the transition to green, clean energy that is affordable and secure. Therefore, this funding is necessary.

    Our work has been good this year, we see the progress, we have come quite a long way. But we know that we are not done with our work until families and businesses in the European Union have access to energy that is affordable, that is secure and that is clean.

    Thank you so much.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Keynote Speech on Foreign Policy

    James Cleverly – 2022 Keynote Speech on Foreign Policy

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, at the Foreign Office in London on 12 December 2022.

    Good morning,

    We are at peace, we are prosperous and we live on an island– so why do we bother doing foreign policy at all?

    Why did I visit Kenya and Ethiopia last week and Poland and Romania the week before that? Why do the ministers of this department travel around the world, why do we have officials across the globe?

    Well let’s go back to first principles and remind ourselves what we are collectively trying to achieve.

    For most of our history, the world has been dominated by the brutal maxim that the “strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.

    Might was always right, and power was all that counted and nations down the centuries seemed grimly compelled to vindicate Shakespeare’s warning:

    Power into will, will into appetite; and appetite, a universal wolf, so doubly seconded with will and power, must make perforce a universal prey and last eat up himself.

    As Foreign Secretary of a former imperial power, I know that in the past we succumbed to the temptation of will and appetite.

    And none of us can forget how, in the 20th century, aggressive tyrants made the globe their prey, starting two world wars and leaving over 100 million people dead.

    And afterwards our predecessors realised that humanity would not survive another catastrophe of that scale.

    So a generation of far-sighted leaders built an assembly of international rules and institutions designed to make law – not power alone – the arbiter of relations between states.

    Britain joined hands with the United States of America, with France and nearly 50 other nations to create the United Nations.

    And the UN General Assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights without a single dissenting vote, proclaiming – and I quote – the “inalienable right of all members of the human family”.

    In the same era, 23 nations founded what would become the World Trade Organisation and the World Bank began to fund reconstruction and recovery across the globe.

    For all the tragedies and bloodshed of the last eight decades, the remarkable truth is that by historical standards, that system has worked.

    Between 1946 and 2020, the number of deaths in state conflicts as a share of global population fell by 95 percent.

    And only once since the foundation of the UN has a member country been wiped off the map, with its entire national territory annexed by another.

    That act of aggression, by Iraq against Kuwait in 1990, was swiftly reversed.

    The volume of world trade has multiplied 40 times since 1950, generating countless jobs and livelihoods in every corner of the earth.

    And in recent decades, the fastest economic growth has been concentrated in the developing world.

    When I was born in 1969, around half of all humanity lived in absolute poverty.

    Today that figure is below 10 percent, which is all the more astonishing when you consider that the world’s population has doubled in that same time.

    And ponder the enormity of the simple fact that global infant mortality has been cut in half over the last three decades.

    That’s another way of saying that millions of children have been spared what would otherwise be agonising deaths.

    Now, none of this would have been possible without the institutions of the post-war world, protecting billions with global vaccination campaigns, investing in development and infrastructure, upholding freedom of the seas and maintaining open shipping lanes.

    The international order has allowed more of our fellow human beings to live in peace and prosperity than ever before.

    And that is the single most important reason why British foreign policy strives to renew its founding principles and its institutions.

    We should remember that we’re not propping up a system that only benefits us,

    or keeps others down.

    On the contrary, just as we have prospered, so other countries have thrived alongside us – often faster than us.

    Now we don’t believe everything is perfect; and we’re not standing in the way of reform.

    In fact, the UK wants to welcome Brazil, India, Japan and Germany as permanent members of the UN Security Council, alongside permanent African representation.

    Our aim is to uphold a historic shared achievement that benefits everyone.

    And I honestly shudder to think what might follow if through neglect, or complacency or timidity, we turned away and allowed what we have worked for to be torn down.

    Consider for a moment the alternative world that Vladimir Putin yearns for.

    The reason why his onslaught against Ukraine offends every fibre of my being is not simply that it’s morally abhorrent, although of course it is.

    And it has nothing to do with the accident of geography that Putin is waging war in Europe.

    No, what really chills the blood is that he is prepared to destroy the laws that protect every nation and, by extension, every person across the globe.

    Putin’s goal is to turn back the clock to the era when might was right and big countries could treat their neighbours as prey.

    He is waging a 19th century war of imperial conquest, deliberately debasing international conduct, utterly contemptuous of today’s values.

    And by attacking one of the world’s biggest producers of food and fertiliser, he is driving up global prices and inflicting still greater hardship on some of the poorest people around the world.

    Hence it was Prime Minister Modi who told Putin to his face, and I quote: “I know that today’s era is not the era of war.”

    The only route to peace in Europe is for Putin to end his war and withdraw his troops.

    As we stand against the Russian invasion, the United Kingdom benefits beyond measure from our rock solid friendships with the United States of America, with France, with Germany, with Canada, Australia and many others.

    Last Friday, we announced how we will develop the next generation of combat aircraft hand-in-glove with Italy and Japan.

    These vital relationships, constructed over generations, embedded in institutions like NATO and the G7, amount to our greatest source of strength and the foundation stone of British democracy and diplomacy.

    Today we have no higher priority than to support our Ukrainian friends until they prevail, as they inevitably will.

    But that will not be enough to sustain the international order unless its principles and institutions command the support of the world beyond Europe and North America.

    We are living in a momentous period of history when the pace of change is accelerating at hurricane force.

    As recently as 2001, 80 percent of countries conducted more trade with the US than with China.

    Yet by 2018 there had been an almost complete reversal: nearly 70 percent of nations trade more now with China than the US.

