Tag: Speeches

  • Jeffrey Donaldson – 2022 Statement on Death of Christopher Stalford

    Jeffrey Donaldson – 2022 Statement on Death of Christopher Stalford

    The statement made by Jeffrey Donaldson, the Leader of the DUP, on 20 February 2022.

    I am deeply saddened to learn of Christopher’s sudden death. He was not just an elected representative or a colleague, he was a friend.

    On behalf of the Party, I express my sympathies to Laura and the wider Stalford family on the loss of a husband, father, son and brother.

    I talked at length with Christopher on Friday night. He was passionate about Northern Ireland and wanted the best for his constituents. I was never to know how precious that conversation was to be.

    Most telling of all in that conversation was his pride in Laura and their children. He talked about his eldest child transferring to big school and the discussions that were ongoing in the home.

    Christopher was born to be a public representative. From his teenage years he was a regular contributor to politics both in the print and broadcast media. He was elected as a Belfast City Councillor in 2005 to represent the Laganbank area and then from 2014 represented the Balmoral area. Christopher was elected the High Sheriff of Belfast in 2010 and Deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast in 2013/14.

    In 2016, Christopher was elected to represent Belfast South in the Northern Ireland Assembly and from January 2020 served as the Principal Deputy Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    Christopher believed in stretching himself to build a genuinely shared future. He was confident in his unionism and his identity and was always prepared to provide leadership to keep Northern Ireland moving in the right direction.

    The Stalford family will be in our prayers as they mourn Christopher’s passing.

  • Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on an All-Party Delegation to Rhodesia

    Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on an All-Party Delegation to Rhodesia

    The statement made by Alec Douglas-Home, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 2 March 1972.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.

    I said that I would report further to the House on the possibility of an all-party delegation visiting Rhodesia. Mr. Smith has finally replied that he would feel unable to agree to the visit of the delegation proposed. He gives as his reason not only the strongly expressed opposition to the settlement of certain members of the proposed delegation, but also their alleged support for movements in Africa which make use of terrorist methods.

    Since both the Labour and Liberal Parties have stated that they are not prepared to change their nominations to the all-party delegation, a position which I quite understand, I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further.

    Mr. Hattersley

    Will the Foreign Secretary accept that this is not simply a matter affecting the Labour and Liberal Parties but is the cause of concern to the House as a whole? Indeed, will he further accept that since Mr. Smith’s message is indicative of Smith’s character and policy, the right hon. Gentleman’s statement is central to relations between Britain and the Rhodesian régime?

    In the light of that understanding, may I put three specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, having reported Mr. Smith’s message to the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what reply lie has sent to Mr. Smith’s impertinence? Second what conclusion does the Foreign Secretary draw from Mr. Smith’s attitude about the Rhodesian Front’s likelihood of honouring any bargain that may be struck between Salisbury and Whitehall?

    Third, does the Foreign Secretary realise that since he, unlike his predecessor, claims to have struck a bargain with the Rhodesian régime, he should be in a position to exercise some influence in Salisbury? When does he intend to do so?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I have always thought that if there was to be observation of the Pearce Commission from this House, that would be better done by an all-party delegation. I made that clear to Mr. Smith. I also made clear the fact that in this House it is the practice for parties to select their own members to take part in delegations and that therefore it was intolerable that the choice should be limited. Thus, my preference was for an all-party delegation, though Lord Pearce is getting on with his work successfully without observation.

    I will answer the three specific points the hon. Gentleman put to me. The answer to the first is that I have told Mr. Smith that I regret his decision. [Interruption.] The answer to the second, about the honouring of any bargain, is that that is a different matter in relation to the settlement that has been proposed; he must put the whole of his authority and party behind it if the settlement is to be brought into the Rhodesia Parliament.

    The answer to the third is that I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well that the only sanction I have—I hope he is not asking me to use it—is to withdraw the Pearce Commission, which is something neither he nor his right hon and hon. Friends want.

    Sir F. Bennett

    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be misleading to suggest that this represents an overall objection of hon. Members from this House going to Rhodesia? [Interruption.] Is it not a fact that very prominent right hon. Members from both sides of this Chamber, including one distinguished former Labour Minister and an equally prominent former Conservative Minister, have been to Rhodesia in the last few weeks?

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least some of us feel that the more that Lord Pearce is allowed to get on with his job—without interference from political sources, including those who favour a settlement and those who are opposed to one—the better?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    Yes. I have never thought that we should transfer our political differences from this House to Rhodesia, particularly while the Pearce Commission is there, or indeed at any time. It is true, of course, that hon. Members have been to Rhodesia in recent weeks.

    Mr. David Steel

    Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that, although he has been unable during these negotiations with Rhodesia to get Mr. Smith to accept a modest demand that an all-party delegation from this House be allowed to see what is happening as part of the test of acceptability which is being carried out, there is any real hope or promise of Mr. Smith, once the negotiations are over and the formal ties with this country are cut, accepting the more substantial demands contained in the agreement that has been concluded with him?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    Mr. Smith has accepted the proposals for a settlement—[Interruption.]—and has agreed to put his authority behind them in his own Parliament. Having done that, I should have thought that he must keep the agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: “Rubbish.”]

    Mr. Hastings

    Is not the first objective to ascertain the views of the Rhodesian people in this matter? Is that not the responsibility of this House as well as of the Government? Has anyone explained to my right hon. Friend or to the House how this delegation could possibly help?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    No, Sir, they have not, but if there were to have been a delegation, it should have been an all-party one.

    Miss Lestor

    Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly publish all the exchanges he has had with Ian Smith over this matter so that we may see whether or not the Foreign Secretary explained to Mr. Smith why I and many Members of my party believe that violence becomes inevitable—[HON. MEMBERS: “No.”]—and often legitimate, but only if all normal methods of democratic change are closed?

    Is he aware that the conduct of Ian Smith in Southern Rhodesia since the Pearce Commission went there demonstrates that this course is rapidly becoming the position? Will he acknowledge that if ever those who believe in equal rights in Southern Rhodesia are compelled to answer force with force, they will have been taught by masters who have been supported by the Foreign Secretary?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I will ignore the hon. Lady’s final remarks. I hope she will recognise that the whole purpose of this settlement is to enable peaceful democratic change to take place so that the Rhodesians should not have to resort to violence.

    Sir Gilbert Longden

    If my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be advantageous for an all-party delegation to go from this House to Rhodesia—though in my respectful submission Lord Pearce is doing very well without such a delegation—why not put them in an R.A.F. aeroplane, fly them to Salisbury and see what Mr. Smith does next?

    Mr. Thorpe

    While not wishing to see my Chief Whip detained without trial and therefore dissociating myself from the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not feel that, in fairness to the House, he should go further than expressing regret to Mr. Smith, which is the sentiment one expresses if one is unable to accept a supper invitation?

    Does he not think that he should make it clear that he received an undertaking from the two political parties that they would refrain from expressing an opinion publicly or from taking part in political activities while they were in Rhodesia and that he had accepted those undertakings as having been given in good faith?

    Does he not believe that he should reject the suggestion that the members of the proposed delegation support terrorist methods and are themselves alleged to be terrorist sympathisers? [Interruption.] Is he aware that if the Pearce Commission concludes that there is support for the proposals that this House should be asked to grant £5 million for 10 years to lift sanctions, grant independence and give recognition to the Smith régime, this House should be given an opportunity to see how the Pearce Commission has worked, prior to such a conclusion being reached?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I have already conveyed to Mr. Smith the two suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the last point he raised, I suggest we await the Pearce Report.

    Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House as well as hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite are deeply disappointed that the Smith régime has felt unable to accept the presence in Rhodesia of an all-party delegation from this House? Will he present our dissatisfaction to Mr. Smith over this?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I have told Mr. Smith that I supported the idea of an all-party delegation to observe the Pearce Commission working. I will certainly tell him that I think he has made a mistake in this matter.

