The Malta Development Bank (MDB) today welcomed EIB Vice President Kyriacos Kakouris for the official presentation of the Market Assessment and Recommendations Report under the Green Gateway Advisory initiative. This project, launched earlier this year, aims to fast-track climate action and sustainability investments across Malta.
With backing from the EIB Group, which also includes the European Investment Fund (EIF), the MDB is enhancing its capabilities to identify, support, and finance green projects. This collaboration bolsters the MDB’s role, aligning it with international standards and enabling the Bank to tap into emerging green market opportunities.
The report is a key deliverable of the MDB’s €30 million climate-action operation, funded by the EIB, which is focused exclusively on green and sustainable projects. In addition, the MDB is gearing up to introduce new schemes under the EIF InvestEU Sustainability Guarantee, designed to further boost the green transition of Maltese SMEs and small mid-caps.
The Green Gateway Report pinpoints critical sectors in Malta’s economy ripe for green investment, particularly in climate action and environmental sustainability. It also assesses the MDB’s current portfolio, evaluating existing grant and financial products to highlight untapped investment potential.
A central feature of the report is its detailed comparison of eligibility criteria across various EIB Group funding sources. This ensures a streamlined funding strategy, maximising efficiency and the potential for combining multiple financing sources.
As part of the evaluation, four green financing solutions were proposed for discussion, focusing on electric vehicles, energy-efficient buildings, renewable energy, and waste management.
“National promotional banks like the MDB in Malta are our key partners to back the economic growth of small and medium-sized companies and promote their green and digital transition,” remarked EIB Vice President Kyriacos Kakouris. “The Green Gateway Advisory initiative marks a strategic milestone for the MDB. By adopting innovative financing solutions, and with the support of the EIB Group, the MDB is setting the stage for significant environmental progress that will help Malta meet its climate targets.”
Mr. Leo Brincat, Chairman of the MDB, added, “This partnership with the EIB enables us to take a leading role in advancing Malta’s sustainability agenda. With their support, the MDB is well-equipped to drive transformative projects that will strengthen the nation’s environmental resilience.”
Mr. Paul V. Azzopardi, CEO of the MDB, commented that, “This Report is another step forward in enabling Malta’s transition to a greener economy. By fostering innovative funding solutions, we are not only addressing the urgent challenges of climate change but also ensuring sustainable growth for the country’s businesses and communities.”
Background information
European Investment Bank Group
The European Investment Bank (EIB) is the long-term lending institution of the European Union owned by its Member States. It provides long-term financing for sound investments that contribute to EU policy. The Bank finances projects in four priority areas: infrastructure, innovation, climate and environment, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
The European Investment Fund (EIF) is part of the EIB Group. It supports Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by improving their access to finance through a wide range of selected financial intermediaries. The EIF designs, promotes and implements equity and debt financing instruments targeting SMEs. In this role, EIF fosters EU objectives in support of entrepreneurship, growth, innovation, research and development, the green and digital transitions and employment. In 2023, the EIF mobilized over €134 billion for the European economy, enhancing competitiveness, supporting innovative entrepreneurs, promoting social impact, fostering sustainability, and advancing the green transition. Going forward, EIF aims to strengthen financing access for European entrepreneurs, focusing on key sectors to drive sovereignty, competitiveness, and a greener, more inclusive future.
Green Gateway
Financed with InvestEU Advisory Hub funds, the Green Gateway advisory programme was created by the EIB together with the European Commission to enable European financial institutions to invest in green projects. The Green Gateway’s advisory services aim to strengthen the skills, procedures and operational tools of EIB financial intermediaries to promote the planning, selection and financing of initiatives with positive environmental impact. The Green Gateway also offers an online portal full of guidelines, case studies and useful information on green investment. The portal provides access to the Green Eligibility Checker, a tool making it possible to assess the eligibility and climate impact of green economy investment projects in various sectors.
Question for written answer E-001803/2024/rev.1 to the Commission Rule 144 Michalis Hadjipantela (PPE)
In July 2024, five years after an initial proposal was put forward, a private company submitted the complete project file to the town planning department for the construction and operation of a 180 MW solar farm. The plan is to build the proposed solar farm in an area between the villages of Lythrodontas, Kataliontas and Mathiatis in Cyprus’ Nicosia District. However, the proper procedure has not been followed as this proposal has not yet been put to public consultation, even though the inhabitants and local authorities of the three villages strongly oppose the project because of its environmental impact.
Specifically, the development project will have an overly negative impact on local flora and fauna and will destroy hundreds of hectares of forested land on an island that has limited forest cover. This runs counter to EU policy on protecting biodiversity and the new EU law on restoring degraded ecosystems.
In the absence of public consultation and given that this development project must comply with European environmental directives and take into account local biodiversity, what is the Commission’s position on this issue?
Question for written answer E-001821/2024/rev.1 to the Commission Rule 144 Marlena Maląg (ECR), Kosma Złotowski (ECR), Piotr Müller (ECR)
Central and Eastern Europe is being battered by floods. Many Europeans have lost their lives and their possessions. The discussion on the reconstruction of flooded areas and the provision of support for those affected will be of the utmost importance. However, preventive measures and safety principles should be just as high on the agenda. Our country, Poland, was shocked by the information provided at the last part-session in Strasbourg concerning the monitoring of this disaster and the warnings, which were made as early as 9 September. Meanwhile, the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, reassured the public on 13 September that the weather forecasts were ‘not overly alarming’.
In light of the above:
1.At what level has the Emergency Response Coordination Centre been cooperating with the Commission, and what has this cooperation with countries at risk of flooding, particularly Poland, consisted of?
2.When was the Commission notified of the risk of flooding in Central and Eastern Europe?
3.What measures could the Commission take to help minimise the damage caused by such disasters?
Question for written answer E-002019/2024 to the Commission Rule 144 Julien Leonardelli (PfE), Julie Rechagneux (PfE), Pierre Pimpie (PfE), Marie Dauchy (PfE), Mélanie Disdier (PfE), Valérie Deloge (PfE), Marie-Luce Brasier-Clain (PfE), Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE)
EU Member States, and France in particular, are being hit by a serious bluetongue virus (BTV) epidemic.
It has reached especially alarming levels in Hauts-de-France and Bourgogne-Franche Comté, but also in Occitania.
In view of the above:
1.Will the vaccines against BTV, and serotype 8 in particular (which is not covered in France), be fully or at least partly paid for by the EU? Is the EU planning to ramp up BTV prevention and improve alerts whenever an outbreak of the virus occurs?
2.Will farmers who have lost some of their livestock be compensated for their losses and lost earnings? Will efforts be made to protect sheep species (like the Tarasconnais) that are threatened by the disease?
3.As the epidemic spread from Spain to France, what steps does the Commission intend to take to improve the exchange of health information among Member States in the future?
Question for written answer E-002023/2024 to the Commission Rule 144 Maria Zacharia (NI)
Since the start of 2024, Casino Thraki has been turning against its employees in an attempt to impede them from taking trade union action. This is because they reported the casino to the Hellenic Gaming Commission stating that they had been uninsured since 2023 despite having worked as normal, an offence that is punishable by law with the revocation of the business’ licence for a period of two months. However, the law was not enforced.
Since the start of 2024, in an act of intimidation and retaliation, the casino has fired 27 employees, among them six of the seven members of the trade union’s executive committee, including the president and the general secretary. The individuals who were dismissed cannot even claim unemployment benefits because they are not insured. The following are being violated: Directives 2002/14/EC (framework for informing and consulting employees), 98/59/EC (collective redundancies) and 2000/78/EC (equal treatment in occupation); Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of assembly and association); Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (right to strike); and Convention 135 of the International Labour Organisation (protection afforded to workers’ representatives).
In view of this:
1.How will the Commission ensure that Greece abides by EU and international regulations so that the dismissals can be revoked and the relevant national insurance contributions paid in full?
2.How will it protect Europe’s workers from dishonest employers?
European Council unanimous on migration18.10.2024At the October European Council summit in Brussels, Prime Minister Donald Tusk presented the Polish perspective on migration. In the face of growing challenges on the EU’s eastern border, leaders expressed solidarity with Poland. The European Council unanimously adopted conclusions on migration, which state that no country, including Russia and Belarus, may abuse values such as the right to asylum. Poland is to make “autonomous decisions.”
European solidarity with Poland
EU leaders, regardless of their political views, expressed solidarity with Poland, which faces serious migration challenges. The actions of Russia and Belarus aim to use migration as a tool to destabilize the situation on our eastern border.
The key words are those that have been written down – Russia, Belarus or any other country cannot abuse our values, including the right to asylum, or undermine our democracy.
– said the Prime Minister during a press conference in Brussels.
Politicians from various countries expressed their understanding of Poland’s situation related to aggressive, illegal migration on its eastern border and the need to implement effective methods in response to these challenges.
Understanding the challenges of migration
European leaders have recognized that the current migration pact is not an adequate response to the growing threat of mass, illegal migration – especially that organized by foreign governments. The migration summit emphasized that traditional methods do not bring the expected results.
It is becoming increasingly clear to European leaders that the methods used so far, including the migration pact, are not the answer to the threat posed by mass, illegal migration.
– noted Donald Tusk.
The discussions also highlighted the need to introduce tougher solutions that respond to changing circumstances, because “the statistics and numbers are overwhelming.” It was emphasized that Europe does not have the capacity to accept all those who want to apply for asylum. Para expandirse, that a new approach to migration policy in the European Union must be created.
Para, as I said a few days ago in Warsaw, that at least a profound correction of this paradigm is needed when it comes to migration policy in Europe. We need to change the attitude based so far on the principle that found its expression in the Geneva Convention
– said the head of the Polish government.
During the Brussels summit there was clear agreement on reforming migration policy.