    And in the coming decades, an ever greater share of the world economy – and therefore the world’s power – will be in the hands of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

    Together they will decide whether the international order will endure. That reality has been evident for some time, but I am not convinced that British diplomacy has fully caught up.

    My goal is to build on the work of my predecessors and ensure that we do catch up – and under me that task has begun.

    Our diplomats are not pundits in the commentary box, offering their thoughts and analysis: they are players on the field.

    The goal of foreign policy is not to comment but to make a difference. Britain has agency Britain has influence, Britain has leverage and it is my job to use it.

    So I will make a long term and sustained effort to revive old friendships and build new ones, reaching far beyond our long-established alliances.

    My starting point is that we don’t view the changing balance of power with any sense of loss or regret.

    The reason why the world’s geopolitical centre of gravity is moving south and east is precisely because hundreds of millions of people have escaped poverty.

    And that, that is the single most wondrous development of my lifetime.

    And it’s a vindication of the world order, s vindication of free trade, of international development, of innovation and scientific advance, in fact everything that Britain has spent generations working for.

    Now, we have to recognise that the UK’s future influence will depend on persuading and winning over a far broader array of countries,

    countries in the Commonwealth, in the African Union, in ASEAN and elsewhere.

    Many are old friends; others we know less well. They often describe themselves as “non-aligned” and they are wary of committing themselves in any direction just because other countries want them to, and that is exactly as it should be.

    Our job is to make our case and earn their support, investing in relationships based on patient diplomacy, on respect, on solidarity, and a willingness to listen.

    Because this isn’t about dictating or telling others what they should do: we want a balanced and mutually beneficial relationship, based on shared interests and common principles.

    And that means learning from our competitors and always thinking 10, 15, 20 or more years ahead.

    Because in the past I think perhaps we have been too transactional and too impatient.

    Now we must have strategic endurance, a willingness to commit to relationships for decades to come.

    Now, confession time. Despite my best efforts, I’m willing to concede that I am unlikely to be Foreign Secretary in 25 years’ time, which is a shame because it is a job that I love.

    But I want to make sure that our diplomacy is focused on that time horizon. Because the interests that we are protecting and the values that we are promoting will outlive any and all political cycles here in the UK.

    And we need to recognise that at first, this work will feel like water on stone:

    no swift dividends, no windfall gains, perhaps even no visible impressions at all for a short while, and there will be plenty of temptation to question that effort.

    But we would curse our complacency if we did not try, because these relationships will be essential to our shared successful futures.

    And the reality is if we are not good friends, you can bet that others will try to fill that void and seize any opportunity that we might be mistaken enough to give them.

    Now every country is different and every generalisation invites an abundance of counter-examples, but there are some common threads.

    The main focus of the future powers that I’m discussing is on securing their own economic development and their own resilience against threats, including from climate change, from disease and from terrorism.

    Many of these countries have enjoyed rapid success and, above all, they want that success to continue.

    Their populations are typically much younger than ours: the median age here in the UK is over 40, while in Brazil it’s 33, in Indonesia it’s 30, and in India it’s only 28.

    More than anything else they need to generate growth, create jobs and satisfy the aspirations of their youth.

    And that means attracting investment, it means seizing the full benefit of their own natural resources, and it means harnessing the power of new technology.

    It means decarbonising their economies in a way that spreads the gains and minimises the losses, thereby achieving a “Just Energy Transition”.

    In all of these fields and many others, our opportunity is to show that the UK can be and will be a reliable, trustworthy and long term partner.

    And I am determined that we will make investments of faith in the countries that will shape the world’s future.

    So we will press on with developing clear, compelling and consistent UK offers,

    tailored to their needs and our strengths, spanning trade, development, defence, cyber security, technology, climate change and environmental protection.

    Because we know that in the coming decades there will be economic shocks, and climate change will have its baleful effects, and countries will want technology, finance and access to markets to support their development.

    That’s why, in the last year, the UK has offered guarantees to allow almost £5 billion of extra multilateral finance for the developing world, and we support the ambitions of the Bridgetown Agenda to reform the financial system and unlock more resources.

    And we will offer a reliable source of infrastructure investment through the British Investment Partnerships, through UK Export Finance, and through the G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure.

    We’ve got the message and we know that resources need to flow more quickly from these initiatives into real projects on the ground.

    And we will make full use of the powers we have regained by leaving the EU, including the ability to sign free trade deals, and Mutual Recognition Agreements, designed to encourage innovation and reduce trading costs.

    The UK has a range of capabilities to support emerging economies with young populations to achieve their goals.

    And whatever our differences, there are core principles behind which I believe every nation can unite.

    We all say in the UN Charter that we believe in sovereignty and territorial integrity, which means the right of all countries to decide their own future and set their own path, without being invaded or dismembered.

    That’s why 143 nations – three quarters of the entire membership of the UN – voted in the General Assembly to condemn Putin’s annexation of Ukrainian territory.

    And that’s why defensive alliances like NATO are so important – because they help countries to protect themselves from aggressors.

    When powerful states like China reject defensive alliances as “bloc politics”, they either misunderstand the desire of every nation to live in peace, without fear of aggression; or they perhaps provide a signal of intent, especially chilling from a country militarising at a pace that the world has rarely seen before.

    For our part, Britain will demonstrate our long-term commitment to the Indo Pacific, including by joining the Trans-Pacific free trade agreement as soon as possible.

    We will deepen our cooperation with India, the new president of the G20, and finalise our trade agreement with them.

    We will support Indonesia and South Africa with their plans for Just Energy Transition, showing how the necessary investments can be mobilised at scale,

    and last week the EU and the UK reached an ambitious agreement to do the same with Vietnam.

    But in the end, all our fortunes will depend on a stable and peaceful international order.