    Mr. Roy Jenkins

    Is it not a fact that, contrary to the impression which the right hon. Gentleman gave in reply to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), which disparaged the value of an all-party delegation, the suggestion for an all-party delegation came specifically from the Foreign Secretary? Is it not the case, therefore, that his own suggestion has been rejected by Mr. Smith? Does not this conduct on the part of Mr. Smith affect the right hon. Gentleman’s mind about the value of any bargain that may be struck with Mr. Smith?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman was around when this was considered, but the position was that Mr. Smith rejected a request for a Labour Party delegation and a Liberal Party delegation. I have never been keen on Lord Pearce’s Commission being observed, but if it was to be observed—[Interruption.]—I agree that could have been better expressed, I meant it in the sense that Lord Pearce could get on with the work of the Commission perfectly well without any external observation—but if there were to be observation, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I said that it should be an all-party delegation, that was the best form. This has now been turned down.

    Mr. Roy Jenkins

    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he told Mr. Smith that he was not very keen on the proposition he was putting forward?

    Sir Alec Douglas-Home

    I told Mr. Smith that he ought to accept an all-party delegation. He has not done so.

  • Edward Heath – 1972 Statement on Interrogation Techniques (Parker Committee’s Report)

    Edward Heath – 1972 Statement on Interrogation Techniques (Parker Committee’s Report)

    The statement made by Edward Heath, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 2 March 1972.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors under the chairmanship of Lord Parker of Waddington. This report is published today; and copies are now available in the Vote Office. The Government have not found it necessary to omit any passage on grounds of security; and the report is published with only minor amendments which do not in any way affect the sense.

    The terms of reference of the Committee were to inquire whether, and if so in what respects, the procedures currently authorised for the interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism, and for their custody while subject to interrogation, require amendment. The Government are indebted to Lord Parker and his colleagues for the scrupulous care with which they have examined this very difficult subject.

    The Committee found itself unable to agree; and it has therefore submitted a majority report signed by Lord Parker and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), together with a minority report signed by Lord Gardiner.

    The majority find that the methods in question, which had been applied on a number of occasions in the past under successive Governments in various parts of the world, were applied in Northern Ireland in August, 1971, to 12 detainees, and in October to two more. They consider—and I quote—that

    “there is no doubt that the information obtained by these two operations directly and indirectly was responsible for the saving of lives of innocent citizens”.

    They conclude that the use of the methods involved could be justified in exceptional circumstances subject to further safeguards which they recommend. They consider, however, that the use of these techniques in some, if not all, cases would offend against English law; but they refrain from expressing any view about the position in Northern Ireland where legal proceedings which raise this issue are pending. Lord Gardiner in the minority report considers that these methods are objectionable in all circumstances.

    The Government, having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with particular reference to any future operations, have decided that the techniques which the Committee examined will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation.

    Mr. Harold Wilson

    Is the Prime Minister aware that, in accordance with our usual practices in these matters, I can confirm fully that the amendments made on security grounds were entirely marginal and made no difference to the sense of the report?

    Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed reports which have said that these techniques have not been used since the Parker Committee was set up? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is so? I do not think that it comes out in the report itself.
    Thirdly, while hon. Members will want to study the report and while every hon. Member faced with this very difficult problem will decide whether to accept in principle the argument of the majority or that of the minority, is the Prime Minister aware that I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, greatly welcome the announcement in the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman’s statement? It is a wise announcement in all the circumstances, and it may make more than a marginal difference to the possibility of stabilising and improving the situation in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that at the end of the two-day debate last November my right hon. and hon. Friends voted on this matter because of Compton, and, naturally, we are extremely pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this wise decision?

    The Prime Minister

    I can confirm that these techniques have not been used in cases other than those mentioned in the majority report; namely, the 12 in August, 1971 and the two in October, 1971.

    Mr. Grimond

    I, too, wish to congratulate the Government on their decision that these techniques should now be abandoned. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there must not be some disquiet about the fact that some of these techniques may have been contrary to English law? What is the position of soldiers under the Army Act who might have been required to take part in the application of these techniques when, possibly, their powers may have been in conflict as between English and Northern Irish law?

    The Prime Minister

    On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, as both the majority and the minority reports point out clearly, the techniques were used over a long period in the postwar years under Governments of both parties in this House. On the second part, as this matter is before the Northern Ireland courts at the moment, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any difficulties which might arise in that respect. Obviously this is a matter in which the Government have given thought to the position of Her Majesty’s forces. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Compton Report showed that these techniques were used by the R.U.C. under the authority of the Northern Ireland Government.

    Mr. Dodds-Parker

    Will my right hon. Friend say whether in criminal investigations it will still be possible to put a blanket over the head of an individual who is in custody when there are good reasons for maintaining concealment of identity?

    The Prime Minister

    A directive has been issued to the G.O.C., which, therefore covers the whole Army in Northern Ireland, in the sense of the statement that I have made. As for the use of techniques for non-interrogation, obviously from the point of view of security sometimes it is necessary for people to be asked to stand against a wall with their arms raised so that they may be searched to see whether they have weapons. That is a specific and limited use. As for putting a blanket over someone’s head, the Army has been instructed not to use that technique in any circumstances. The police are covered by the normal police regulations. If a person asks to be covered so that his identity should not be revealed in public, it is possible for that to happen.

    Mr. Mayhew

    While I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision, may I ask him whether he is aware of the substantial body of expert opinion which says that the technique called sensory isolation can cause mental distress for long periods thereafter and permanently in certain circumstances? Was this known to the Government when they approved this technique?

    The Prime Minister

    Both the majority and the minority reports discussed this in some detail, and there is obviously a conflict of medical evidence about it. Her Majesty’s Forces will of course continue to be trained in resistance to these techniques and, at the same time, training methods are being reviewed in regard to their application to Her Majesty’s Forces. But the general conclusion of the majority report is that it has not been possible to discover ill effects on Her Majesty’s Forces as a result of subjecting them to these techniques in training. But they also point out that a training position may prove to be different from a position in time of emergency or war.

    Mr. Woodhouse

    Does the Government’s decision to discontinue intensive interrogation of this kind apply only in Northern Ireland or to all future circumstances anywhere?

    The Prime Minister

    I must make it plain that interrogation in depth will continue but that these techniques will not be used. It is important that interrogation should continue. The statement that I have made covers all future circumstances. If a Government did decide—on whatever grounds I would not like to foresee—that additional techniques were required for interrogation, then I think that, on the advice which is given in both the majority and the minority reports, and subject to any cases before the courts at the moment, they would probably have to come to the House and ask for the powers to do it.

    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

    Although one welcomes the ending of these intolerable techniques, was not the most disquieting feature the fact that, whether they were known to the members of this Government or their predecessor, they were not known to the House or to the country? Is it not right that the procedure followed in interrogation in depth, even the one which is still being sanctioned, should be put into some written form and be discussed by and available to the public?

    The Prime Minister

    The recommendation of the majority report was that, if the techniques were to be continued in a limited form, it would be necessary to set down guidelines in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not think it would be possible or perhaps advisable that there should be issued as a public document any account of methods of interrogation which did not use these techniques. I am prepared to consider that, but I should have thought that as a security measure it is probably not advisable.

    Mr. Biggs-Davison

    Are not the holding of this inquiry, the publication of this report and my right hon. Friend’s statement today indicative of a civilised nation and an example to the world?

    The Prime Minister

    I think that the Government have come to the right conclusion in this matter. The majority report emphasises that the techniques had been used for a long time; and that in this particular case, in the sudden emergency of 9th August, they were used. In paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 the report sets out very clearly the advantages which were gained from that. But now that the situation is more a continuing one from the point of view of interrogation, I repeat that I think that the Government have come to the right conclusion.