Poland’s autonomous decisions
The European Council also emphasised Poland’s right to make autonomous decisions on migration matters.
For me it is important that everyone agreed that Poland will make decisions autonomously and that they will be accepted
– noted Donald Tusk.
In the face of the migration crisis, the possibilities of cooperation with other Member States were highlighted. European institutions and other countries show great openness to various forms of assistance.
This was the first meeting of the heads of Polish and Italian diplomacy in seven years. The topics of consultations included, among others, defence within NATO and the European Union, migration policy, support for Ukraine and the EU enlargement policy. An example of very good bilateral relations is the cooperation between Poland and Italy in the field of security, related to the participation of the Italian Air Force and Navy in NATO operations on the territory of Poland and the presence of the Military Contingent in the Mediterranean Sea as part of the EU mission. Minister Sikorski emphasised that he and Minister Tajani see a threat to the Schengen system – previously it was a threat from the Mediterranean Sea, the Balkan route, and now also from the Belarusian border. – Belarus is waging a hybrid war using pseudo-migrants, but the effect of this is important – our societies must regain the belief that governments at both the national and EU levels enforce this foreign right to control migration – emphasized the head of the Polish MFA. The minister also appealed for broader Western assistance to Ukraine, especially in the field of weapons to defend airspace, and for the lifting of the ban on the use of Western long-range weapons in Russia. In addition, the head of the Polish MFA thanked his Italian counterpart for the joint protest against Israel’s attacks on the UNIFIL contingent in Lebanon. The interlocutors discussed the situation in the Middle East, expressing concern over the escalation of tensions in Lebanon and emphasizing the need for the international community to act in favor of a two-state solution. On the European agenda and enlargement policy, EU Minister Sikorski assured his interlocutor that progress in the area of EU accession of both the so-called The Eastern Trio (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) and the Western Balkan countries will be one of the priorities of the Polish Presidency of the EU Council. Minister Tajani thanked the head of Polish diplomacy for the proposal, cf. During the Polish Presidency in the first half of 2025, they traveled together to Africa, which is too important a continent to be exposed solely to the influence of Russia or China. At the end of the visit, Minister Sikorski paid tribute to the Polish soldiers who died in the Battle of Monte Cassino and are buried at the Polish War Cemetery located there. This year we are celebrating the 80th anniversary of the battle, in which 923 Polish soldiers died, 2,931 were wounded, and 345 were reported missing. The Minister laid a wreath under the Virtuti Militari Cross at the Cemetery, where 1,048 Polish soldiers are buried – in addition to those who died during the fighting, soldiers of the 2nd Polish Corps who died before the assault and who gave their lives in further fighting in the massif, mainly in the battles for Piedimonte, are also buried there.
On 18 June 2024, at its 20th session, the Sejm of the Republic of Poland adopted an act amending the Excise Duty Act and certain other acts (print no. 692). The act assumes making the current excise road map more realistic by increasing excise duty rates on tobacco products (cigarettes, smoking tobacco and cigars and cigarillos), dried tobacco and innovative products, as well as including e-cigarette liquid in the scope of this map in the years 2025-2027. The impetus for introducing the update of rates was the increasing purchasing power of consumers from year to year. With the increase in the average salary, an increasing number of stimulants can be purchased for a monthly salary. The increase in excise duty rates on tobacco products and their substitutes is primarily intended to reduce the consumption of the above. products by consumers, especially minors. The current tax rates will apply until July 28, 2025. New excise tax rates will apply from March 1, 2025.
Headline: DG Okonjo-Iweala welcomes President Alar Karis of Estonia to the WTO
Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala met with the President of Estonia, Alar Karis, on 17 October at the WTO. The two discussed the importance of the multilateral trading system governed by the WTO and the impact of the current geopolitical situation on global trade.
SABRINA SINGH, DEPUTY PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: OK, everyone, good afternoon. Thank you for being here today. It is my pleasure to introduce Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. The Secretary will deliver some opening remarks, and then we will have time to take a few questions. I will moderate those questions and call on journalists.
With that, Mr. Secretary?
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LLOYD J. AUSTIN III: Thanks, Sabrina.
Well, good afternoon, everyone. It’s great to be back at NATO. But I wanted to start with just a few words about the Middle East.
As you all know, Israel yesterday killed Sinwar, the leader of Hamas. That’s a major achievement, and it opens a major opportunity for progress.
Sinwar was the architect of the October 7th terrorist assault on Israel. His plot left 1,200 people dead, including civilians from more than 30 other countries, and that includes the United States. He was responsible for the deaths of many Americans over the years, including more than 40 Americans murdered on October 7th and four murdered American hostages.
Sinwar devoted his life to wrecking the chances of peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He’s finally been brought to justice, and that removes a huge obstacle.
Our top priority is the 101 hostages still kidnapped in Gaza, including our own American hostages. They have been through hell, and so have their families, and the hostages should not have to suffer one more hour in captivity, and those who are holding hostages should release them immediately.
Sinwar’s death also provides an extraordinary opportunity to achieve a lasting cease-fire to end this awful war and to rush humanitarian aid into Gaza. Our forces in the region stand ready to assist in Israel’s defense, to deter aggression and to reduce the risk of all-out war, and we will continue to drive hard to bring all of the hostages home and to end the conflicts in both Gaza and Lebanon through principled diplomacy.
Now, let me turn back to our work here at NATO. This has been an historic defense ministerial for three reasons. First, this is our new Secretary General’s inaugural ministerial meeting, so I want to thank Mark Rutte and his staff for convening us. And I also look forward to working very closely with Mark and his team.
Second, this is our first defense ministerial with NATO’s Indo-Pacific partners, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea, and that just underscores the importance of working with our partners in the Indo-Pacific on boosting industrial base resilience, combating disinformation and much, much more.
And third, this ministerial is the first high-level NATO gathering since our 75th anniversary summit in Washington back in July. The summit was a major success. We welcomed Sweden as a NATO ally. We endorsed a NATO industrial capacity expansion pledge, and that will strengthen the defense industrial base on both sides of the Atlantic and increase large-scale multinational procurement and help deliver capabilities swiftly and securely. We also launched the NATO security assistance and training for Ukraine, or NSATU. Now, that’s our military effort to plan, coordinate and arrange delivery of the security assistance that Ukraine needs to prevail against Russian aggression. We strengthened NATO’s deterrence and defense. We deepened ties with our global partners, especially in the Indo-Pacific, and we celebrated 75 years of the strongest, most successful defensive alliance in history.
I’m proud of all this progress, but we’ve still got work to do. Our priority is implementing the important agreements from NATO’s recent summits, and today, we continued our progress. We’re forging NATO’s most robust defense plans since the end of the Cold War, and that will help ensure that we have the forces and capabilities to meet any contingency. That includes air and missile defense, which are crucial for defending the allied airspace, and earlier this month, General Cavoli directed a reinforcement of NATO air surveillance in Romania to monitor Russian military activity.
NATO allies continue to make robust investments in air and missile defense, but we must invest in many other areas to meet our requirements, so I’m glad to say that we’re sharing the burden of collective defense more than ever. In this year, a record 23 NATO allies are hitting or topping our shared commitment to spend at least two percent of GDP on defense. But we still need each and every single ally to meet this mutually-agreed-upon obligation as soon as possible, and that will let us fulfill the requirements of our new plans and hit our capability targets. And by investing in our trans-Atlantic defense industrial base and scaling up military production, we can send a long-term demand signal to industry.
AUSTIN: You know, we also met yesterday with our Indo-Pacific partners and with the European Union. It was a very productive meeting, and it underscored the profound links among Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security.
We’re concerned by the PRC’s increasingly coercive behavior in the Indo-Pacific, which has profound implications for the whole world. We’re also troubled by the growing alignment between Russia and the People’s Republic of China, including the PRC’s support for Putin’s indefensible war of choice against Ukraine, and that makes our close cooperation with our Indo-Pacific friends more vital than ever.
We also held a NATO-Ukraine Council meeting yesterday. Minister Umerov gave us some great insights, and we made clear our enduring commitment to a free and sovereign Ukraine.
Like countries of goodwill around the world, our NATO allies continue to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and self-defense, and the United States and our allies and partners are determined to stand by Ukraine for the long haul, and we’ll stand by one another.
The foundation of NATO is a collective defense commitment in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The U.S. commitment to Article 5 remains ironclad, and we will defend the sovereignty in the territory of every member of this alliance. Whatever changes lie ahead, we will tackle them together, and that solidarity is the reason why NATO is the greatest defensive alliance in history.
And thanks again, and with that, I’ll be glad to take some questions.
SINGH: Great, thank you. Our first question will go to Phil Stewart from Reuters.
Right here in the middle. Yeah. No, you’re OK.
QUESTION: OK, thank you. So you were saying that Israel has an opportunity to end the war in Gaza, but Israel’s prime minister is vowing today to keep fighting. Do you support Israel’s new campaign to, quote, “stop the axis of evil,” end quote, as Netanyahu put it? Or is Israel missing an opportunity here?
And on — on Ukraine, President Zelenskyy told the Financial Times that a formal invitation to join NATO is the only way Ukraine can survive Russia’s invasion. Do you agree with that assessment? And more broadly, do you endorse his victory plan? Thank you.
AUSTIN: So which one of those questions do you want me to answer, Phil?
(LAUGHTER)
All right, let’s start with the question as to whether or not there is an opportunity available with respect to Gaza. Of course there is, and we would hope that we can work together to take advantage of that opportunity.
The first thing, Phil, that we need to focus on is a return of the hostages. Again, you heard Prime Minister publicly state yesterday that anyone who has control of hostages, he would encourage them to return them, and — and again, I would hope that they would do so.