    My generation was born long after the Second World War and we reached adulthood just as the Cold War was coming to an end.

    We stand on the shoulders of wise and compassionate leaders who created the laws and institutions that prevented a universal relapse into the old order, where the strong prey upon the weak.

    Now the UK must work with our international allies and new partners to sustain the best of this achievement, which seeks to protect every country and create the setting for everyone to prosper.

    That’s why our diplomats and our development experts make the effort; that’s why I fly somewhere almost every week, that’s the ministers in this department do likewise, that’s why I’m striving to build the partnerships of the future, so our country can flourish, alongside our friends, both old and new.

    Thank you.

  • Quentin Davies – 2001 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Quentin Davies – 2001 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Quentin Davies, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at the Conservative Party Conference held in Blackpool on 10 October 2001.

    The words courage, vision and leadership are often overused in politics. But not so in David Trimble’s case they are entirely justified.

    Nobody has done more to try and bring together a community scarred by thirty years of terrorism or, in David’s own words, to build a Northern Ireland at ease with itself.

    Once again this morning, David Trimble restated the central Unionist case with clarity and precision.

    It is a case that we Conservatives, as a Unionist Party, support.

    Our two parties have always shared a great deal in common.

    Above all we are united in our commitment to the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom is based on consent – the consent of the people who live there.

    We will always uphold the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.

    And we will never allow the future of Northern Ireland to be determined by violence.

    In Northern Ireland, just like anywhere else in the world, terrorism must never be allowed to succeed, and democracy must always triumph.

    Over the last four weeks the whole world has been forced to face up to the reality of terrorism. We have seen its hideous face in this country before. Our own Party bears the scars.

    We will never forget Brighton and those who died and were maimed there. We will never forget the murders of Airey Neave and Ian Gow, and the many bombings of our cities.

    But the people of Northern Ireland have lived with terrorism – never knowing whether a parked car might contain a bomb, or their own house might be the next one to be firebombed – day in day out for thirty years. 3,600 murdered and 40,000 wounded.

    It is an appalling story. Yet one in which the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported by the Army in Northern Ireland, where our own leader served, have played an heroic role.

    In coming to this afresh, as Iain Duncan Smith has asked me to do, I desperately want this era in Northern Ireland to be at an end.

    The Belfast Agreement held out that hope. Many people had to swallow hard. I expressed at the time my personal revulsion at the premature release of serious criminals – including murderers and multiple murderers. It was the politicisation of justice. But it had a purpose, if the parties to the Agreement kept their word, in spirit, as well as deed.

    The Irish Republic did. They changed their constitution. The British Parliament did, it legislated for devolved government including both sections of the community sharing power. The Ulster Unionist Party did, it was prepared to share government with Sinn Fein, the political representatives of men and women who had pursued their political objectives by murder and terror.

    For that remarkable sacrifice the world has properly saluted David Trimble with the Nobel Peace Prize.

    But this was an Agreement with many parts. And while prisoners convicted of terrorist offences were to be released within two years, so was decommissioning of illegal weapons to be completed within two years.

    As we know, all the prisoners were released within the 2 years. And now more than 3½ years have passed and not a single weapon or ounce of explosive has been decommissioned by Sinn Fein-IRA. All we have had from Sinn Fein-IRA have been vague statements and empty promises sometimes cynically made before important meetings and then withdrawn thereafter. Sinn Fein-IRA has been playing a cat and mouse game with the Government, and there is very little doubt in anyone’s eyes in Northern Ireland, who is the cat and who is the mouse.

    It is hardly surprising that there is now a crisis in the institutions in Belfast when all the parties have fulfilled their obligations under the Agreement except Sinn Fein. And the Government has not taken any action to sanction them.

    Why did the Government decide to release all the prisoners without even a start being made on decommissioning? They had no need to do so under the Agreement. We tried to link the two in amendments we tabled in the House of Commons to the Northern Ireland Sentences Bill in 1998. The Government rejected these.

    Whatever it was that possessed them it was the most colossal mistake. The result is that as the crunch time comes for the Assembly and for the Executive, created by the Belfast Agreement, the Government have no instruments of leverage left – either with Sinn Fein IRA or with so-called Loyalist paramilitary groups.

    The Secretary of State the weekend before last threatened the UDA with being “specified”. Unfortunately being specified means absolutely nothing. It does not enable the authorities to do a single thing they could not do anyway. That is utterly unsatisfactory.

    We must be as clear and resolute in tackling terrorism at home as abroad.

    We simply cannot have two sets of rules – one for terrorism at home and one for terrorism abroad. And let me say that we reject with contempt the characteristic hypocrisy of Gerry Adams who said in Dublin 10 days ago that terrorism was ethically indefensible but that the IRA were freedom fighters. In a democracy that distinction does not exist. And Northern Ireland is a democracy.

    What then should we now do? Is it time to reconsider the Belfast Agreement?

    I believe the answer is “no”. The Agreement as signed remains the only framework for peace that is actually or likely to be available to us. We should try, even at this eleventh hour, to make it work.

    The Government have gratuitously given away their most valuable card. They cannot now get it back. But we should insist on three things. First, no more concessions whatever – least of all on policing or security – until there is real and verified decommissioning.

    The suggestion in the negotiations at Weston Park that there should be further concessions, including allowing those with terrorist convictions to sit on district police boards, must be utterly rejected.

    Second, the Government must use to the very full all the new powers they have promised to ask Parliament for and the European Union’s new anti-terrorist measures to counter international terrorism, to cut off funds, and otherwise sanction, any organisation promoting violence in this country.