    Mr. McManus

    Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this report will only further sap the confidence of the minority in all reports instituted by this House, since it appears to attempt to whitewash what went on, and that no welcome whatever will be forthcoming from the people whom I represent for the fact that the Government have now been shamed by force of public opinion into discontinuing barbaric practices?

    Would the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that this will call into further question the validity or usefulness of a tribunal which is now sitting? Will he particularly bear in mind that, if this sort of thing foreshadows the long-expected initiatives, they are bound, if they follow this sort of pattern, to be rejected outright by the minority?

    Finally, on the question of interrogation, will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal guarantee to the House that another form of interrogation, whereby soldiers go around remote parts of my constituency and ask people their religion, will cease forthwith?

    The Prime Minister

    I completely repudiate what the hon. Gentleman says. If he is claiming to speak for his constituents, perhaps he will prevail upon them to abandon the barbaric practices of the I.R.A. in murdering helpless individuals sitting by their own firesides.

    Mr. McManus

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister of England to stand in this House and accuse my constituents, without proof at all, of barbaric practices?

    Mr. Speaker

    I have heard nothing out of order.

    Mr. Tapsell

    If the interrogation procedures which have been used in past years, which the report confirms have saved innocent lives, are now to be discontinued, will it not be necessary very speedily to issue a new and clear code of practice to our Forces in Ulster in case a new emergency should arise in which interrogation in depth should again be necessary?

    The Prime Minister

    I repeat that interrogation in depth will continue when it is deemed right, but these techniques will not be used for this purpose. We must distinguish between these two things. I would repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), that if any Government did come to the decision, after the most careful thought, that it was necessary to use some or all of these techniques, it would be necessary to come to the House first before doing so.

    Mr. Harold Wilson

    I thank the Prime Minister for his answer to my earlier question, when he said that these techniques had not been used during the period following the Compton Report. Is he aware that I have sent the Home Secretary some alleged evidence—I cannot evaluate it—purporting to show that there has been a continuation of this kind of practice? Will he be prepared to set against what he has said any findings which the Home Secretary may give him? Is he aware that only today there have been rather serious allegations of a continuation of practices—whether these specific ones or the others which were not the subject of the Prime Minister’s announcement I am not certain?

    Do we take it from his statement that the Prime Minister has no present intention of introducing legislation in this matter—for example, possibly to validate past actions—at any rate until the result of cases now pending in the courts becomes known to the House?

    The Prime Minister

    Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. We have no intention at the moment of introducing legislation to deal with this matter by way of an indemnity. Naturally, we should like to see the results of any decision in the Northern Ireland courts. Then, if we judged it necessary, we would naturally raise this matter in the House.

    On the first part of the question, I too have been sent from time to time a number of allegations, and I have immediately asked that all of them be investigated. The G.O.C. has always said that any allegation will immediately be investigated. The problem is to get those who make the allegations to come forward and make them to any inquiry or to give their own evidence about the allegations. They are prepared, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to set them down on paper and sometimes to make them to other people, but they are very slow to come forward to make them to any inquiry. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that these allegations are quite separate from the question of the 14 cases in which the techniques were used for deep interrogation.

  • Ray Carter – 1972 Speech on the Protection of Otters

    Ray Carter – 1972 Speech on the Protection of Otters

    The speech made by Ray Carter, the Labour MP for Birmingham Northfield, in the House of Commons on 29 February 1972.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the protection of otters.

    This is not the first occasion on which a Bill has been introduced for the protection of otters—[interruption.]

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. Will hon. Members please refrain from conversing with one another? Those who wish to talk beyond the Bar might withdraw.

    Mr. Carter

    A similar Bill was introduced in 1969 by Mr. Edwin Brooks, the then Member for Bebington, Unfortunately, it failed to obtain a Second Reading.

    When the first Bill was introduced about two years ago there had arisen a sudden awareness of the precarious existence of the British otter. Otter hunts which had existed for centuries on a plentiful supply of otters were finding on more and more occasions that a day’s hunting would conclude not only with no kills but with no sightings either. Between 1900 and 1957 hunts had on average for every hundred hunting days found between 65 and 72 otters, but by 1967 the figure had fallen to 43. The count at otter hunting, I am assured, is the only reliable method of determining the precise otter population. As a result of this dramatic decline in the otter population, many hunts voluntarily agreed to cease hunting.

    The reasons for the decline in the otter population are numerous. It is claimed that the very severe winter of 1962–63 destroyed a large percentage of the population, including many young and female otters. The increasing use of inland waterways for recreational purposes is also believed to have had a deleterious effect on the otter population. Yet again, the rise in use, and hence in residual levels, of pesticides and insecticides in our inland waterways affects the fertility of the otter to a point where reproduction has been seriously reduced.
    Quite apart from these hazards, the otter is one of those animals that have been pursued by man through the ages in the belief that it is a pest and a destroyer of fisheries. This constant harrying of the otter population must have had an effect on its number, for, unlike most mammals, it has no breeding season, and it is always possible that a female with a litter or about to breed will be killed, which has a disproportionate effect on the otter population.

    Of course, the need to protect the otter, like any other animal, hangs on the desire of the public to preserve our natural heritage, and whilst there are increasing signs that there is a growing volume of opinion in support of a policy of conservation, Governments of all persuasions have so far done precious little in terms of legislation. Yet the uniqueness and attractiveness of the otter, our largest water-based mammal, have been introduced to millions of people who have never even seen the animal through the books of the late Gavin Maxwell and Henry Williamson. Town dwellers who look for mournful hours into the polluted waters of urban rivers for some sign of life are at the very least able to draw encouragement from the fact that further up stream life does exist which one day may return to all our waterways. But even this upstream life is now threatened, largely for the reasons that I have given.

    So precarious is the otter’s existence that the World Wild Life Trust and other eminent bodies have put it on their list of animals in greatest danger of extinction. Just before I had the opportunity of introducing the Bill I received a visit from the R.S.P.C.A., which has added its support, with all other natural history bodies, to measures and efforts to help the otter and save it from extinction.

    Anglers who have for centuries regarded it as one of their natural enemies, to be routed out and destroyed at all costs, are now changing their minds and rallying to its aid. Mr. Ben Pond, a leading naturalist and river keeper on the Trent and Stour, was reported in the Angler as saying:

    “An otter takes what it needs and that is little enough. People don’t seem to realise the good they do in a fishery. I was keeper on the Trent and Stour for 24 years and assure you that apart from eels and other enemies of the fishery otters eat thousands of lampreys that would otherwise feed on fish spawn”.

    A similar view is adopted by the overwhelming number of river authorities in England and Wales. A questionnaire was recently sent to 29 such authorities, and not one considered the otter to be a pest. One fairly typical response from a river authority is as follows:

    “The general feeling is that the otter does little damage to our fisheries. Most bailiffs report that they have not seen otters for a long time and feel sure that they are becoming scarce in Cornwall”.

    Those are the views of the Cornwall River Authority.

    Another authority, the South-West Wales River Authority, said:

    “The authority’s attitude to the otter is that it is an animal which should be conserved.”

    So much for the long-held view that the otter is a pest to be equated with the rat or the grey squirrel and so much for the claim of the hunters of the otter that their actions are not just sport but a necessary pursuit of one of man’s natural enemies.

    It would be deceitful of me to try to obscure from the House an underlying motive in this Bill, which is the effective banning of otter hunting unless specifically allowed for the purposes of control. I believe from all that I have read of otter hunting that it is a thoroughly inhumane practice which, if allowed to go unchecked, could pursue the otter into extinction. I mentioned earlier the voluntary restraint of some hunts in response to a request from a master of otter hounds temporarily to discontinue hunting. Unfortunately, there is now ample evidence that this self-denial has broken down, and numerous reports have come in from anglers that hunts, instead of breaking off before the kill, are going through right to the brutal end.