Beyond that, you know, I think there are other opportunities, and we will see how things evolve. But clearly, there are opportunities for a change in direction, and we would hope that, you know, parties would — would take advantage of that both in Lebanon — in Gaza and in Lebanon.
The second question was — as I recall, Phil, was about the victory plan and whether or not we endorse the victory plan. Again, the victory plan is President Zelenskyy’s plan, and we’re going to do everything that we can to provide the security assistance to support the president as he tries to accomplish his objectives.
But what we all want to make sure that we continue to do is to link military objectives to strategic objectives, and, you know, that dialogue continues. And you know, I just met with Minister Umerov today. We talked through a number of those things. Again, our focus is going to continue to be on doing everything that we can to support the victory plan, or support President Zelenskyy. It’s not my position to evaluate publicly his plan. We have been supporting him by providing security assistance in a major way for over two and a half years. We’re going to continue to do that.
Next question.
SINGH: Thank you. Thank you. Our second question will go to Andrey Smolyakov, Novaya Gazeta Europa.
Right here in the back, in the middle. Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, Ukrainian military has been able to carry out some effective UAV strikes deep into Russian territory, but there have been reports, especially in Russian and Ukrainian-language media, that the U.S. has discouraged those attacks. Is there any substance to those reports? And if so, is the U.S. willing to support such operations in the future?
AUSTIN: Actually, Andrey, we’ve seen the Ukrainians use their long-range UAV strike capability to great effect, and we saw recently that they were able to take out a number of strategic-level ammunition supply points, which has had an impact on the battlefield.
I think what’s important to point out here, Andrey, is that they were able to produce these UAVs in Ukraine. They were able to scale that production rapidly. The UAVs have proven to be very effective and accurate. And again, when you consider the fact that one precision-guided missile costs, in some cases, close to $1 million, depending on what it is, and these UAVs, they can produce in great numbers at a fraction of the cost. So when you look at the balance sheet and the effects that are being created on the battlefield, I think this is a great capability. How they use that capability that they’re producing is going to be their call, Andrey, so…
SINGH: Thank you. Our next question will go to Phil Green, right here, Air & Space Magazine. Right here, in the blue.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
SINGH: I’m sorry — Chris Gordon. I said “Phil”. Sorry, sorry.
QUESTION: Thank you, Sabrina. Thank you, Mr. …
AUSTIN: You’re Phil now…
SINGH: Yeah, you’re…
AUSTIN: I’m kidding, Chris. I know you’re Chris, so…
(LAUGHTER)
SINGH: Yeah.
QUESTION: Good to hear. Sir, the world is in a very difficult situation, and I have two questions regarding that situation. First, if there is a settlement in Gaza, is the Pentagon prepared to provide logistical support and military advice to an Arab-led stabilization force if there are no U.S. boots on the ground?
And then secondly, to put a finer point on my colleague’s question earlier, President Zelenskyy’s repeatedly appealed to the U.S. to use ATACMS to strike a broader range of targets inside of Russia and to do so more quickly than drones. The Biden administration has not allowed this. Have Putin’s nuclear threats worked?
AUSTIN: Regarding Putin’s nuclear threats, again, you’ve heard me say a number of times that I think any kind of nuclear saber-rattling is reckless and dangerous, and we would call upon Putin and others to not employ that kind of language.
In terms of whether or not we would participate in any kind of stabilization efforts in Gaza, I think that that’s going to require the contributions of a number of countries. Hopefully, countries in the region will step up. There quite possibly is, can be a part for the United States to play in that, as well. What part that would be and what that would look like, Chris, we’re going to have to work with our allies and partners to scope that out. And I certainly would not have any announcements to make on anything like that.
The first step though is we’ve got to get to some sort of ceasefire, and then we need to make sure that we’re putting the right things in place to stabilize the area and provide for some sort of security going forward. But that’s left to be defined yet.
SINGH: Thank you. And our last question will go to Teri Schultz, Deutsche Welle.
QUESTION: Thank you, Secretary Austin. I’m — I’m very interested in the future of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a group that you yourself created. I mean, what is the future of this, given that nobody knows what’s going to happen after November under either administration that would take over? What will happen with this group? How do you consolidate what you have done, what has been done under your leadership? But even more of interest to the Ukrainians, do you have a sense after this last meeting that there’s — there’s enough momentum to provide enough to help Ukraine tilt the balance on the — on the battlefield as is necessary, you yourself say, to some day moving to discussions about ending the war?
AUSTIN: Yeah, thanks, Teri. So we’re — we’ve been doing two things simultaneously. We’re providing — focused on providing Ukraine what it needs to be successful on a battlefield today as it tries to defend its sovereign territory, and it’s been very successful at that. And I would remind everybody that Ukraine has taken on the largest military in Europe, and for two and a half years it has successfully defended its territory.
And Putin has not achieved, not one strategic objective that he set out to achieve. Kyiv still stands. The Ukrainian government did not fall. And I could name a number of other things, but they have been very, very successful. So helping them defend the — in the current fight is one objective.
The other objective is making sure that we help them get what’s necessary to be able to defend against aggression in the future and deter aggression as well. And that’s what the capability coalitions have been designed to do.
As you know, we have an Air Force Capability Coalition. It was focused initially and still is focused on helping Ukraine get a fighter aircraft capability. And as you know, Ukraine now has F-16 capability. It will — we will continue to build upon that.
There’s an artillery capability coalition that’s also being very successful, and it’s helping Ukraine acquire the artillery systems and the munitions that it needs not only for today but for the long haul as well.
There’s an IT coalition that helps make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to be able to function in the information space, in the information domain and be effective. That IT coalition has been very, very effective, very impressive.
There’s a drone coalition.
And so these coalitions are designed to ensure that, at the end of the day, Ukraine has what it needs to be able to deter aggression and defend itself going forward. And thank you for bringing it up because it’s a thing that not many people pay attention to. But every day, we are building long-term capability for Ukraine.
And, you know, I have to applaud the work of our allies and partners who are leading some of these coalitions and rallying support for Ukraine and, you know, digging deep to provide them what we think they’ll need going forward.
So I think that will help to spell success for Ukraine in the long haul, and I appreciate you bringing it up, Teri.
SINGH: Thank you, everyone. That concludes today’s press conference.
Ahead of the 25 October expiry of the statute of limitations in a case in which 85 people died during and after protests in the Tak Bai district of Narathiwat province, Thailand in October 2004, Amnesty International’s Thailand Researcher Chanatip Tatiyakaroonwong said:
“The Thai authorities must take urgent action – before it is too late – to ensure long-delayed justice for the victims of human rights violations committed by state officials violently suppressing a protest in Tak Bai two decades ago.
“A landmark court decision to accept the lawsuit initiated by the victims and their families in August was a beacon of hope amid entrenched impunity for violations against protesters in Thailand. But days ahead of the expiry of the statute of limitations for these crimes, the legal case raised by victims is in jeopardy. “Defendants in this lawsuit, who are all former or current high-ranking officials – including individuals allegedly in Japan and the United Kingdom – have failed to present themselves at court. Unless at least one of them does so before 25 October 2024, this lawsuit will be dismissed.
“The Thai authorities must take all necessary steps to ensure there is no impunity for those suspected of criminal responsibility for grave human rights violations in this case. This includes by enforcing arrest warrants against suspects and presenting them in court before 25 October 2024 to enable the victims and their families to have the opportunity to pursue criminal accountability in this case.”
Background
On 25 October 2004, more than 2,000 protesters gathered in front of Tak Bai police station in Narathiwat province, one of Thailand’s southern border provinces, to demand the release of six Malay Muslim men who were believed to be arbitrarily detained by Thai authorities.
Security forces used tear gas, water cannon and live ammunition, killing seven protesters instantly – five of whom were shot in the head. After the crackdown, about 1,370 detained Malay Muslim men were transported to Ingkayut Borihan Military Camp in Pattani, 150km away. Forced to lie on top of one another in army trucks, 78 died from crushing or asphyxiation during transit. Many survivors suffered severe injuries and permanent disabilities.
An independent fact-finding committee, established by the then-government, condemned the use of excessive force and poor judgment in the transportation of detainees. Despite compensation for victims, no officers identified by the committee have been brought to justice so far.
In August 2024, the Narathiwat Provincial Court ruled in favour of a request from victims and their families to file a criminal lawsuit against officials suspected to be responsible for human rights violations during the Tak Bai protest, including former high-ranking military and police officers.
Out of the nine officials sued by the victims and their families, the Court determined there is sufficient evidence to pursue a lawsuit against seven of them under the offences of murder, attempted murder, and illegal detention.
Despite having been summonsed, none of the seven officials have appeared at the Narathiwat Criminal Court for witness questioning and evidence examination. There are outstanding arrest warrants for all seven persons, including individuals alleged to be in Japan and the United Kingdom.
The statute of limitations for the case is set to expire on 25 October 2024. At least one of the defendants must appear before court to acknowledge the lawsuit for the case to begin, according to Article 95 of the Thai Criminal Code which governs the statute of limitation for criminal offences. Amnesty International notes that there should be no statute of limitation for serious human rights violations or crimes under international law, including extrajudicial killings and torture.
In October 2023, Amnesty International published a public statement on the impacts of Thai authorities’ failure to deliver justice for the victims of the violent crackdown on the Tak Bai protest and their families.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
A visitor tries bamboo products on a forum on green industry cooperation in Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 17, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]
BRUSSELS, Oct. 18 — A forum on green industry cooperation between China, the European Union (EU), and Africa has underscored opportunities for technological collaboration and sustainable practices, particularly the use of bamboo as an alternative to plastic.
The forum, co-hosted on Thursday by the Chinese Mission to the EU and the International Bamboo and Rattan Organization, focused on fostering joint efforts to promote ecological sustainability.