    Third, we must prevail on our friends abroad, including in the US, to treat terrorist threats to us in exactly the same way as we are treating terrorist threats to them. And if terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland, and the political parties that support them, do not decommission, every travel facility, every opportunity to raise money, every chance to present themselves falsely as good citizens or as a peaceful democratic party must be closed off to them.

    And that must include NORAID.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we find ourselves once again, as our forbears and predecessors did several times in the twentieth century, in 1914 to 1918, in 1939 to 1945 or in the crises of the Cold War, facing the threat of organised evil, of a threat to our very civilisation, on an international scale.

    Once again, as then, the Conservative Party will show the way, in quiet but unbreakable resolution, in instinctive patriotism, in firm solidarity with our friends and allies in America, the rest of Europe and around the world. And once again, whatever the sacrifices and difficulties we may face along the way, that spirit will ultimately prevail.

  • David Trimble – 2001 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    David Trimble – 2001 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by David Trimble, the then Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, to Conservative Party Conference on 10 October 2001.

    May I thank you for the invitation to speak here today. I have always wanted to see Ulster Unionism closer to the heart of British politics. Today will mark a further step in that direction. I am also glad to see this invitation has been noticed elsewhere. I happened to be in Downing Street last week and someone said to me, “I see you’re addressing the Tory Conference.” I said that it was nothing odd, after all he had a guest at his. Indeed I remarked that his guest Gerhard Schroeder said he had come to the Labour conference as part of his quest to unite Europe. My object today, however, is much more modest.

    Obviously we meet at a very special time. May I say how proud I am at the contribution Britain is making at the moment. The attack on the World Trade Center was the greatest terrorist attack on the British people since the defeat of Hitler. It affected people from all parts of the British Isles – at least three of the dead came from Northern Ireland. We all know there may be greater challenges ahead for our armed forces and indeed for society here in Britain and our thoughts and prayers are with our servicemen and all those who protect us at home or abroad.

    But the Government today is doing precisely what we would want and expect a British government to do and it will be supported.

    In a situation like this we know the need to act and act decisively even though, inescapably, one must act on imperfect information producing results that may fall short of the ideal.

    But if I can digress, Britain and America find it easier to act because they have governments capable of taking decisions. The hesitant and sometimes uncertain responses of our European partners are because in most cases they are governed by coalitions. Inevitably they are less capable of quick and resolute decision. And, of course, coalitions are the inevitable consequence of proportional representation. I have had experience of more than one form of proportional representation. But I must resist the temptation of telling you of the drawbacks of PR.

    But if the response to Bin laden and the Taleban is clear-cut, unfortunately at home in Northern Ireland, the position is not so clear. The problem is uncertainty and the Government’s reluctance to grasp the nettle.

    I still think John Major was right when he began the process. Whatever one might think of the character of those involved in terrorism, if they were saying that they were prepared to turn their back on terrorism and embrace peace and democracy, then, if only for the sake of the people who identified with them politically, it was right to explore the chance of peaceful evolution.

    The problem is that the terrorists have tried to have it both ways – the ballot box and the armalite. They have delayed a clear and unequivocal commitment to peace.

    We can all go back over the last few years and say we would have done this or that differently. But the point today is that I and my party are now bringing matters to a head in order to force Sinn Fein and the IRA to decide. We are not doing this cynically to exploit the mood after 11 September. We have been steadily, patiently, building the pressure since last October. On Monday we took the final steps, which will result, by about today week, in the resignation of the Unionist Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive. This will be shortly followed by the removal therefrom of the Sinn Fein Ministers until they prove by decommissioning that they have left violence behind.

    We have waited a long time – three and a half years since the Agreement – seventeen months since the IRA itself promised to put their weapons beyond use. If they are ever going to do it, it must be now. If they do, fine. Then the new institutions will bed down. If they do not it will be clear that we must change the institutions so they can survive Sinn Fein’s failure. There may be reluctance to make those changes, but the need will be inescapable.

    Either way I look forward to greater certainty and stability in Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland does not exist in isolation. It is part of the United Kingdom. There is a wider context, which we should consider.

    So it is natural to consider our relationship with national politics. Because I am here, some have speculated that I am going to talk about future links between Conservatives and Ulster Unionists. And of course there was for a long time a structural relationship between our parties and there is a strong continuing friendship. But this is too big an issue to be approached simply in a sectional way. I would prefer to reflect first more broadly.

    There is a communal aspect to party structures in Ulster. This has some unfortunate consequences. Some who do not want a united Ireland will vote nationalist out of a perceived need for communal solidarity. On the other hand some opt out of politics completely because they dislike the communal background of most parties. Most Ulster Unionists would think of themselves as small “c” conservatives. But some would identify more with labour and are Unionist for communal reasons.

    Once it was different. In the nineteenth century, both the Liberal and Conservative parties organized throughout Ireland. In the early twentieth Labour too organized there. But in response to Irish nationalism those involved in those parties coalesced to form Ulster Unionism. It was understandable and for decades it gave us stability. But it has this disadvantage – politics in Northern Ireland are based on a nationalist framework of reference. Parties are based on the fundamental issue of whether they are for or against a united Ireland.

    Compare Scotland. Parties there are based on a British framework of reference. The major British parties are there providing to the Scottish people the full range of British politics and then, alongside them there is a Scottish nationalist party. To a British person who wants to see and take part in British politics, the Scottish model is preferable to that we have in Northern Ireland.

    To its credit the Conservative Party has recognized this. Moreover it is important that the decision in the late 80s to organize in Northern Ireland was taken in response to pressure from the grassroots of the party. They felt, rightly, that some of the party’s policies on Northern Ireland were wrong, and they wanted to send a message of sympathy to the British people of Ulster.

    But a move by Conservatives alone could not break the mold. If things are to change, if we are to move from a Irish nationalist to a British pluralist basis of politics, then we need two things.