    Like many other animals that have gone before it, therefore, the British otter is now in an extremely critical stage of existence. Unless immediate action is taken future generations might be deprived of the sight of an altogether indispensable part of our water life. No more timely reminder of the precarious nature of the otter’s existence could have occurred than the report in a Sunday newspaper that some otter hunts, for want of otters, had switched to hunting wild mink classified as pests.

    Two years have elapsed since the last attempt was made to classify the otter as a protected animal. Should this attempt fail, it is conceivable that the need for a third will have been removed, the otter having disappeared from rural and water life.

    Mr. R. T. Page (Northampton)

    I rise to oppose this Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: “Shame”]—not in the least because I am less anxious to preserve the otter than my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter).

    I believe that a balance of nature is deeply important in our country and that the otter plays that part. Certainly at the present level of the otter population I am completely convinced that what the otter does is vastly more for good than harm. If it became very plentiful maybe it would be a menace to fisheries, but it is not so now. The question is not whether it should be preserved but how. If we abolished otter hunting we would abolish the one wide-ranging organisation which has an interest in preserving the otter.

    Mr. Carter

    Rubbish.

    Mr. Paget

    To some of my hon. Friends this may not be apparent, but we have eliminated the wild deer in this country. Wild deer exist nowhere except where there is a pack of deerhounds. The farmer cannot be prevented from guarding his crops unless there is some organisation that will compensate him. So we have the wild deer surviving only when it is hunted. Very much the same applies to the game birds, the pheasant and the partridge. They are becoming rare. They approach extinction except where they are preserved, and they are preserved because of hunting. I think the objects of my hon. Friend and I are exactly the same, but I do not think that he will serve those objects which we both have in mind by eliminating the one organised and active group of otter preservers which exists in this country.

    Mr. Carter

    Rubbish.

     

  • Robert Cooke – 1972 Speech on Public Service Broadcasting

    Robert Cooke – 1972 Speech on Public Service Broadcasting

    The speech made by Robert Cooke, the Conservative MP for Bristol West, in the House of Commons on 23 February 1972.

    I beg to move.

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the greater freedom of public service broadcasting; and for purposes connected therewith.
    At present, all broadcasting is just that, and until the spoken and televised word are as freely available as the printed word some element of public service will remain.

    I seek to provide for greater freedom within the existing framework and to modify that framework in such a manner as to pave the way to the ultimate freedom for broadcasting which the Press in Britain now enjoys.

    When the printing press was invented, the church was against it because it helped to disseminate knowledge and spread education beyond the closely guarded confines of church and court life. There are still some clergy today who are against local radio, though their reasons remain obscure. Radio has been a means of mass communication for half a century, yet it retains many of the shackles that it acquired at the outset due to public and parliamentary fear that it would be misused. I suspect that some of the heirs and successors of those timid and suspicious churchmen of centuries ago sit in this House, and I have noted the suspicion or caution with which some hon. Members approach any proposal for the extension of mass communications. They are not confined to one side of the House.

    That is why with the arrival of television, which is the ultimate in powerful and intrusive means of reaching every household, it was regarded as being too dangerous to be let out of the hands of those to whom radio was entrusted 50 years ago. Later we created the I.T.A. and the companies which work within its framework, in the affairs of one of the smallest of which I have some experience and interest. It is not they who are under attack today, but the massive and in some ways rather splendid bureaucracy that, alas, the B.B.C. has become.

    I recognise that the B.B.C. produces a vast quantity of first-rate material, and long may that continue, but the B.B.C. problem undoubtedly exists and must be tackled. One reads in this morning’s newspapers of a massive shake-up in its current affairs department. Resignations are talked of. There is a report of a savage attack by a union on administrative waste at the top. There is a report of a settlement of a libel case involving the B.B.C., and the number of public apologies made by the corporation for its actions have increased greatly in the last 18 months. It has set up a special complaints committee, but with a fanfare of publicity and somewhat narrow terms of reference.

    It is against this background of the B.B.C. problem and the need to reorganise independent television long before 1976, when the new pattern of contracts and, one hopes, two channels instead of one will emerge. It is time to set up a small group to report within a year on the future of broadcasting as a whole.

    My Bill provides for a review of broadcasting by a group of not more than seven nor fewer than three persons, at least one of whom shall be a woman and one of whom shall be under the age of 45, appointed by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, subject to the affirmative Resolution of this House so that the House will have absolute control of its composition. My Bill defines its terms of reference. It would seek to modify the existing framework in such a way as to give a greater number of separate originators of programmes greater freedom to express divergent views, and, broadly, to place broadcasting on the same footing as the national and local Press. The I.T.A. would be known as the Television Authority, with two channels served by separate competing companies preserving regional character, with ample opportunity for clash of view. Indeed, by extending the opportunities for coverage of controversy of a national or local character, public participation would be vastly increased.

    The television authority would continue to exert an influence over the programme companies. The companies would continue to be financed by advertising. The same disciplines over them would apply via the authority as applies at present. I would not preclude in my Bill the possibility of a company which did not comply with the reasonable wishes of the authority finding itself fined for its malpractices, which has not been happening recently but could, I believe, happen if the House would give my Bill the force of law in due course.

    In the case of the B.B.C., to some people even to suggest change is like advocating the demolition of West-minister Abbey. I am asking my review body to consider the possibility of a broadcasting corporation receiving licence fees as at present but augmented by clean sponsorship; that is, not allowing any sponsor to make a personal appearance or to advertise but merely to have the name of an organisation prepared to sponsor a programme attached to it, and only after the programme has been produced, so that there could be no collusion between the sponsor and the programme producers. The corporation would have responsibility for transmission, as the B.B.C. does now, but Channel 1 and Channel 2 Television, should replace B.B.C.1 and B.B.C.2 and they should be completely separate, each with its own policy and views on current affairs and matters of that kind. They could be relied upon then to produce a different but nevertheless balanced clash of views.

    I believe that the present situation gives the B.B.C. far too great an exclusive artistic patronage but that with two channels one could get divergence of view and much wider scope for artistic patronage. So many other benefits flow from having two quite separate channels that I need not detail them here.

    Lastly, I come to the question of overseas services, which would be replaced by a new corporation, Radio-Television Great Britain, which would broadcast into Europe and into the world at large with material drawn from all available sources—B.C.1, B.C.2, T.A.1 and T.A.2; and similarly with radio. I believe that in this way Britain’s voice abroad would be far more representative than it is at present. It is within this framework, and with the knowledge that many more channels of communications will shortly be possible by means of cable to every household, that the review should be conducted. There could be 60 channels via cable to each household, revolutionising the means of communication and taking some of the burden off the far-stretched postal services.

    I do not believe that a better future for broadcasting lies in councils, committees or commissions to control and confine the talents of those who work in radio or television. We talk a good deal in this House of the right of freedom of speech.

    This Bill is designed to help us find a way to confer that freedom upon those who broadcast, in the belief that freedom of speech and clash of view is where the real safeguard of the truth lies.

    Finally, my Bill is a kind of backbencher’s Green Paper, a basis for discussion. I do not imagine for a moment that the House will be unanimous about all its details, but the central theme, about which we must all agree, is that freedom of speech and communication is the greatest possible safeguard of the truth.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the Munich Security Conference

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech at the Munich Security Conference

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 19 February 2022.