In his address, Cai Run, head of the Chinese Mission to the EU, highlighted China’s progress in green and low-carbon development, citing improvements in the country’s energy structure and an increase in forest coverage. Cai positioned China as a production hub, Europe as a consumer market, and Africa as a resource developer, emphasizing the potential for collaboration across these regions.
Erik Solheim, co-chair of the Europe-Asia Center, noted that China accounts for two-thirds of new green energy projects globally and holds 60 percent of green energy technologies, including solar, wind, and electric vehicle batteries. Solheim, who previously served as under-secretary-general of the United Nations (UN), also emphasized the potential of bamboo as a sustainable alternative to plastic, which could be instrumental in reducing global plastic waste.
Former EU Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc commended China’s commitment to bamboo research and innovation.
“China’s collaboration with African countries has led to the creation of the China-Africa Bamboo Center,” Bulc remarked, emphasizing the potential for joint efforts to promote global green development.
McArios Akanbeanab Akabong, acting head of Mission at the Embassy of Ghana in Belgium, Luxembourg, and the EU, highlighted China’s support in establishing a National Bamboo and Rattan Centre in Ghana, facilitating technological transfers that have significantly advanced the bamboo industry in the country.
Michael Braungart, a professor of sustainable development at Leuphana University in Germany, pointed to bamboo’s potential for air purification and its ability to mitigate microplastic pollution, encouraging further collaboration between Europe and China in environmental protection and economic development.
The “Bamboo as a Substitute for Plastic” initiative, launched by China in collaboration with the International Bamboo and Rattan Organization, aims to reduce plastic pollution and promote ecological preservation.
This photo shows bamboo products displayed during a forum on green industry cooperation in Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 17, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]People try bamboo products on a forum on green industry cooperation in Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 17, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]
U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) will commence its annual nuclear command and control exercise, Global Thunder, October 18, 2024.
Global Thunder 25 (GT25) involves personnel throughout the strategic enterprise, including USSTRATCOM components and subordinate units. The purpose of GT25 is to enhance nuclear readiness and ensure a safe, secure, and effective strategic deterrent force.
This is an annual exercise and is not in response to actions by any nation or other actors, or current world events.
In addition to U.S. personnel, GT25 will involve key allied and NATO partners, including personnel from the United Kingdom, who will integrate into senior leadership teams and work across a broad spectrum of areas offering policy support and operational insight.
As in previous years, Global Thunder 25 will include an increase in bomber and other aircraft flights throughout the exercise.
United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), a global warfighting command, deters strategic attack through a safe, secure, effective, and credible global combat capability and, when directed, is ready to prevail in conflict.
All primary schools, Early Learning and Childcare (ELC), Intensive Support Provision (ISP) settings and Fairview School in Perth and Kinross will be closed on Monday October 21 because of industrial action taken by UNISON in a national dispute over pay.
All secondary schools except St John’s Academy (Secondary) in Perth and the Community School of Auchterarder, will be open on Monday. All secondary ISP provision will be closed. Navigate will be open.
Due to the October holidays, it has not been possible, as previously indicated, to complete Risk Assessments for our primaries and ELC settings. This means we cannot guarantee there will be enough staff to ensure pupil safety and so have taken the decision to close these settings.
The situation will be reviewed daily during the two weeks of industrial action planned by UNISON.
It is possible a small number of primary schools will be able to open later in the week. However, the situation is likely to remain fluid and may change for individual schools on a day-to-day basis. We will continue to provide updates when necessary. Schools will also email parents and carers about their arrangements on Monday.
Where schools are closed before and after school care (Breakfast Clubs, Kids Clubs and Wraparound Care) will also be closed.
Remote learning will be provided when schools are closed to pupils as teachers are not taking part in the industrial action.
Payments will be made to families whose children are eligible Free School Meals because their families are in receipt of qualifying benefits.
We thank you for your understanding.
Leisure services provided at our four community campuses (Breadalbane, Loch Leven, North Inch and Strathearn) are also likely to be disrupted because of the industrial action.
The following activities will still be able to proceed:
Block Booked, Club/Group activity – Indoor and Outdoor
Instructor / Coach led activity – Swimming Lessons, Gymnastics, Fitness Classes etc.
When someone famous dies, particularly if they are young or it was unexpected, it is natural for their fans to want to know what happened. But, as the reporting on the tragic death of singer Liam Payne shows, the media does not always handle this appropriately or ethically.
The singer, 31, fell to his death from the third floor of a hotel in Buenos Aires while under the influence of “drugs or alcohol”, local police said. LA-based celebrity news website TMZ initially reported the story alongside graphic images of Payne’s body.
After a backlash, TMZ removed the photos, but executive editor Michael Babock defended publication, claiming the site was “trying to confirm reports Liam had died before police had established his identity”.
Other mainstream outlets published transcripts or recordings of a 911 call made to police shortly before Payne was found, and an Argentinian newspaper published images of Payne’s hotel room which included images of drugs paraphernalia.
This is certainly not the first time the media, and TMZ in particular, has come under fire for insensitive or harmful reporting of celebrity deaths. When basketball great Kobe Bryant died in a helicopter crash in January 2020, TMZ shared the news before police were able to notify his family. Bryant’s widow later testified that she learned of her husband and daughter’s deaths through social media. This breaches the UK’s journalism codes of practice.
In their quest to get a scoop, what precautions and sensitivities do journalists have to respect when it comes to reporting sudden and tragic deaths?
Media guidelines and ethics
The ethical standards and guidelines vary from country to country. In the UK,
these are set out by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) and independent press monitor Impress for print media, and by Ofcom for broadcasters.
An Ipso clause around intrusion into grief and shock says journalists should make enquiries with “sympathy and discretion” and publication should be handled “sensitively”.
Ofcom has similar guidelines for broadcasters. The section on privacy states: “When people are caught up in events which are covered by the news they still have a right to privacy.”
This can be infringed if “warranted”, says Ofcom, for example if it is in the public interest. This could include revealing or detecting crime, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims or disclosing incompetence. But a tragic death, even of a high profile person, is unlikely to meet this standard.
Broadcasters should not interview or film people who have experienced a personal tragedy unless it is “warranted” or they have given consent. And journalists are advised not to “reveal the identity of someone who has died unless it is clear that the next of kin have been informed”.
Impress, which regulates more independent journalism, has released a statement condemning the reporting of Payne’s death.
It said: “The defence of publishing in the public interest does not give outlets carte blanche to report the most intimate details of a celebrity’s life, or their death.”
It is important to state at this stage that what happened prior to Payne’s tragic death and his intentions at the time are unknown. It is the job of the coroner to investigate and come to a conclusion at his inquest.
The effect of reporting on tragedy
Beyond accuracy and respect for the victim of a tragedy and their family, there are wider concerns that journalists should take into account.
Research conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) has shown irresponsible media reporting of celebrity deaths, particularly suicides, can increase suicide rates.
One study examining patterns of suicide and media coverage found that in the five months following comic Robin Williams’ death in 2014, there were 1,841 more deaths from suicide in the USA compared to the same period the previous year – a 9.85% rise.
The WHO’s international guidelines for reporting suicide urge the media to avoid sensationalism. Journalists should not provide details about methods, and should include information about mental health resources in stories.
Analysis of over 100 academic studies found repeated coverage and high-profile news stories were most strongly associated with copycat behaviour.
The WHO states: “Such stories can inadvertently function as celebrity endorsements of suicidal behaviour and it is known that celebrity endorsements can have an impact on behaviour of the public.”
Sensitive reporting can reduce the risk of copycat suicides. Providing context in relation to mental health challenges and offering resources for support is vital.
In the UK, guidelines were first drawn up by the Samaritans charity in 1994 to improve reporting on suicide and prevent copycat attempts. These are taught to journalism students on courses accredited by the National Council for the Training of Journalists.
Guidance includes avoiding “dramatic” headlines, emotive or sensational pictures or video footage and excessive amounts of coverage. Not speculating about the trigger or cause is urged, because it can oversimplify the issue.
“Coverage that reflects the wider issues around suicide, including that it is preventable, can help reduce the risk of suicidal behaviour”, the guidelines state. “Include clear and direct references to resources and support organisations.”
Making a change
Despite all of these guidelines, many media outlets flout them in the race for clicks. It is heartening that there has been so much outrage at the publication of the images of Payne, but some members of the public still seem to have an insatiable appetite for it. Nothing, it seems, is off limits.
We need to take collective responsibility. Journalists and editors should reacquaint themselves with responsible reporting guidelines and put themselves in the bereaved family’s shoes. Members of the public can also do their bit by not clicking on or sharing this kind of material, so editorial priorities change.
Ultimately, our thoughts must be with Payne and his loved ones. A death so young is a real tragedy and those who loved him will be affected for the rest of their lives.
If you’re struggling with suicidal thoughts, the following services can provide you with support:
In the UK and Ireland – call Samaritans UK at 116 123.
In the US – call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or IMAlive at 1-800-784-2433.
In Australia – call Lifeline Australia at 13 11 14.
In other countries – visit IASP or Suicide.org to find a helpline in your country.
Polly Rippon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: Traditional Unionist Voice – Northern Ireland
Statement by TUV deputy leader Court Councillor Ron McDowell:
“The questions surrounding Sinn Fein when it comes to the issue of child safety continue to grow in number and there will be few who will be filled with confidence that the decision of some member of the Executive Office Committee to furnish Ms O’Neill with their questions in advance of the meeting is a route which is likely to get to the truth. However, in addition to those profoundly important issues we now have confirmation that the IRA “Army Council” continues to exist, that the IRA is still involved in gathering intelligence, that it retains arms 19 years after they were supposedly decommissioned and that the IRA’s “Army Council” continues to oversee Sinn Féin’s overarching strategy.