    First all the national parties must move. I am sure that this party will do its bit. The problem is Labour. It too must be prepared to move. There is an element in Labour sympathetic to Irish nationalism who have resisted this. But they must realise that, with the acceptance by the Irish government and by all the Irish nationalist parties of the consent principle, their attitudes must change.

    If Tony Blair was right when, on his first visit to Ulster as Prime Minister in May 1997, he said to some primary school children, that there would not be a United Ireland in their lifetime, then Labour has a duty to provide political opportunities for those children throughout their lives. And Labour members with Irish nationalist sympathies should remember the considerable contribution to the positive development of community relations in Scotland that resulted from Wheatley’s decision to take the Irish nationalist organization in Scotland into the Labour party there.

    The second thing concerns the party politics in Northern Ireland. Clearly it will be radically affected. I know there will be many in all parties, my own included who will be cautious. And we will not want to give up our capacity to exercise our own judgment on local issues. Moreover it is not until there is a sense of stability, a sense that Ulster’s place within the Union is secure, that the Assembly and the new arrangements have bedded – not until all that is settled will folk focus fully on these wider issues.

    But I am sure that they will want to address these wider issues. I am sure that the basic concepts of the Agreement are sound – the consent principle to settle the constitutional issue – a regional assembly to give democratic accountability on local issues – an Irish dimension to acknowledge the identity of nationalists.

    But more is needed. The Assembly is limited. It has to operate within the context of the overall economic and social policy of the national government. If the Assembly is all there is the people will not fell that they are properly involved in politics. Taxation, expenditure, defence, foreign policy, are still determined in London. Unless there is a sense of involvement and accountability on those issues, the electorate in Northern Ireland will not be satisfied.

    This problem does not exist with regard to Scotland and Wales. There the people can vote for the national parties who decide these matters. I do not think we will have a healthy political system until the people of Northern Ireland have a similar opportunity to “turn the rascals out”. And it is in the interests of the people of Great Britain, and in the interests of the people of the Republic of Ireland to encourage the development of healthier politics in Northern Ireland.

    There is another aspect too. The present structures prevent a person in Northern Ireland participating in British national politics. The last two governments contained Ministers from Northern Ireland. But Sir Brian Mawhinney and Kate Hoey had to leave Northern Ireland in order to be able to participate.

    It reminds me of the comparison between Belfast and Bangkok. The question is what can you do in Bangkok that you cannot do in Belfast? The answer of course is join the Labour party. Northern Ireland is the only place on the globe where you cannot join Labour. It is a civil rights issue.

    This is not something that is going to change overnight. It is not on the agenda today. But it is something we should think about. It will probably be on tomorrow’s agenda. It is right that it should for in a sense it is just filling in the British dimension to the Agreement. When the time comes I believe this party will be ready. I hope mine will be. Together I think we can meet the need. The real challenge, however, is for New Labour and Tony Blair.

    Mr. Blair made a good beginning on Northern Ireland. That May 1997 speech was sound on the basic principles. Without him there would not have been an Agreement in April 1998.

    But then came the implementation. Understandably he left much of that to others. To an extent he took his eye off the ball. Expediency slithered into appeasement. Confidence in the Agreement ebbed as people felt that the concessions were all one way.

    But there is the chance now to recover – indeed to fulfill the original promise. The paramilitaries can be faced down – the Assembly stabilized.

    And by moving forward with this party he could offer a range of political alternatives to the people of Ulster.

    It is often said that we are the prisoners of history.

    But the key on outside.

    Mr. Blair it is time to turn it.

    Time to treat the people of Northern Ireland as fully part of the United Kingdom.

  • Theresa May – 2001 Speech on “Culture of Spin Within Government” [Jo Moore]

    Theresa May – 2001 Speech on “Culture of Spin Within Government” [Jo Moore]

    The speech made by Theresa May, the then Conservative Party chair, in the House of Commons on 23 October 2001.

    Thank you Mr Speaker and I would like to move the motion standing in my name and that of my Right Honourable and Honourable friends.

    Mr Speaker I am sure we will all remember the events of September 11th for the rest of our lives.

    Just as past generations have defined themselves by what they were doing when President Kennedy was assassinated so a whole generation of people will define themselves by what they were doing when they saw the events of September 11th.

    Up and down the country people watched their televisions in disbelief and wondered if what they saw could actually be happening.

    Let me refresh the memory of Honourable Members on those events.

    At 1:45 in the afternoon British time a plane travelling from Boston to Los Angeles, carrying 92 people, crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre.

    Fifteen minutes later, at 2:00 British time a second plane, carrying 64 people, hit the south tower.

    At 2:30 British time a third plane, carrying 65 people, crashed into the Pentagon in Washington – and workers at companies such as Cantor Fitzgerald based in the World Trade Centre phoned their loved ones and left messages telling them they were about to die.

    Between 2:30 and 3:00 British time, major Government buildings in Washington were evacuated in anticipation of a further strike.

    Eyewitnesses and those watching on television saw bodies falling from the upper floors of the World Trade Centre.

    Between 3 and 3.30pm British time both towers of the World Trade Centre collapsed.

    At 3.30p.m the Prime Minister abandoned his speech to the TUC in Brighton.

    I’m sure that Members on all sides of the House shared with me the sense of utter disbelief as we watched those horrifying scenes.

    The world stood transfixed, unable to comprehend the horror that was unfolding before our very eyes.

    And yet in the midst of all of this, at 2:55, Ms Jo Moore, special adviser to the Secretary of State, his appointee, sent an e-mail to her departmental colleagues saying, ‘It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors expenses?’