    Ambassador Ischinger,

    Secretary-General, dear Jens,

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    The very reason why our Union was created is to put an end to all European wars. Thus, the world has been watching in disbelief as we face the largest build-up of troops on European soil since the darkest days of the Cold War. Because the events of these days could reshape the entire international system. Ukraine has just celebrated 30 years of independence. There is an entire generation of Ukrainians born and bred in a free country. They are children of democracy. But now, they are confronted, on a daily basis, with external aggression and interference. Some of them have lost relatives or classmates in the Donbas war. They are faced again with the prospect of conscription, to fight a war that they do not want, but that Moscow might impose on them. This is what the Kremlin’s policies mean in practice: to instil fear, and call it security; to deny 44 million Ukrainians from deciding freely about their own future; to deny a free country’s right to independence and self-determination. And the consequences of this approach matter well beyond Ukraine.

    The Kremlin is not only trying to undermine the entire European security architecture, the Helsinki principles that have made all European countries safer, including Russia. It is also violating the UN Charter, where it states that countries ‘shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.’ We cannot let this stand.

    We are facing a blatant attempt to rewrite the rules of our international system. One only has to read the recent communiqué issued by Russian and Chinese leaders. They seek a ‘new era’, as they say, to replace the existing international order. They prefer the rule of the strongest to the rule of law, intimidation instead of self-determination, coercion instead of cooperation. We still hope that peace will prevail and that diplomacy will take us there.

    Allow me to address how Europe can support this work. First, we should be ready to respond. We – the EU and its transatlantic partners – have been preparing a robust package of financial and economic sanctions, including on energy and cutting-edge technology. If the Kremlin strikes, we can impose high costs and severe consequences on Moscow’s economic interests. The Kremlin’s dangerous thinking, which comes straight out of a dark past, may cost Russia a prosperous future.

    Second, diversification. A strong European Union cannot be so reliant on an energy supplier that threatens to start a war on our continent. Gazprom is deliberately trying to store and deliver as little as possible while prices and demand are skyrocketing. A strange behaviour for a company. We must diversify both our suppliers and our energy sources. This work is already underway. We have reached out to our partners and friends across the globe. And today, I can say that even in case of full disruption of gas supply by Russia we are on the safe side for this winter. And in the medium and long term, we are doubling-down on renewables. This will increase Europe’s strategic independence on energy.

    Third, supporting democracy in Ukraine. For seven years now, the Russian leadership has tried to destabilise Ukraine: Hybrid war, cyberattacks, disinformation – you name it. Yet, the country is now stronger than seven years ago. Because it has chosen the path of democracy and the friendship of other democracies. Think again about the youth of Ukraine, the post-Soviet generation. They know that their democracy is not perfect. But it is perfectible, and is getting stronger year after year. This is what makes it stand out from autocracy. Thriving democracies are the autocrats’ greatest fear. Because their propaganda fails, when citizens are empowered by the reporting of independent media and the free exchange of ideas. Because free citizens speak truth to power. Because trust and confidence are more sustainable than control and coercion. And this is exactly why Europe is supporting Ukraine’s path to democracy. It makes Ukraine a better place to live for its people and a better neighbour for both the European Union and Russia.

    My fourth and final point is about unity. Since the start of this Kremlin-made crisis, the European Union and the transatlantic community are fully aligned and united. We are supporting Ukraine to withstand the enormous pressure from Moscow. When the Russian government tried to divide us, over and over again, we have responded with one voice and a common message. This has been possible also thanks to you, dear Jens. You always pushed us to focus on what we have in common. You have shown that the European Union and NATO stand side by side. Not only because we share members and allies, but because we share values: freedom, democracy, independence. The very values that are at stake in this crisis.

    And this is why it makes me very proud and happy to announce that you are this year’s Kleist award winner. You have come a long way to reach this high office. When you were young, you were the head of the young socialists in Norway, an organisation that – at the time – was certainly not known as a supporter of NATO. Young Jens used his charm and leadership to turn the Young Norwegian Socialist around. As Prime Minister of Norway, you, Jens, had to deal with Russia on a regular basis. Actually, by then, Lavrov was already being Lavrov. And yet, you managed with skill to resolve a decades-long territorial dispute in the Barents Sea.

    Dear Jens,

    You have always been a man of dialogue and a believer in the transatlantic bond. In almost ten years at the helm of NATO, you always carried the flame of this unique alliance. Nobody worked harder than you for the transatlantic alliance. You have pushed relentlessly to strengthen our unity. This is why no one deserves this year´s Kleist award more than you do.

    Congratulations, dear Jens.

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Speech at the Munich Security Conference

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Speech at the Munich Security Conference

    The speech made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 19 February 2022.

    Ambassador Ischinger, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s great to be here once again, after an absence of I think five years, at this very important security conference, which has helped to make this city a symbol of the unity of the West, of the strength of the Atlantic alliance and the vision of a Europe whole and free.

    And at this moment of extreme danger for the world, it has seldom been more vital to preserve our unity and resolve, and that was the theme of my discussion last night with fellow leaders, including President Biden, President Macron, Chancellor Scholz and Prime Minister Draghi, as well as the leaders of NATO and the EU.

    And as I said to President Putin during our last conversation, we in the UK still hope that diplomacy and dialogue may yet succeed.

    But we also have to be unflinchingly honest about the situation today.

    When over 130,000 Russian troops are gathering on the borders of Ukraine, and when more than 100 battalion tactical groups threaten that European country.

    We must be united against that threat because we should be in no doubt what is at stake here.

    If Ukraine is invaded and if Ukraine is overwhelmed, we will witness the destruction of a democratic state, a country that has been free for a generation, with a proud history of elections.

    And every time that Western ministers have visited Kyiv, we’ve assured the people of Ukraine and their leaders that we stand four-square behind their sovereignty and independence.

    How hollow, how meaningless, how insulting those words would seem if – at the very moment when their sovereignty and independence is imperilled – we simply look away.

    If Ukraine is invaded the shock will echo around the world and those echoes will be heard in East Asia and they will be heard in Taiwan.

    When I spoke to the Prime Ministers of Japan and Australia this week, they left me in no doubt that the economic and political shocks would be felt on the far side of the world.

    So let me be clear about the risk.

    The risk now is that people will draw the conclusion that aggression pays and that might is right.

    So we should not underestimate the gravity of this moment and what is at stake.

    As I speak to you today, we do not fully know what President Putin intends but the omens are grim and that is why we must stand strong together.

    The UK has worked with the European Union and the United States to put together the toughest and strongest package of sanctions, and I spoke recently to President Ursula von der Leyen to discuss the measures prepared by the EU, in the closest coordination with our own.

    And if Russia invades its neighbour, we will sanction Russian individuals and companies of strategic importance to the Russian state; and we will make it impossible for them to raise finance on the London capital markets; and we will open up the matryoshka dolls of Russian-owned companies and Russian-owned entities to find the ultimate beneficiaries within.

    And if President Putin believes that by these actions he can drive NATO back or intimidate NATO, he will find that the opposite is the case.

    Already the UK and our allies are strengthening the defences of the eastern flank of NATO.

    We are increasing the British contribution to Exercise COLD RESPONSE by sending our newest aircraft carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, and 3 Commando Brigade.

    We are doubling our presence in Estonia to nearly 2,000 troops; we have increased our presence in Poland to 600 troops by sending 350 Marines from 45 Commando; we have increased our presence in the skies over south-eastern Europe with another six Typhoons based in Cyprus; we are sending warships to the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea; and I have placed another 1,000 troops on stand-by to respond to any humanitarian emergency, which we all fear is increasingly likely.

    And while the most alarming and visible threat is the massing of Russian land forces on Ukraine’s borders, look at the naval build-up in the Black Sea, which threatens to blockade Ukraine; look at the massive cyber attacks and the incoming tide of disinformation.

    This crisis extends into every domain, which is why the UK is providing NATO with more land, sea and air forces, and it is because we feared a crisis like this, that we were already engaged in the biggest increase in defence investment for a generation, spread across conventional capabilities and the new technologies that are ever more important to our collective defence.