“Child safety is profound enough an issue to call into question the suitability of anyone to hold office. After this morning’s confirmation that nothing has changed when it comes to the IRA and the role of its leadership in Sinn Fein surely all Unionist MLAs will be queuing up to sign the TUV motion of no confidence on Monday morning?
“Any Unionist who doesn’t sign it obviously does have confidence in Ms O’Neill. One is given to wonder what on earth Sinn Fein/IRA would have to do in order to lose it.”
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amanda Cole, Lecturer in Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex
On October 21 1964, the iconic and much-celebrated film My Fair Lady premiered in Hollywood. Sixty years later, the film remains an enjoyable rollick full of catchy songs, but is not a wholly accurate depiction of what linguists do – certainly not nowadays at least.
Linguists are far from the academics who are most frequently depicted in films. It’s normally the white-coat, work-in-a-lab, scientist-of-some-nondescript-sort professors who get to give stark warnings or unsettling research insights to the maverick protagonist. But My Fair Lady is a film all about linguistics (and also class, love and terrible Cockney accents – more on that later).
In the film, Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison), takes under his wing a Cockney flower seller called Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn). He wagers with his friend and fellow haughty linguist, Colonel Pickering, that he can teach her to speak “properly”.
It seems at first there is no hope but – hoorah! – Eliza finally grasps it, suddenly blurting out “the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain” in a perfect imitation of Queen’s English.
Doolittle then dazzles at an embassy ball, the perfect replica of an upstanding posh woman – or, as the film’s title suggests, a “lady” (itself a problematic word which encodes sexist tropes about what should be aspirational and respectable for women).
She even fools a man who has made a name for himself by identifying imposters based on their accent. Though, you may also wonder if she evades detection by barely speaking at the ball, converted into a demure and unforthcoming shadow of her previously forthright, unapologetic and garrulous self.
Professor Higgins: not your typical linguist
My Fair Lady avoids the common pitfall of assuming that the primary endeavour of the linguist is to learn as many different languages as they can, collecting them like stamps (the film Arrival can take note). But it still doesn’t get our job quite right.
I, for one, have never groomed a young, destitute woman to speak “correctly” while moulding her into a “respectable”, posh woman (if only modern academia granted the breathing space for such folly).
Linguists love, celebrate and are constantly itching to understand, study and explore the diverse tapestry of accents, dialects and languages that exist in the UK and around the world. We have no interest in reinforcing any societal ideal for a supposedly “correct” accent, or throwing a grammar rule book at unwitting members of the public.
By contrast, Higgins is repulsed by any accent that is not Queen’s English (which, by a wonderful turn of luck, is also his accent). In the opening number, he has a pop at the dialects of Yorkshire, Cornwall, America, Scotland and Ireland.
But he is particularly dismayed and repulsed that Doolittle, despite being from London, has a strong London accent (or she is meant to at least – I can only imagine Hepburn was instructed to open her mouth as wide as possible for all vowels and caw like a crow if all else fails).
Higgins makes various proclamations which will have you shouting at the telly, “Steady on, Professor!”. In his words:
Look at her, a prisoner of the gutter / Condemned by every syllable she ever utters / By right, she should be taken out and hung for the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.
Best not tell him “hanged” is the past tense of “hang” when referring to capital punishment, else he walk himself straight to the gallows.
With a little bit of accent prejudice
The real beast in disguise at the embassy ball is not young, Cockney, Eliza Doolittle. It is misogyny and contempt for the working class that hides behind a mask of maintaining good standards and protecting the English language.
Accent prejudice is a smokescreen for broader societal prejudice. My Fair Lady seems antiquated and quaint in many ways – like Higgins using a gramophone to play back recordings of Doolittle – but accent prejudice is alive and well.
Women in the UK such as Alex Scott, Angela Rayner and Priti Patel still routinely face criticism, commentary and contempt for their regional accents.
You might think that the film’s lesson is for Doolittle to take on the world with her freshly mastered “standard” accent. After all, she consented to being ridiculed and paraded around like a show dog as she felt her accent prevented her from getting a job in a flower shop. Now, nothing stands in her way.
But people should not have to change their accent to get along – and it is not always possible or even a guaranteed ticket out of discrimination. If we take the accent out of accent prejudice, we are still left with the prejudice – let’s remove the prejudice and be left with the accent.
We need more unapologetically working-class women with regional accents at the embassy ball, but also in politics, academia, in the media and in all walks of life.
In the film, Doolittle ultimately feels she has been used and disrespected, leading her to sour on Higgins. After she leaves, he grows to miss her and wistfully plays back recordings of her voice.
And this is the real lesson for viewers today. Higgins has gotten to know Doolittle as a person and now sees beyond her accent and his own prejudice. The more we hear people with regional accents, the more normal and uneventful it becomes, and the more we will focus on what they say and not how they say it.
Amanda Cole does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Foreign Secretary David Lammy met Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, Wang Yi, in Beijing today.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy met Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, Wang Yi, in Beijing today (18 October).
The Foreign Secretary set out that as fellow Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, it is a necessity that the UK and China increase bilateral engagement. He made clear that, as global players, both countries have an obligation to work together to find pragmatic solutions to complex challenges.
Areas of pragmatic, mutually beneficial cooperation were clear. This included working together on achieving the global green transition; making greater efforts on development and global health; and the safe use of AI. The Foreign Secretary reiterated his commitment to promoting secure and resilient growth through increased trade and investment which creates jobs, drives innovation, boosts productivity and provides economic stability and certainty for the UK economy. They agreed that the UK and China can support both countries’ growth objectives, with China as the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s 4th largest trading partner.
The Foreign Secretary also raised a number of foreign policy and security matters, including Russia’s war in Ukraine, where he stated how both the UK and China have a shared interest in European peace and ending the war. He reaffirmed that concerns over China’s supply of equipment to Russia’s military industrial complex risks damaging China’s relationships with Europe whilst helping to sustain Russia’s war. The Foreign Secretary urged Wang Yi to take all measures to investigate and to prevent Chinese companies from supplying Russia’s military. The Foreign Ministers agreed to continue to discuss this and other broader foreign policy issues, such as the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
Human Rights were discussed, including in Xinjiang, and the Foreign Secretary referenced this as an area which the UK and China must engage, even where viewpoints diverge. Hong Kong is a shared interest, and the Foreign Secretary raised serious concerns around the implementation of the National Security Law and the ongoing treatment of British national Jimmy Lai, again calling for his release.
The meeting was constructive across the full breadth of the bilateral relationship, from areas of pragmatic cooperation to issues of contention. Both the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Minister agreed that maintaining channels of communication was essential and committed to holding regular discussions across their respective governments at Ministerial level.
A Banbridge man has been convicted in court for being the keeper of a Bully dog which mauled and seriously injured a man two years ago.
On Thursday 17 October, Gabriel McCauley of Ballygowan Park was convicted of a dog control offence under Article 29 of the Dogs (NI) Order 1983 (as amended) for being the keeper of a Bully dog which attacked another person.
In response to the attack, which occurred on October 3, 2022 at Havelock Park, the Dog Warden team from Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council attended the scene alongside police officers. The dog was brought under control before being humanely destroyed.
At Banbridge Magistrates Court, sitting in Newry on Thursday – Mr McCauley was found guilty of the offence and was fined £500, with a £15 offenders levy and the Council awarded costs of £300.
A Council spokesperson welcomed the conviction for the attack, and said it was important that all owners of XL Bully dogs comply with the new laws for keeping these dogs.
“This was an extremely serious attack which has left the victim with life-changing injuries, so it is welcome that the owner is brought before court and convicted,” they said.
“We want to emphasise that the Council operates a rigorous enforcement policy on dog control, and we also want to ensure that everyone is aware of the new rules around owning these XL Bully dogs.
“Owners need to keep their dog muzzled and on a lead when in public places. The dog must be kept in secure conditions that will stop it from escaping.
“Furthermore, owners are not allowed to breed, sell, exchange, gift or abandon an XL Bully type dog.”
Across Northern Ireland, it will be illegal to own an XL Bully dog without an Exemption Certificate from January 1, 2025. The application process for XL Bully dog exemptions is now open and will close on December 31, 2024.
CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ: (As interpreted.) Mr. President.
(Speaking English.) Dear Joe, it is my great pleasure to welcome you here to the Chancellery in Berlin as a friend of Europe, as a friend of Germany, and, above all, as my friend. Welcome.
(As interpreted.) Dear Joe, our cooperation the past three years was extraordinarily close and full of trust. I know that this is not something that we can take for granted, even among good partners as the U.S. and Germany have been for many, many decades.
I would like to take this opportunity here and today to express my gratitude and say thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
The times in which we’re living are extremely challenging indeed. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, war has returned back to Europe. The European security order has been shaken in its very foundations.
It is all the more important that we reacted decisively and stood closely together and unequivocably condemned this blatant violation of international law and stand by our Ukrainian friends’ side.
It is thanks to your leadership that Putin’s plans failed, that Ukraine wasn’t overrun within a few days. But it is thanks to the bravery of Ukrainian armed forces and the support of many states — above all, the United States and Germany — Ukraine stands up to imperialist Russia since more than two and a half years.
Together, we commit to Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity so that Russia cannot subjugate Ukraine by force. We stand by Ukraine’s side as long as it is necessary. Putin has miscalculated. He cannot sit and ride out this war.
Together, therefore, we decided, with our G7 partners, to support Ukraine with a loan package to the tune of 50 billion U.S. dollars by the end of this year.
Together, we commit to a strong NATO Alliance which defends every square inch of its territory. Every member of our alliance can rely on that. And together, we commit to the fundamental principles of the free world as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
Mr. President, from the very beginning of the war, we closely coordinated ourselves across the Atlantic. It has made us strong. It has made the Alliance strong, and we will continue to do that.