    To think that someone’s immediate reaction was to see what was happening in New York and Washington, not as a human tragedy but as a political PR opportunity, which Ministers should make the most of, is almost beyond understanding.

    The events of that day marked a change in the way we viewed our own position in the world.

    But they also marked the day when the culture of this Government’s news management stepped beyond the acceptable and became the disreputable.

    This motion today is not one that we have moved lightly.

    But it is a sad commentary on the attitudes and approach of this Government and on the culture of spin nurtured by this Government that Ministers’ actions have brought us to this debate today.

    And I am not alone in feeling this way:

    – Speaking of the email sent by Jo Moore, the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, the Hon Member for Cannock Chase said ‘The question is whether what happened is consistent with any notion of public service that I or anybody else has. I thought at the time it wasn’t and I haven’t changed my mind now’. Her actions were ‘incompatible with public service’.

    – The Hon Member for Hornchurch said ‘the behaviour she’s displayed, it flies in the face of any public service ethos that I have ever heard of and it flies in the face of everything the Labour Party ever stood for.’

    – The Prime Minister said in this House on 17 October Hansard column 1165 ‘I do not defend in any shape or form what Jo Moore said, which was horrible, wrong and stupid’.

    Given those comments and the sense of outrage that has been felt across this House and outside Parliament I find it incomprehensible that Ms Moore is still in her post.

    It reflects not only a lack of understanding on her part, but also a sorry lack of judgement on the part of the Secretary of State.

    But in relation to the Secretary of State’s position there are a number of questions that still need to be answered.

    My hon friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale wrote to the Secretary of State on 12 October asking him to state publicly whether Jo Moore still had his firm support, give an assurance that no-one acted on the advice in the e-mail, and say whether or not he had spoken to Ms Moore before she sent the e-mail.

    So far he has not replied.

    So I invite the Secretary of State not just for his own sake but to restore some faith in government to take this opportunity to respond to the following questions:

    – Where was the Secretary of State on the 11th September?

    – Did the Secretary of State speak to Jo Moore on the 11th September; and, if so, at what time?

    – Did the Secretary of State speak to any one else in his office about the e-mail from Jo Moore on 11th September?

    – How did the Secretary of State learn of the existence and the content of the e-mail and who told him?

    Now of course it has been pointed out that the member of staff in question was disciplined, but again on this there are a number of outstanding questions surrounding the procedure that was followed.

    The Secretary of State needs to answer these in order to allay concerns in this House and elsewhere.

    It would appear that having initially not taken any action, when the story of the email broke on 8 October, the Secretary of State disciplined Ms Moore personally.

    The normal procedure is for the Permanent Secretary to discipline civil servants and special advisers, yet in this case the rebuke by the Permanent Secretary seems only to have been made after some delay, and only then because journalists were claiming that the Secretary of State had broken the rules on disciplinary action.

    This is a case in which the Secretary of State said that she had done wrong. The PM said that her action was horrible. But one in which ministers were determined from the outset that she should not lose her job.

    Just what does it take for a spin doctor to lose their job in this Government?

    – Why did the Secretary of State take it upon himself to protect her job before the Permanent Secretary had any chance to investigate?

    – Doesn’t all this show that the Secretary of State has indulged in grubby politics even as he sought to respond to Jo Moore’s disgraceful email?

    – And is it not the case that he clings to Jo Moore because he knows that if she goes, he is next in line?

    Later still of course we had Ms Moore’s apology.

    It took a week, it contained no direct apology to the families of those involved in the horrific events of September 11th, rather she seemed most concerned to apologise to the Government and Ministers.

    And then there was the manner of her apology.

    Any interview with a special adviser should be authorized – we do not know who did that nor do we know why Sky News was chosen initially as the sole recipient of the apology.

    And for many of us the most telling aspect was not the apology but the look on her face when she turned away from the cameras.

    She spun her way in and she has tried to spin her way out.

    But of course the email sent by Jo Moore on 11 September is not the only example we have of this culture of spin in Government – this canker of this culture of spin that lies at the heart of government.

    There are other examples from the DTLR.

    Ms Moore herself was involved in trying to persuade a junior civil servant to leak information to journalists aimed at discrediting Bob Kiley the London Transport Commissioner while he and the Secretary of State were involved in a dispute over the future of London Underground.

    That she did so was confirmed yesterday in a written answer at Hansard, col 94. Surely this is contrary to the code of conduct for special advisers yet no action was taken against her.

    Action was taken but instead of reprimanding his special adviser, the Secretary of State’s involvement was aimed at the Department’s Director of Information Alun Evans who had protested on behalf of his member of staff.

    5 days later the Director of Information was moved to another post.

    The question is did he leave the Department voluntarily. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to answer that today.

    I understand that the posts of Director of Information and Head of News in the Department are vacant and appointments are due to be made in the next few weeks.

    It would help to restore a degree of confidence among staff in the Department if the Secretary of State would today state categorically that Ms Moore will have no role whatsoever, will not be consulted or invited to comment, on those appointments.

    The Secretary of State must answer these questions if he is to clear up some of the confusion that surrounds these events.

    Because the Secretary of State has something of a record when it comes to press officers.

    While he was a minister at the then Department for Education and Employment, in 1997, Jonathan Haslam resigned, reportedly after a row with the Right Honourable gentleman who had asked him to issue a press release criticising the record of the previous government.

    The charge against the Secretary of State is that he has perpetuated the culture of spin at the heart of government by his connivance in the politicisation of press officers.

    He must also, however, answer the accusation that, whilst the Government outwardly professed to be as disgusted as the rest of us, they appear internally to have followed Ms Moore’s advice.

    Because in the immediate aftermath of the events of the 11th September a number of ‘bad news’ stories were indeed released.