    And I’m proud to say that since Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time and annexed Crimea in 2014, we have been helping Ukraine, training 22,000 troops and, in recent months, in response to the threat, we have been among the nations to send defensive weaponry in the form of 2,000 anti-tank missiles.

    I’m glad that we have been joined in this by the United States, by Poland and by our Baltic allies, and that many other nations and the EU have, like the UK, helped to strengthen Ukraine’s economy.

    Britain will always stand up for freedom and democracy around the world, and when we say that our commitment to European security is immovable and unconditional, our deeds show that we mean our words.

    We are making the biggest contribution to NATO of any European ally because we understand the importance of collective security, and just as our European friends stood by us after the Russian state used a chemical weapon in Salisbury, so Britain will stand by you.

    But we must accept that even these measures by the UK and our allies: draconian sanctions, rinsing out dirty money, the intensification of NATO’s defences, fortifying our Ukrainian friends, they may not be enough to deter Russian aggression.

    It is therefore vital that we learn the lessons of 2014.

    Whatever happens in the next few days and weeks, we cannot allow European countries to be blackmailed by Russia, we cannot allow the threat of Russian aggression to change the security architecture of Europe, we cannot permit a new Yalta or a new division of our continent into spheres of influence.

    We must now wean ourselves off dependence on Putin’s oil and gas.

    I understand the costs and complexities of this effort and the fact this is easier said than done, so I am grateful for Chancellor Scholz’s assurances about Nord Stream 2, but the lessons of the last few years, and of Gazprom’s obvious manipulation of European gas supply, cannot be ignored.

    We must ensure that by making full use of alternative suppliers and technology, we make Russia’s threats redundant.

    That will be the work of the months and years to come, as well as the necessary and overdue steps that we in the UK must take to protect our own financial system.

    And now we need to prepare ourselves for the Russian playbook of deception that governs every operation of this kind.

    There will be a cascade of false claims about Ukraine, intended to spread confusion almost for its own sake,

    and even now there are plans being laid for staged events, spinning a web of falsehoods designed to present any Russian attack as a response to provocation.

    We’ve already witnessed a fake military withdrawal, combined with staged incidents that could provide a pretext for military action.

    We knew this was coming, we’ve seen it before – and no-one should be fooled.

    And we have to steel ourselves for the possibility of a protracted crisis, with Russia maintaining the pressure and searching for weaknesses over an extended period, and we must together refuse to be worn down.

    What Europe needs is strategic endurance, and we should focus our energies on preserving our unity and on deepening trans-Atlantic cooperation.

    But for that to work, we must also be prepared to devote the necessary resources to carry a greater share of the burden of preserving our continent’s security, and to demonstrate that we are in it for the long haul.

    For now, we should continue to do everything we can to pursue the path of peace and dialogue.

    There is a way forward, if President Putin is minded to take it: there is a discussion to be had about the threats that he claims to see because in reality as we all know, those threats are an illusion.

    They are the product of the Kremlin’s chronic but misguided view of NATO as a supposedly encircling and intimidating alliance.

    This is not NATO’s function: NATO is a peaceful and defensive alliance and we are willing to work with President Putin to demonstrate that point and to give him the reassurances that he may need.

    We could point out that until he invaded Ukraine for the first time in 2014, NATO did not permanently station any troops anywhere east of Germany and it was as recently as 2017 that the US, the UK and other NATO allies established the “enhanced forward presence” to protect Poland and the Baltic states.

    Even then, the total deployment of fewer than 5,000 troops posed no conceivable threat to Russia, and it is only in the last few weeks, in response to the current crisis, that we have dispatched reinforcements, though still in numbers that constitute no possible threat.

    Until 2014, European allies were cutting their defence budgets and shrinking their armed forces, perhaps faster than was safe or wise.

    And to the extent that this has changed it is because of the actions of President Putin and the tension he has created.

    If NATO forces are now closer to Russia’s border, it is in response to his decisions and the justified concerns they have provoked among our allies.

    And there are many things said about what may or may not have been said in the closed-door meetings of three decades ago, as the Berlin wall fell and Germany reunited.

    But there is no doubt that we all agreed legal obligations to protect the security of every country in Europe.

    And what happened in those amazing years was the dissolution of the Iron Curtain and the fulfilment of the vision of a Europe whole and free, it was one of the most incredible moments of my lifetime.

    As nations at the heart of our continent regained their liberty, and their sovereign right to control their own destiny and seek their own alliances.

    We will not abandon the hope and impulse of that era, made possible by the courage of millions of ordinary Europeans.

    That is why NATO opened its doors to 14 states after 1999, and we cannot allow our open door to be slammed shut.

    But if dialogue fails and if Russia chooses to use violence against an innocent and peaceful population in Ukraine, and to disregard the norms of civilised behaviour between states, and to disregard the Charter of the United Nations, then we at this conference should be in no doubt that it is in our collective interest that Russia should ultimately fail and be seen to fail.

    I believe that in preparing to invade Ukraine, a proud country whose armed forces now exceed 200,000 personnel, considerably more expert in combat today than in 2014, President Putin and his circle are gravely miscalculating.

    I fear that a lightning war would be followed by a long and hideous period of reprisals and revenge and insurgency, and Russian parents would mourn the loss of young Russian soldiers, who in their way are every bit as innocent as the Ukrainians now bracing themselves for attack.

    And if Ukraine is overrun by brute force, I fail to see how a country encompassing nearly a quarter of a million square miles – the biggest nation in Europe apart from Russia itself could then be held down and subjugated forever.

    After a generation of freedom, we’re now staring at a generation of bloodshed and misery.

    I believe that Russia would have absolutely nothing to gain from this catastrophic venture and everything to lose, and while there is still time, I urge the Kremlin to de-escalate, to disengage its forces from the frontier and to renew our dialogue.

    Every nation at this conference shares a vision of a secure and prosperous Europe of sovereign states, deciding their own destiny and living without fear or threat.

    And that vision of course extends to Russia, a nation whose cultural patrimony we revere, and whose sacrifice in the struggle against fascism was immeasurable.

    Russia has as much right as any other country to live in peace and security, and we should never cease to emphasise that Russia has nothing to fear from our vision, which threatens and marginalises no-one.

    And as we come together in unity and resolve, we must also show wisdom and moderation, because it is precisely by that unity that we show today that we have the best chance even now, at this 11th hour, of averting disaster and ensuring that good sense can still prevail.

    And it is that message of unity that we must send from this conference today.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Ukraine and Threat from Russia

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on Ukraine and Threat from Russia

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 16 February 2022.

    Thank you Madam President,

    Honourable Members,

    The very reason why our Union was created is to put an end to all European wars. So it is particularly painful for me to address you today, as we face the largest build-up of troops on European soil since the darkest days of the Cold War. The people of Ukraine are bravely trying to get on with their lives. But many of them keep emergency bags by their front doors, with basic clothes and important documents, in case they have to rush away from home. Others have stockpiled food cans to prepare for the worst. Some have even set up shelters in their basements. These are not stories from the 1940s. This is Europe in 2022. And this is happening because of a deliberate policy of the Russian leadership. Ukraine is a sovereign country. It is making choices about its own future. But the Kremlin does not like this, and so it threatens war. This is the essence of the current escalation. And despite the signs of hope we saw yesterday, this it is something we simply cannot accept.

    In the last seven years, Ukraine has suffered from the Kremlin’s constant aggression. But despite that heavy burden, Ukraine has come such a long way. It has taken important steps to fight corruption, rebuilt its infrastructure, created new jobs for its talented youth. Our Union has accompanied them, putting together the largest support package in our history. Of course, the people of Ukraine know that their democracy still has some flaws and issues to deal with. But Ukraine today is a stronger, freer and more sovereign country than in 2014. And this is precisely why the Kremlin is threatening it again.