Our position is clear. We continue to support Ukraine as strongly as possible. At the same time, we are making sure that NATO does not become a party to this war so that this war does not lead to an even bigger catastrophe. We are very much aware of this responsibility, and no one can shoulder this responsibility for us.
Of course, the situation in the Middle East is also on our agenda. The barbaric terrorist attacks of Hamas on Israel of October 7th has massively destabilized the situation.
Israel has the right to defend itself. It is important to me to say this very clearly. We stand by Israel’s side, and we fully agree that it is now more important than ever before to prevent further escalation and a regional conflagration.
With the death of Hamas leader Sinwar, who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks, we hopefully now see a tangible prospect of a ceasefire in Gaza, an agreement that leads to the release of hostages held by Hamas.
Joe, your efforts — we always supported your efforts in this conflict, and we will continue to do so. Our common objective remains a credible political process towards a two-state solution, and we will continue to be fully committed to that.
In Lebanon, we’re working towards a situation that the conflict leads to a diplomatic process as soon as possible. It is clear the people in Northern Israel have to be able to live free of fear and insecurity. Lebanon deserves a future in self-determination, stability, and security.
Originally, your visit was scheduled to take place last Friday and had to be postponed due to the severe hurricanes. And I’m delighted that you were able to come today. It affords us the opportunity to talk about the challenging global situation in great detail bilaterally but also together with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who will join us later.
In my view, we need such talks at highest levels to make progress in the most important, pressing issues.
(In English.) Joe, thanks again for taking the time for this visit. It is a strong signal of our transatlantic unity and of our friendship.
Please.
PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, Chancellor — Olaf, it’s great to see you again, and I do apologize for having to cancel the first time around, but we did have a crisis in our southeastern border with hurricanes and tornadoes. But we’re here because Germany is — Germany is my country’s closest and most important of allies.
When Putin launched his brutal invasion in Ukraine, you reminded us all why this alliance is so essential. Under your leadership, Chancellor, Germany rose to meet the moment. You showed the wisdom to recognize that this war marked a turning point in the history, an assault on the very principles of the protected peace and security in Europe for more than 75 years.
And then you summoned the resolve to act, remaking Germany’s foreign policy to reckon new realities — with new realities to stand strong and steadfast with Ukraine.
America and Germany are the two largest supporters of Ukraine in its fight for survival as a free and independent nation. As Ukraine faces a tough winter, we must — we must sustain our resolve, our effort, and our support.
And I know the cost is heavy, but make no mistake, it pales in comparison to the cost of living in the world where aggression prevails, where large states attack and bully smaller ones simply because they can.
Today, the chancellor and I are going to discuss ongoing efforts to surge support to Ukraine’s military; to shore up Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure, which is under constant assault and bombardment from Russia; and to help Ukraine recover by unlocking the value of frozen Russian assets.
I also want to recognize Germany’s decision to spend 2 percent of your gross domestic product on defense. Please keep it up, because it matters.
Our alliance with Germany extends far beyond Ukraine and Europe. It’s global.
Today, the chancellor and I will discuss regional security in the Middle East, including the ongoing domestic efforts regarding Lebanon and Gaza.
The death of the leader of Hamas represents a moment of justice. He had the blood of Americans and Israelis, Palestinians and Germans, and so many others on his hands.
I told the prime minister of Israel yesterday: Let’s also make this moment an opportunity to seek a path to peace, a better future in Gaza without Hamas. And I look forward to discussing Iran.
Olaf and I spoke the morning after Iran launched 200 ballistic missiles at Israel earlier this month. With our G7 counterparts, we agreed to coordinate our response through sanctions and other measures, and that is what we have done.
I’m grateful for Germany’s cooperation holding Iran accountable for destabilizing policies, including providing missiles and drones to Russia to use against Ukraine.
And just this week, the European Union followed Germany, the UK, and France in sanctioning Iran’s leading airlines. This followed our own oil sanctions. This coordination is going to have to continue.
I also want to thank Germany for standing firm against a vicious surge of antisemitism, hatred, and extremism we’re witnessing today. Some of it fueled by foreign misinformation.
As domestic — as democratic allies, we have to remain ever vigilant against what I call the “old ghosts in new garments,” ancient hatreds resurfacing. Our charge is to make sure that the forces holding our societies together and binding us in the common cause of human dignity and freedom remain stronger — stronger than the forces seeking to pull us apart.
And finally, Chancellor, I deeply appreciate your partnership and the many times you’ve forsaken the easy choice to make the right choice. Your act of statesmanship and friendship has made possible the safe return and unjustly detained Americans and Germans and the reunion of brave Russian dissidents to their families. I want to thank you, thank you, thank you.
I value our conversations, and I look forward to them — this one is — particularly. And I want to — I really mean it — I want to thank you for your friendship, not only personally, but I don’t see how we maintain stability in Europe and around the world without a tight German-U.S. relationship. And you’re the leader to do it.
Of the many stereotypes about Germany — our sense of humor — (laughter) — our spontaneity, our irresistible joie de vivre — (laughter) — only one is really true: We are good at keeping records.
So, 44 and a half years ago, when the young Senator Joseph Biden came to Bonn, a German civil servant — ein guter Beamter, as we like to say — made a note — a rather extensive one, I should say — of this senator’s visit. And being Germans, you understand, we still have that note. (Laughter.) (Holds up a document.) This one. Many pages.
(Speaks German.) (No translation provided.)
That’s the content — the main content of report: “He is keenly interested in the Federal Republic of Germany,” the note concludes. And it adds, “that this senator might look to a,” I quote again, “significant political future.” (Laughter.) “Significant.” What a remarkable understatement.
Today, you are the 46th President of the United States. And under your leadership, the transatlantic alliance is stronger and our partnership is closer than ever.
Mr. President, you are keenly interested in Germany. That we have known for almost half a century. So, it is time for you to know that Germany, in turn, is deeply grateful to you.
Let me say, in the name of my country, thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
For Germany, the friendship with the United States has been, is now, and will always be existentially important — existential both for our security and our democracy.
And yet, in this friendship, there have been and always will be times of proximity and greater distance, times of agreement and times of discord. Even recently, just a handful years ago, the distance had grown so wide that we almost lost each other.
But — but, ladies and gentlemen, throughout the ups and downs of time, there have been people who have stood by the transatlantic relations no matter what. And chief among those people, Mr. President, is you.
You stand with us, sir, because you know that what binds us is so much deeper than the news of the day. What binds us is freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.
What binds us is the conviction that if liberal democracy is to have a future in this troubled world, we have to secure it together.
And what binds us are the lessons from our past — sacred lessons that you described so hauntingly in your letter to our beloved Margot Friedländer.
Sir, when you were elected president, you restored Europe’s hope in the transatlantic alliance literally overnight. And then, only a year later, came Putin’s war.
When Putin invaded Ukraine, he didn’t just go after one country. He attacked the very principles of peace in Europe.
Putin thought we would be weak. He thought we would be divided. But the opposite was true. NATO was stronger and more united than ever, and that is, in no small part, Mr. President, thanks to your leadership.
Mr. President, to have you in our most dangerous moment since the Cold War, to have you and your administration on our side is no less than a historical stroke of good fortune.
For us here in Europe, the past two years have shown once again, America truly is the indispensable nation. But it has also shown something else. NATO is the indispensable alliance.
So, in the months to come, I hope that Europeans remember America is indispensable for us, and I hope that Americans remember your allies are indispensable for you.
We are more than just other countries in the world. We are partners. We are friends.
The choice on November the 5th is only Americans’ choice to make. But we, as Europeans, have a choice too. We have the choice to do our part, to be unwavering in our support for Ukraine, to invest in our common security, to invest in our shared future, and, as you have done, sir, to stand by the transatlantic alliance no matter what.
Mr. President, when I visited you in the Oval Office a year ago on October the 6th, just a few hours before Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel, we spoke about the Middle East. We spoke about Ukraine and Russia. But at the end — I will never forget that — at the end of our conversation, you went to your desk and handed me a speech of yours not on foreign policy but on the issue that you care most about and that you worry most about — about democracy.
I quote, “Democracies don’t have to die at the end of a rifle,” you say in that speech. “Democracies can die when people are silent, when they are willing to give away that which is most precious to them because they feel frustrated, tired, alienated.” End of the quote.
Your words, Mr. President, echoed deeply in our part of the world, and they weigh even more heavily coming from the leader of the world’s oldest and most time-tested democracy.
So, let me say this from the bottom of my heart. In this time when democracy is under strain all around the Western world, you, Mr. President, have been a beacon of democracy.
You are a beacon not just by what you have done but by who you are, by the example of your humility, your deep connection with the lives and hopes of hardworking people, and, if you excuse that old-fashioned word, by your decency.
Decency is maybe what we are most at risk of losing. But your decency, sir, is a light that shines very far. It certainly reached the hearts of my fellow Germans.
As U.S. president, you command the most powerful military. You lead the biggest economy in the world. But maybe the most precious service to democracy, the most joyful and reassuring thing for people is to know that even this most powerful man in the world is, in the end, a fundamentally decent human being.
Mr. President, we all know that you love your Irish poets and that you know them well. I have heard you quote Seamus Heaney from memory, so I hope you allow me to end with a quote from his “Republic of Conscience.”
I quote, “At their inauguration, public leaders must swear to uphold unwritten law and weep to atone for the presumption to hold office.”
“The presumption to hold office,” Mr. President. It seems that you have always had a deep sense of the inevitable presumption in holding office, including the highest office — in being elevated above others, in a society of equals.
You have transformed this presumption into a deep sense of responsibility, and you have carried that responsibility throughout your career and have now decided, in the most noble tradition of American leaders since Washington, to let democracy run its ever-changing and uncharted course.