    We all know that the, now infamous, councillor’s expenses story was indeed released the following day.

    According to press reports the Rt Hon Member for Greenwich and Woolwich insists that that the announcement in question was cleared for publication on September 10th.

    Yet, press reports also suggest that the release was, unusually, sent to the Local Government chronicle only an hour before their press deadline.

    Chris Mahony, News Editor of the Local Government chronicle puts it very well when he says “To be thinking of such things at such a time shows that these people’s minds are even weirder than we thought.”

    But September 12th also saw a release on pensions for councillors and the release of new planning guidance for the West Country, which will force the construction of 200,000 more buildings on green fields, irrespective of local wishes.

    On the 14th September the Government published exam results, which showed that standards in Maths amongst 11 year olds were actually getting worse.

    The 4th October saw the announcement of the cancellation of the proposed Picketts Lock athletics stadium, jeopardising the chances of our hosting the 2005 world athletics championships.

    And of course we have seen over the past few days yet more examples of the problem of spin.

    The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had to come to the House yesterday to defend herself against allegations of spin after issuing a significant press release on errors made in tests on sheep brains for evidence of BSE had been released to the press late one night with no press conference.

    But perhaps even more significant was the personal apology given yesterday in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald who had to apologise to the House.

    Not only for the fact that he had given an unclear answer to the House leading their lordships to believe that the number of special advisers had only gone up under Labour from 78 to 81 when in fact the number has increased from 38 under the last Conservative Government to 81, but he also had to apologise for the fact that his officials tried to persuade Hansard to change the written record.

    And now of course following the notorious email, the Government has had to appoint a city PR firm to do its spinning rather than Ms Moore – more taxpayers money being spent on the government’s image.

    […]

    But it is not only Opposition and Government MPs who have expressed their disgust at the attitude of Ms Moore and of Ministers in defending her – as any perusal of the letters pages of the newspapers since the event will confirm.

    … This issue goes beyond the actions of one government spin doctor.

    It is not just about what Ministers have referred to as a single mistake.

    It goes to the very heart of the approach this Government takes to the electorate and to Parliamentary democracy.

    It typifies a culture of spin that says whatever the issue spin matters more than substance.

    Little wonder that there is an attitude of cynicism to politics and politicians among the general public when they hear of actions such as this which tell them that the Government is more interested in losing a few announcements than it is in the feelings of people whose loved ones had died in the horrific tragedies of September 11th.

    And it strikes at the heart of a relationship that has underpinned and strengthened our governments over the centuries that essential relationship between the non-political civil servants, working hard with dedication whoever is in government and the politicians they serve.

    I wonder what decent hard-working civil servants think when they see Jo Moore keeping her job.

    This culture of spin brings government and politicians into disrepute. It tarnishes Parliament.

    These are indeed bad news stories.

    But in this whole sorry saga we have a bigger one.

    It is a bad news story that at a time when all thoughts should have been focused on support for our friends in the US, people will read in their newspapers that politicians were intent on pulling the wool over their eyes.

    It is a bad news story because, at a time when people needed clear leadership, straightforward talk and honesty from all in government – they had the sense that they were being deceived.

    It is a bad news story because at time that brought out the best in so many people, they heard that, in some of their politicians, it had brought out the worst.

    When our armed forces are risking their lives half way around the world, when we are seeking to rally public opinion during the difficult times that may lie ahead, the Government has a particular responsibility to place its conduct beyond reproach.

    In the matter of Jo Moore it has failed in that duty.

    Despite all of the available evidence, against the advice of senior members opposite and contrary to the better judgement of some members of its own Cabinet, the Government has decided to retain its confidence in her.

    In the process it has inflicted unnecessary damage on our national life.

    By her actions, Ms Moore has demeaned the whole notion of public service. By its failure to act against her, this Government has debased both politics and itself.

    I beg to move the motion.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2001 Speech on “No Place for Racism in the Conservative Party” at Asian of the Year Dinner

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2001 Speech on “No Place for Racism in the Conservative Party” at Asian of the Year Dinner

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, at the Asian of the Year dinner, on 25 October 2001.

    “It is a great pleasure for me to be here tonight to present the Asian of the year award for 2001. I would like to add once again my congratulations to Mr Gujral on winning that award. You typify so many of the values that I associate with British Asians, of hard work, enterprise and through your extensive charitable work, a strong commitment to helping the wider community. They are values that we all hold in common. This award is a tremendous achievement and I know I speak for all of us here when I say it is richly deserved.

    At the outset I would like to thank Jasbir Sachar, Managing Director of the Asian Who’s Who International for organising this event, that is firmly established as one of the high points of the British Asian calendar. Your annual publication serves as an essential work of reference about the British Asian community and, just as important, charts your success. So I am delighted to have been able to contribute the foreword to this year’s publication, as I am to receive a copy tonight.

    It is also a great honour for me to follow His Excellency Nareshwar Dayal, the High Commissioner of India, not least because of my own family links with India. In fact my father was born there – in Madras. It is a constant reminder to me of the closeness of the ties that bind so many of us with the sub-continent – ties that continue to grow stronger. That is something that I very much welcome and, as leader of the Conservative Party, wish to encourage and develop further. Of course, tonight’s event takes place against the backdrop of the military conflict that is raging in Afghanistan, a conflict in which our country is a fully committed coalition partner with the United States. Some two and a half weeks after the first bombing raids began it is worth reminding ourselves of our purpose and why it is so important that having started, we see it through.

    In our own country, in Northern Ireland, we have experienced thirty years of sustained terrorist violence and acts of cowardly evil. Hopefully, with the encouraging events of this week, we might now be able to look forward at last to a permanent end to violence there and a future for Northern Ireland based exclusively on democracy and consent.