    We stand firm with Ukraine. The idea that the Kremlin should decide what Ukrainians can or cannot desire – we simply cannot accept. The idea of spheres of influence are ghosts of the last century. This crisis is about Ukraine – and more. It is about what it means to be a sovereign, independent and free country in the 21st century. It is about everyone’s right to live free from fear. It is about every country’s right to determine its own future. And this is the message that our Union is passing to the Kremlin.

    Like everyone in this room, I truly hope that the Kremlin will decide not to unleash further violence in Europe. Yesterday, Russia was certainly sending conflicting signals. On the one hand, authorities announce Russian troop pullbacks. On the other hand, the Duma votes for the formal recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent republics. Diplomacy has not yet spoken its last words. It is good to hear yesterday’s commitment to the Minsk Agreement. President Macron and Chancellor Scholz have travelled to Kyiv and Moscow. Several others are also speaking to both sides. I am constantly exchanging with all of them, as well as with President Biden, Prime Minister Trudeau and Prime Minister Johnson. The Transatlantic Community has for a long time not been so united. Let me just mention one recent episode.

    Earlier this month, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov wrote 36 letters to each and every Member State of the European Union and NATO Ally, with a series of demands. He received two letters in return: One from Josep Borrell on behalf of the European Union, and one from Jens Stoltenberg on behalf of NATO. Once again, the Russian government tried to divide us. But their attempt failed. The European Union and its transatlantic partners are united in this crisis. And our call on Russia is crystal clear: do not choose war. A path of cooperation between us and Russia is still possible. But let us stay vigilant. Despite yesterday’s news, NATO has not yet seen signs of any Russian troop reduction. And should the Kremlin choose violence against Ukraine, our response will be strong and united. The European Commission and the EEAS have been working closely with all Member States to prepare a robust and comprehensive package of potential sanctions. And we have worked in close coordination with our friends in the US, the UK and Canada. Let me say that in these weeks we have built a unity of purpose that is truly remarkable, both within the EU and with our partners. In case of a Russian aggression, Europe’s reaction will be swift and robust. We are not just talking about freezing assets and banning travel for Russian individuals. Russia’s strategic interest is to diversify its one-sided economy and to close its current gaps. But for this, they need technologies in which we have a global leadership. High-tech components for which Russia is almost entirely dependent on us. Our sanctions can bite very hard, and the Kremlin knows this well.

    We are also ready in case that the Russian leadership decides to weaponise the energy issue. At a time of high demand, Gazprom is restricting its gas supplies to Europe. A ten-year low in storage, no sales on the spot market. This behaviour has already damaged Russia’s credibility as a reliable energy supplier. We are currently in talks with a number of countries that are ready to step up their exports of liquefied natural gas to the EU. This resulted in January in record deliveries of LNG gas – more than 120 vessels and 10 bcm of LNG. On top, since the annexation of Crimea, we have increased the number of LNG terminals. We have reinforced our pan-European pipeline and electricity interconnector network. And the good part is that these investments in infrastructure will in future be the backbone of green hydrogen supply. During the last weeks, we have looked into all possible disruption scenarios in case Russia decides to partially or completely disrupt gas supplies to the EU. And I can say that our models show that we are now rather on the safe in this winter. On top of this, we have also developed with Member States a new set of emergency measures, which we could trigger in case of complete disruptions. But one of the lessons we can already draw from this crisis is that we must diversify our energy sources, to get rid of the dependency of Russian gas, and heavily invest in renewable energy sources. They are clean and good for the planet, and they are home-grown and good for our independence.

    Honourable Members,

    This is a crisis that has been created by Moscow. We have not chosen confrontation, but we are prepared for it. We now have two distinct futures ahead of us. In one, the Kremlin decides to wage war against Ukraine, with massive human costs – something we thought we had left behind after the tragedies of the twentieth century. Moscow’s relations with us would be severely damaged. Tough sanctions would kick in, with dire consequences on the Russian economy and its prospect of modernisation. But another future is possible. A future in which Russia and Europe cooperate on their shared interests. A future where free countries work together in peace. A future of prosperity, built on the respect of the fundamental principles enshrined in the UN Charter, and in the European security architecture since the Helsinki Final Act. This is my aspiration. And I am sure the Russian people share this aspiration, too. It is now up to the Kremlin to decide. Whatever path they decide to take, we will stand our ground. Europe will be united, on the side of Ukraine, on the side of peace, on the side of Europe’s people.

    Long live Europe.

  • Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on the Future of the European Union and Africa

    Ursula von der Leyen – 2022 Speech on the Future of the European Union and Africa

    The speech made by Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, on 18 February 2022.

    We had a Summit, indeed, that was, I would say, packed and productive. It was a very good Summit. And we could see that, as Africa sets sail on the future, the European Union wants to be Africa’s partner of choice. This is basically the summary of this Summit. For this, indeed, we need a stronger partnership between us. What does it mean, concretely? It means remaining an economic partner you can trust. The European Union is the first trading partner and the first investor in Africa. And therefore, it is no coincidence that the first regional plan under our big investment strategy, Global Gateway, is the Africa-Europe plan, with more than EUR 150 billion of investment. And indeed, we have developed together very clear objectives we want to invest in. There is the big topic of the green transition, of course the renewables. I had several talks with partners, who immediately want to engage in the main topic of green hydrogen. There is transport networks, the connectivity within the continent is crucial for the Free Trade Area to function; digital connections, the satellite idea has been mentioned; but also sustainable agriculture; healthcare; and, most importantly, education. Now, what is important is: These priorities, we defined them together. And now, we want to work together on them, we want to deliver. And the first series of major projects have already been presented today.

    The second point that is important for me is to emphasise that a stronger partnership means stepping up our joint fight against climate change. We want to see green partnerships, like the ones we have with South Africa or Morocco, flourish across the continent. Because climate action is the challenge of our generation. It has been a big topic during this Summit. And yet, there lie also great opportunities for the next generation, if we act now. Africa is rich, rich in renewable power, if you look at hydropower, solar power, wind power. And Africa is rich in nature, with a quarter of the world’s biodiversity – one quarter! So to end climate change, the world needs Africa. Yet, the transition to clean energy will be a process for economies that rely heavily on coal, be it in Africa or be it in Europe. But we are both determined. And I am very much looking forward to Egypt hosting COP27 this year.

    And finally, from the health of our planet, to the health of our people. Europe is Africa’s number one partner in the fight against COVID-19. And we will do even more. We are on the right track to reach our goal to share at least 450 million vaccine doses by this summer. And indeed, together, we are building up mRNA manufacturing capacity across Africa. I will not go in detail because we have discussed that in the press conference this morning.

    But important is that we had a very good, intense, constructive discussion on the question of TRIPS waiver and compulsory licencing. We share the same goal. We have different ways to reach that goal. There must be a bridge between those two ways. And therefore, we have decided that the two Commissions – the African Union Commission and the European Union Commission – will work together. We will organise a College-to-College meeting here in Brussels, in spring. And at that time, at the latest, we have to deliver a solution. This will be accompanied by the WTO, Director-General Ngozi. And therefore, I always like it when a task is clear and defined. The task is set for the two Commissions. The frame is clear, the goal is clear, we have to deliver.

    So Europe wants to remain Africa’s first partner, a loyal partner. And we are moving – right now – from words to action.

    Thank you.

  • Ramsay MacDonald – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    Ramsay MacDonald – 1923 Speech on Deportations to Ireland

    The speech made by Ramsay MacDonald, the then Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 12 March 1923.