    Yet nothing that we have been through here in any way prepared us for the scale of the atrocities that were carried out on 11th September in New York and Washington.

    Those attacks left over 7,000 people dead from over sixty countries. They included people of all religions– including Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims – and of none. They were the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated against our own country with hundreds of our fellow British citizens murdered. It must also rank as one of the worst terrorist outrages against countries such as Pakistan and India.
    They were attacks on us all and on the civilised values – democracy, freedom and the rule of law – that underpin our society.

    They could not go unpunished.

    Bin Laden and his Al Qu’ida network that planned and carried them out must be brought to justice, along with the Taleban regime that has harboured and sustained them.

    Let us be clear about one thing. This is not a war against Islam or the people of Afghanistan. It is a war against international terrorism, nothing more, nothing less. We must never allow Bin Laden to succeed in driving a wedge between Muslim countries and the west.

    Bin Laden and his supporters know no limits. There is no compromising with such fanatics. They simply have to be defeated.

    Some people argue that, yes, we must respond, but that the bombing has gone on for long enough and there should now be a pause – if only to allow essential humanitarian aid to get through to the Afghan people. I understand that view, but I cannot agree with it.

    Ending the humanitarian crisis is directly linked with military success. The biggest obstacle to delivering aid is the continued control of large parts of Afghanistan by the Taleban, who have intercepted aid, taxed it and sent some of it to market. For an effective aid programme to work the Taleban must fall. In its place there needs to be a broadly based government that is representative of the Afghan people and which will co-operate with the aid agencies. The window for that to happen is narrow, with most of the key passes into the country closed by the early New Year. So we must see the present action through.

    It is vital that this conflict is not allowed to sour relations between different communities here in Britain. All of us in public life have a responsibility to ensure that this does not happen.

    At the Conservative Conference a fortnight ago I said that, as Party Leader, I will be intolerant of those who are intolerant of others. I’ve demonstrated that already by the actions I have taken.

    I have also appointed Shailesh Vara as one of the Vice-Chairmen of the Conservative Party, Mohammed Riaz as my personal adviser on various race related issues, and Nirj Diva as my adviser on Asian issues in the European Parliament. Shailesh and Riaz were Conservative candidates at the last Election and Nirj is a Conservative MEP. All of them are first rate.

    I believe in a United Kingdom which is genuinely open and inclusive of all its citizens and in which racism and bigotry – of whatever kind – can have no place.

    Britain today is a diverse society, made up of many different groups, communities and cultural traditions. I believe that this is as a source of strength, providing our country with a richness of which we should all be proud.

    I want the United Kingdom to provide everybody with the same rights, the same obligations and the same levels of opportunity – a country where people are judged solely on their merits, whoever they are and wherever they come from.

    That is my view. It is also the clear and unequivocal position of the Conservative Party.

    It is a United Kingdom that respects differences, which enables us to hold on to the things that makes us distinctive but always allows us to come together as British. It is possible to be proud of your Asian roots, at the same time as being proud of your British heritage too. That is because whether we are Hindu or Sikh, Muslim or Christian, black, white or brown we are all as British as each other. It underpins our sense of being One Nation and the fact that the United Kingdom belongs to us all.

    And let us never forget that during the two world wars some five million soldiers from the sub-continent and the Afro-Caribbean countries fought side by side with British soldiers in the struggle for freedom. Many of them died. No – let us never forget.

    Tonight we are doing more than launching the latest edition of the Asian Who’s Who International. We are celebrating the fact that the story of British Asians is also one of the great British success stories of recent years. That is all the more impressive given the fact that so many British Asians came here with next to nothing. Many of those who were thrown out of Uganda in the 1972 – and I know some those present here tonight are in that category – had to leave literally with only the clothes they were wearing.

    Yet despite the handicaps and the obstacles businesses owned by the Asian community have prospered and employ many thousands of people.

    There is no doubt that you make an outstanding contribution to the strength, prosperity and success of the United Kingdom. And in so many aspects of our national life – business, the arts, the media and the professions – you play an increasingly prominent role.

    But I want your contribution to go much further. The blunt truth is we still have far too few British Asians, members of other ethnic communities, and for that matter, women actively involved in politics in our country. I want to encourage more of them into the mainstream of British political life.

    I appreciate the difficulties that there have been in the past. Political parties of all persuasions, not just the Conservative Party, have not always appeared attractive to the different ethnic groups in our society. That has begun to change. We have British Asians – Nirj Deva and Bashir Khanbhai as Conservative Members of the European Parliament. People like Narinda Saroop have done outstanding work for the Party over many years.

    We have come a long way. But I readily accept that we still have a long way to go. My aim is clear. It is to broaden the appeal of the Conservative Party for British Asians, and for members of all the different ethnic groups in Britain.

    There is no place, and never has been, in the Conservative Party for those who extol the virtues of a creed that demeans people on the basis of their ethnicity. There is no place for racism in the Conservative Party.

    I want the Conservative Party to reflect and represent the diversity of our national life. I want us to be a Party for all the people.

    That means attracting more Asians into the Conservative Party at all levels. I want British Asians to contribute to the major policy review that I launched earlier this week, to become involved in the constituencies, to get elected to Parliament, to serve in Conservative Governments and Cabinets and, yes, to lead our Party in the future.

    The Conservative Party has much to learn from the values that have underpinned your success – a belief in freedom, enterprise, tradition, education, individual responsibility, fulfilling our obligations to others and in public service. They are your values. They are Conservative values too.

    And let me make it abundantly clear. Under my leadership the Conservative Party will be open to everyone who shares our values.