    When I put certain questions to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) this afternoon my object was to find upon what constitutional procedure the action of yesterday took place. Every Member of this House must feel that when such proceedings take place it is the duty of the Opposition to see that the Government justifies itself. As the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) said, we do not associate ourselves in any way with any action of a hostile character taken against the Irish Free State. That is not the question that is involved at all. The question that we raise is, What power had my right hon. Friend to do what he has done, under what Regulations, under what Statute did he act in doing what he did. Did he take the power which he ought to take to safeguard the rights and liberties of the deported men? I am not a lawyer, and cannot approach the question from a legal technical point of view, but I do care for the proper administration of the law of this country, and for the rights, not, only of citizens of this country, but also of people who are domiciled in this country and made subject to the law of the country. This is not merely a lawyer’s point. We have got to bring to bear upon those questions a broad commonsense intelligence which will do justice to all people who are our citizens or our guests. I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General is going to speak first, but we want to know straight away the Government’s statement of its own case.

    I am not going to assume that the men who were deported are guilty simply because the Government or the Home Secretary has deported them. It is my duty to satisfy myself that my right hon. Friend acted legally in the performance of that duty. I would like to know what pains he took to satisfy himself that whatever statements were made against them were sound evidence against them? I ask how long he took to investigate this matter? It could not have been done in 24 hours, for the domiciles of these people were scattered pretty far, north, south, east and west. What machinery did he put into operation to investigate every case, as he had no business to deport any man unless the case against that man as a separate individual was established to his satisfaction? Moreover, what steps did he take to satisfy himself that the people deported were subjects of the Free State? Did he satisfy himself that he was not handing over any subject of this country to the independent jurisdiction of a, State that enjoys the status of an independent Dominion within the Empire? The right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon that he acted under Regulations drafted in accordance with the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act of 1920. I do not know what view is taken by my legal friends to the right and to the left of me. I take the layman’s view, and I think it is the safest thing to take the layman’s view to begin with.

    What is the common-sense view of the Act of 1920? That Act was passed by this House at a time when the whole of Ireland was part of the sovereignty of this country. We were responsible for Cork, just as we were responsible for Belfast, and just as we were responsible for London. Ireland in 1920 was in rebellion against us we had our troops in Ireland; we had our police in Ireland. We were suppressing a rebellion that had broken out in Ireland. We drafted and passed the Restoration of Order in Ireland. Act, which applies not to the present disturbances in Ireland, but applied to the disorderly situation in Ireland when it was in rebellion against us. That was the purpose of the Act, and that is the meaning of the title of the Act. Certain Orders were issued under the Act. Regulation 14B in particular was drafted, not, for the purpose of sending people from England into Ireland, but for the purpose of deporting rebels in Ireland into England and to give them a residence here for the time being. What are the operative parts of 14B? So far as T can understand it and its application, the first paragraph applies to the case now before us, and the paragraph towards the end, which relates to arrests in Scotland and Ireland. It is purely technical, with no political substance in it. The political substance, as I understand it, is confined to the first Clause. What does it say? 14B enables the Secretary of State

    “by order to require a person forthwith, or from time to time, either to remain in or to proceed to and reside in such place as may be specified in the Order.”

    Is that what happened to the deportees of yesterday? Are they compelled by Order to remain in the place to which they are deported? Take the next words—

    “and to comply with such directions as to reporting to the police as to movement,”

    and so on. And then it goes on

    “or to be interned in such place as may be specified in the Order.”

    Has the Home Secretary specified the place in which they are to be interned in Ireland? We ought to get information on that point. As has been said, a very important thing has happened since 1920. Ireland is no longer in a state of rebellion against us. It may be in a state of rebellion, internal to Ireland itself, but the rebellion is not against us. That is not all. Ireland now has the benefit of the Irish Free State Constitution Act, which we passed last Session. What happens? Supposing these Regulations still run on common-sense lines as well as in law, what happens? If these Regulations had been put into operation in 1920, and Irishmen had been arrested here for engaging in a conspiracy to aid the rebellion in Ireland in 1920, and if they had been deported from this country under those Regulations and sent to Ireland, they would live been under the jurisdiction of the British military or of some British authority for which a Minister in this House was responsible. Therefore, if injustice had been done to the deportees in 1920, this House, which is the guardian, as it must always remain, of British liberty and the rights of individual British citizens, was at liberty to raise the question of injustice, to censure the Minister, and to pass judgment on what he had done. That is no longer the case. That is the common-sense, Constitutional and good, sound Parliamentary point of view.

    The Home Secretary agreed to deportation yesterday, and the arrested people have gone. They are now in Ireland. Suppose they were shot; I do not suggest it for a moment. Suppose something happened to them which we all agreed was an act of gross injustice. Who in this House is responsible for it? No one. I cannot question my right hon. Friend. I could question the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or his representative in this House, but supposing, as a result of the answer to those questions being altogether unsatisfactory, one of my hon. Friends asked Mr. Speaker for leave to move the Adjournment of the House, what would Mr. Speaker say? Mr. Speaker would say at once that under the Irish Constitution Act this Parliament had handed all its responsibilities to the Irish Government. Quite properly Mr. Speaker would say, “Therefore I cannot allow the matter to he discussed, and I will not accept, as being in order, a Motion for Adjournment.” Is not that a substantial argument? I am quite certain the very last man who would resist that argument is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Therefore he must see that the responsibility which he took upon himself in allowing these Regulations to be regarded as alive in the circumstances of 1923, is an enormously greater responsibility than that which he would have taken upon himself had he deported under these Regulations in 1920. Moreover, I want to get some more information about the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman referred this afternoon when replying to a question.

    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman)

    The Advisory Committee?

    Mr. MacDONALD

    Yes, the Advisory Committee. It seems to me this is very much a case of hanging a man first, and trying him afterwards. That is why my first question was what steps did the right hon. Gentleman take to see that the evidence which justified deportation was good evidence. He replied to me this afternoon on the lines that he himself had been satisfied, that his legal advisers had been satisfied, and if the men concerned still had a grievance, then this Advisory Committee had been set up to investigate any statement they might make. I want to know what is the Advisory Committee? What is its power? Who are its members, and who is the legal authority? Who is President of it? That is the first point.

    The second point is: Whilst they are investigating in order to give advice, what is to be the position of the deported person? Is he to be kept in gaol in Ireland, or may he come here and await the advice which the Committee is going to give? The third point is this: Supposing the Advisory Committee comes to a conclusion upon the two cases which were cited this afternoon, the one cited by the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) of a person who is a British subject, and who, as the hon. Member says, was not, as a matter of fact, in recent times involved in any political conspiracy against the Irish Free State, and the other case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), the case of mistaken identity. [HON. MEMBERS: “The same case.”] Is it the same case? Well, it does not matter. [Laughter.] It surely does not matter when it is a case of grave injustice being done. I quite honestly fell into a mistake. I understood there were two cases. It does not matter if there is only one; that is enough for me. I think one has as much right to justice as half-a-dozen. Let us take this one case. Supposing the Advisory Committee find on investigation that this case is genuine as stated by my two hon. Friends, what power has this Government to take it back? Has my right hon. Friend made an agreement with the Irish Free State that if any mistake has been made they guarantee to rectify that mistake?

    These are questions upon which, I make bold to say, every Member of the House of Commons who has got any respect at all for the duties of the House will insist upon getting information. It is not enough for a Minister to say, “There is a very bad state of affairs in Ireland and therefore I am going to act “—I think the right hon. Gentleman used the actual expression” according to the convenience of the Irish Government.” No. Hon. Members behind me have done quite as much for established self-government in Ireland as any other hon. Members? We believe in it quite as much, we back up that government quite as much, but that is not enough to justify deportation from this country upon such Regulations as those which my right hon. Friend has quoted. I therefore hope without any further delay, and in order to enable some hon. and right hon. Members who are more entitled to address the House than I am—[HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”]—on a point of law, yes, but not on points of policy. I know my duty to this House. I know the duty that must be performed in this House. Whatever the substance of the rights or wrongs of the case may be, this House must satisfy itself that the administration of the Government, especially in matters like this, is sound, is sane, is safe and is in accordance not with convenience but with law.