Mr. President, on the historic occasion of your visit to Germany, my country recognizes your decades-long dedication to the transatlantic alliance, your outstanding political leadership in Europe’s most dangerous moment, and your lasting moral example of service, sincerity, and decency.
It is now my great honor to bestow on you the Grand Cross special class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany.
And for that, Mr. President — may I say, dear Joe — congratulations. (Applause.)
I have to read the document — one second — in German.
(Speaks German.) (No translation provided.) (Applause.)
(President Biden is presented the Grand Cross special class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany.) (Applause.)
It’s done. (Laughs.) (Applause.)
PRESIDENT BIDEN: Let me begin by saying I — I’m overwhelmed not just by the award but by the words, Mr. President.
Margot Friedländer, you are a voice of conscience and healing. I’m actually honored to be in your presence, for real.
This award means so much to me for what it says about us, the journey we’ve taken; the alliance we’ve strengthened; the way that we have, as two separate nations, risen together to meet our moment.
I think it’s fair to say, although I know I only look like I’m 40 years old — (laughter) — I — I’ve seen a wide sweep of history.
When I was born, our countries were at war. As a young senator, I visited West Berlin and saw what it meant to live in a divided city, country, and continent. And I forged a bond with Helmut Schmidt, your — my first relationship of candor and trust with a German chancellor but, thankfully, not my last.
And then, in 1989, like millions of people around the world, I saw 70,000 brave souls gathered in Leipzig, crying — crying out for freedom. And the Berlin Wall came down 35 years ago this month.
It was one of the greatest advances in human dignity in my lifetime. Some feared the reunification of Germany would revive old hatreds and rivalries. But leaders of America and Germany dreamed together of a much better future.
The achievement of a Germany whole and free lives on, exceeding, I think, everyone’s expectations. The dream of Europe whole and free remains the work of our time, nor is that work more urgent than a pushing back against Putin’s vicious attack against Ukraine.
German leaders had the wisdom to recognize a turning point in history, an assault on a fellow democracy, and also on principles that upheld 75 years of peace and security in Europe.
Germany and the United States stood together to support the brave people of Ukraine in their fight for freedom, for democracy, for their very survival. And I want to thank every leader across Germany’s government who has worked tirelessly to ensure that Ukraine prevails and Putin fails, and NATO remains strong and more united than ever.
We head into a very difficult winter — (coughs) — but we cannot let up. We cannot — (an aide delivers a glass of water) — thank you so very much. That’s kind of you. (Laughs.)
We head to a dery — a very difficult winter. But we cannot let up. We must sustain our support. In my view, we must keep going until Ukraine wins a just and durable peace consistent with the U.N. Charter, until once again human dignity prevails.
Let me close with this. The times I have lived through have taught me that history does move forward and things can get better if we determine they must — that things can get better and that we should never underestimate the power of democracy, never underes- — -estimate the value of alliances.
Germany — Germany has taught us all that change is possible and, for better or for worse, countries can and do choose their own destinies and the choices that leaders make at critical times truly matters.
I want to thank the current leaders of Germany for the choice you’ve made when it matters most.
I hope you’ll forgive this once, but — if I forsake the great German poets and quote an Irish poet. (Laughter.)
Seamus Heaney said in “The Cure at Troy” — he said, “History teaches us not to hope on this side of the grave. But then — but then, once in a lifetime, a longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme.”
When the Berlin Wall fell, hope and history rhymed. When Kyiv stood, hope and history rhymed.
Many Americans and Germans always find the wisdom and the courage. May they keep making hope and history rhyme, because we can, because nothing is beyond our capacity, in my view — nothing is beyond our capacity — when we do it together.
So, thank you again for this award. I’m honored to accept. I do not deserve, but I’m honored to accept. And that, if we continue to work together, Germany has stood up in a way that is incredible.
I want to thank you again for the award. And may God bless you all. And may God protect our troops.
Jasper is one of Canada’s most iconic destinations, treasured by Canadians and renowned around the world.
October 18, 2024 – Jasper, Alberta
Jasper is one of Canada’s most iconic destinations, treasured by Canadians and renowned around the world. With its proximity to majestic mountains and clear blue lakes, Jasper draws over two million visitors from across Canada and around the world every year. This summer’s wildfires had a devastating impact on Jasper and the region’s economy, which is built on tourism. That’s why the Government of Canada is taking action to support Jasper’s recovery and help its tourism industry come back strong.
The Honourable Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, alongside Marsha Walden, President and CEO of Destination Canada, the Honourable Joseph Schow, Alberta Minister of Tourism and Sport, Richard Ireland, Mayor of the Municipality of Jasper, David Goldstein, CEO of Travel Alberta, and Tyler Riopel, CEO of Tourism Jasper, today announced $3 million in support from the Government of Canada to help Jasper and the region’s tourism industry recover, rebuild and retake its place on the world stage. This is made possible through collaboration between Destination Canada and Travel Alberta, which are integrating their marketing strategies to showcase one of Canada’s most sought-after experiences.
Key marketing initiatives delivered by Destination Canada include:
investing in Destination Canada-led seasonal marketing campaigns, in collaboration with Travel Alberta, with a focus on the United States—Canada’s top international arrivals market;
co-investing in opportunities for targeted Destination Canada-led marketing programs in additional key markets such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Mexico;
hosting Canada’s largest global tourism media event in Jasper in September 2025, which will be organized in collaboration with Travel Aberta and Tourism Jasper and will serve as a platform to foster relationships between over 80 top-tier travel media outlets from around the world and Canadian tourism industry representatives; and
leveraging Destination Canada’s $50 million International Convention Attraction Fund.
These important investments build on significant support for Jasper already announced by the Government of Canada. This began with calling in the Canadian Armed Forces to fight the wildfires in July. As Jasper began to recover, the government matched donations and ensured local residents received the benefits and services they needed. As the town started rebuilding, the government quickly made changes to put the municipality in charge of the effort. This work is being directed by a special cabinet committee, led by the Honourable Randy Boissonnault.
Today’s announcement followed Minister Ferrada and Minister Schow’s co-hosting of the annual Canadian Council of Tourism Ministers meeting in Banff, Alberta and subsequent tour of the region. At the meeting, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for tourism discussed challenges facing the tourism sector and cross-governmental opportunities to support its growth.
Marie-Justine Torres Press Secretary Office of the Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec marie-justine.torresames@ised-isde.gc.ca 613-327-5918
Media Relations Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada media@ised-isde.gc.ca
For easy access to government programs for businesses, download the Canada Business app.
Copies of the letters from Max Soule, Deputy Director Local Government Stewardship and Interventions at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to Michael Hainge and Richard Paver, detailing the decision by ministers to appoint them as Assistant Inspectors in relation to Warrington Borough Council under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Government marks ‘new beginning’ of relationship with civil society to tackle some of society’s most pressing issues with launch of a new ‘Civil Society Covenant’
Government marks ‘new beginning’ of relationship with civil society to tackle some of society’s most pressing issues
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy host No10 roundtable discussion and reception with key civil society representatives
Event signals start of a period of wider engagement over the Autumn to forge a bold new partnership between Government and civil society
The creation of a ‘Civil Society Covenant’ will usher in a new era of partnership between government and civil society and help tackle some of the country’s biggest challenges, the Prime Minister and Culture Secretary will announce today.
The new Covenant is designed to harness the knowledge and expertise of voluntary, community, social enterprises (VCSEs) and charities to deliver better outcomes for communities right across the country.
Civil society occupies a unique place in public life by providing support to those in need, binding communities together and helping drive growth. Across the country, there are countless examples of what partnership between civil society and government can achieve, including youth activities to support vulnerable teenagers and tools to support people into work.
The new Covenant will build a new partnership between government and civil society based on trust and mutual respect. Crucially, it will unlock the dynamism, innovation and trusted reach of civil society across communities, helping to deliver the defining missions of this government; driving economic growth and opening up opportunity to all.
As a first step, a Covenant Framework has been developed in consultation with key civil society bodies, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO).
The inclusion of key representative organisations recognises the expertise civil society offers in tackling disadvantage, driving cohesion, supporting democracy and community voices both at home and abroad.
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy will chair a roundtable discussion with civil society leaders at 10 Downing Street today to launch the Covenant Framework. This will be followed by a reception hosted by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to welcome leaders from a range of civil society organisations. Attendees will represent civil society from across the four nations, including grass roots charities and social enterprises covering a range of diverse communities.
Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer said:
To fix the foundations of our country we need a fundamental reset of the relationship between government and civil society.
That is why we’re building a new partnership with the sector to tackle the complex social and economic challenges we face as a country.
By harnessing the dynamism, innovation and trusted reach of civil society organisations, we can boost growth and deliver better outcomes for communities right across the country”.
Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy said:
The Covenant paves the way for a new era in the relationship between government and civil society — one that recognises the critical role the sector plays as a trusted partner in achieving shared goals for the benefit of communities across the UK.
Voluntary organisations, charities and social enterprises all understand the challenges being faced every day in our villages, towns and cities and the government wants to work hand-in-hand with them to help fix them — changing lives for the better.
National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) CEO, Sarah Elliott said:
We are proud to be working with the Government on the Civil Society Covenant. This foundational moment resets the relationship between government and civil society, ensuring the expertise of charities and social enterprises are central to decision making. We look forward to continuing our work with partners across the sector to achieve this vision.
Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO) CEO, Jane Ide said:
ACEVO welcomes the government’s commitment to work together to develop a Civil Society Covenant which aims to redefine our relationship for the benefit of the people, causes and communities we serve. Effective leadership relies on collaboration, trust, and mutual respect — values that underpin this Covenant. Civil society leaders are essential partners in realising this vision and ensuring its principles are upheld.
Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) CEO, Dr Lindsay Cordery-Bruce said:
WCVA has proudly worked alongside the Welsh Government for over 20 years to ensure positive and meaningful engagement with the third sector. We welcome the new Covenant as the next step in the civil society movement across the UK. A new Covenant that complements the existing arrangements in the devolved nations will offer an opportunity to build on good practice.”
Locality CEO, Tony Armstrong said:
We welcome the government’s commitment to resetting its relationship with civil society. Local community organisations have long played a vital, yet often overlooked role in addressing society’s most pressing issues. We see every day what community power can achieve, and the support of government at all levels will allow community organisations to do even more to help local people thrive.
Refugee Council CEO, Enver Solomon said:
It is very encouraging to have a government firmly committed to reaching a new deal on how it works with the voluntary sector as it responds to the huge challenges society and public services face.
Charities bring years of invaluable frontline experience, service innovation and an independent perspective that can make government policy and delivery stronger and grounded in the reality of people’s lived experience.
Four key principles will form the basis of the Covenant Framework: transparency, recognition, participation and partnership. They will act as a starting point for wider engagement across Government, the public sector and civil society.
The initiative aims to improve Government and civil society’s ability to tackle complex social and economic challenges by uniting the unique capabilities of the two to facilitate better outcomes for communities which would otherwise be impossible to achieve in isolation.
Today’s events at Downing Street will kickstart a period of engagement throughout the autumn, with consideration given to ensuring broad representation is achieved across the full breadth of civil society, inclusive of organisations of all purposes, sizes, geographical locations and demographic focus.
In parallel, engagement will take place across Government including the Devolved Governments, Arm’s Length Bodies, local authorities and Mayoral Combined Authorities.
The robust engagement period will culminate in the publication of a final co-created Covenant to be published next year.
ENDS
Additional quotes:
National Association for Voluntary and Community Action (NAVCA) CEO, Maddy Desforges said:
We welcome Government’s explicit recognition of the VCSE’s role in tackling complex and deep rooted societal problems. Local VCSE support organisations form critical connections between the VCSE and statutory partners and capture communities’ unique knowledge and problem solving insights. We are excited to work with Government to collaborate and deepen our relationship to support and develop resilient communities.
Voice4Change England Director, Kunle Olulode MBE said:
Voice4change England welcomes the opportunity to work with government on setting out a new relationship with voluntary organisations, social enterprises and civil society generally.
It is long overdue for the government to engage seriously with the parts of the Black and Minoritised third sector we are involved in, so we are keen to make it work. We look forward to constructive, meaningful engagement and positive changes for all in British Society.
The Civil Society Covenant will support partnerships between: 1. national government and associated public bodies including executive agencies and arm’s length organisations 2. civil society organisations including charities, community groups, social enterprises, funders and contributors to the impact economy.
While the Covenant scope will focus on core Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisations, relevant industry bodies including Trade Unions were also consulted as part of the initial drafting via engagement with NCVO and ACEVO.
The Covenant will not override existing arrangements between civil society and the Devolved Governments, local authorities and combined authorities, but will instead seek to support these existing relationships.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Lea Paterson announced as Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
Today, Thursday 17 October 2024, the Government has announced that Lea Paterson will be the new Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).
Lea brings extensive experience from public policy, regulation, HR and financial journalism. She has held a number of senior roles at the Bank of England, including serving as the Bank’s Executive Director of People & Culture, and as the organisation’s first Director of Independent Evaluation.
Lea is currently a Board Member at the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, an independent member of Warwick University’s Remuneration Committee, and a Civil Service Commissioner. She also holds a number of voluntary and community roles.
As Chair of the SSRB, Lea will provide strong leadership at a senior level and a clear direction of the policy, financial and operational levers that impact on remuneration decisions, especially in the public sector.
The SSRB provides independent advice to the Prime Minister and senior ministers on the pay of many of the nation’s top public servants.
The SSRB’s remit covers senior civil servants, the judiciary, the senior military, certain senior managers in the NHS, Police and Crime Commissioners and chief police officers.
This is a Prime Ministerial appointment with Cabinet Office being the sponsoring department. The appointment process for this role was in full accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments’ Code of Practice.
The Rt Hon Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said:
Congratulations to Lea on her appointment as Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
This role requires someone with financial expertise, strong leadership skills and dedication to public service, and Lea’s skills and experience across many relevant fields will be invaluable.
I wish her the best of luck in her new role.
Lea Paterson, incoming Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body, said:
I’m delighted to have been appointed as Chair of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
I’m looking forward to working with colleagues to deliver independent, evidence-based advice that not only helps to attract and retain great talent for our public services, but also ensures value for money for the taxpayer.
I would also like to thank the outgoing Chair Pippa Lambert for her sterling leadership of the SSRB.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kieran Maguire, Senior Teacher in Accountancy and member of Football Industries Group, University of Liverpool
When the Premier League broke away from the rest of English football in 1992, its 22 clubs generated £205 million in its debut season, and the average player earned £2,050 a week. Thirty years later, despite having two fewer clubs, the league’s revenue had increased by 2,850% to £6.1 billion and the average player earned £93,000 a week.
At the heart of this extraordinary growth is an American revolution. In the Premier League’s inaugural season, football was still in recovery from the horrors of the stadium disasters at Hillsborough and Heysel. Owners tended to be from the local area and with a business background. The only foreign owner was Sam Hamman at Wimbledon, a Lebanese millionaire who bought the club on a whim having reportedly been much more interested in tennis. The season ended with Manchester United (under Alex Ferguson) winning the English game’s top league for the first time in 26 years.
Now, if the Texas-based Friedkin Group’s recent deal to buy Everton goes through, 11 of the 20 Premier League clubs will be controlled or part-owned by American investors. The US – long seen as football’s final frontier when it comes to the men’s game – suddenly can’t get enough of English “soccer”.
Four of the Premier League’s “big six” are American-owned – Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea – while a fifth, Manchester City, has a significant US minority shareholding. Aston Villa, Fulham, Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, West Ham and Ipswich Town also have varying degrees of American ownership.
And it’s not even just the glamour clubs at the top of the tree. American investment has also been significant lower down the football pyramid, led by the high-profile acquisition of then non-league Wrexham by Hollywood actors Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenny, and Birmingham City’s purchase by US investors including seven-time Super Bowl winner Tom Brady. American investment in football has reached places as geographically diverse as Carlisle and Crawley in England, and Aberdeen and Edinburgh in Scotland.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Manchester United was the first Premier League club to come under American ownership – after a row about a horse.
In 2005, United was owned by a variety of investors including Irish businessmen and racehorse owners John Magnier and J.P. McManus. Their erstwhile friend Ferguson, the United manager, thought he co-owned the champion racehorse Rock of Gibraltar with them – a stallion worth millions in stud rights. They disagreed – and their bitter dispute was such that Magnier and McManus decided to sell their shares in the football club.
The Miami-based Glazer family – already involved in sport as owners of NFL franchise the Tampa Bay Buccaneers – had already been buying up small tranches of shares in United, but the sudden availability of the Irish shares allowed Malcolm Glazer to acquire a controlling stake for £790 million (around £1.5 billion at today’s prices).
The fact Glazer did not actually have sufficient funds to pay for these shares was a solvable problem. In the some-might-say commercially naive world of top-flight English football before the Premier League, Manchester United was a club without debt, paying its way without leveraging its position as one of the world’s most famous football clubs. Glazer saw the opportunity this presented and arranged a leveraged buy-out (LBO), whereby the football club borrowed more than £600 million secured on its own assets to, in effect, “buy itself” in 2005.
Despite the need to meet the high interest costs to fund the LBO, United continued winning trophies under Ferguson – including three Premier League titles in a row in 2007, 2008 and 2009, as well as a Champions League victory in 2008. Amid this success, the club felt that ticket prices were too low and set about increasing them, with matchday revenue increasing from £66 million in 2004/05 to over £101 million by 2007/08.
Commercial income was another area the Glazers were keen to increase. United set up offices in London and adopted a global approach to finding new official branding deals ranging from snacks to tractor and tyre suppliers – doubling revenues from this income source too.
But in this new, more aggressive world of “sweating the asset”, the debts lingered – and most United fans remained deeply suspicious of their American owners. (Following their father’s death in 2014, the club was co-owned by his six children, with brothers Avram and Joel Glazer becoming co-chairmen.)
Today, despite its partial listing on the New York Stock Exchange and the February 2024 sale of 27.7% of the club to British billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe for a reputed £1.25 billion, United still has borrowings of more than £546 million, having paid cumulative interest costs of £969 million since the takeover in 2005. But with the club now valued at US$6.55 billion (around £5bn), it represents a very smart investment for the Glazer family.
Indeed, while the prices being paid for football clubs across Europe have reached record levels, they are still seen as cheap investments compared with US sports’ leading franchises. Forbes’s annual list of the world’s most valuable sports teams has American football (NFL), baseball (MLB) and basketball (NBA) teams occupying the top ten positions, with only three Premier League clubs – Manchester United, Liverpool and Manchester City – in the top 50.
With NFL teams having an average franchise value of US$5.1 billion and NBA $3.9 billion, many English football clubs still look like a bargain from the other side of the pond.
The risk of relegation
The latest to join this US bandwagon, the Friedkin Group – a Texas-based portfolio of companies run by American businessman and film producer Dan Friedkin – is reported to have offered £400m to buy Everton, despite the club’s poor financial state.
“The Toffees” have been hit by loss of sponsorships as well as two sets of points deductions for breaching the Premier League’s financial rules, leading to revenue losses from lower league positions. While the new stadium being built at Liverpool’s Bramley-Moore dock has been yet another financial constraint, it will at least increase matchday income from the start of next season.
Everton’s new stadium at Bramley-Moore dock will open in time for the start of the 2025-26 season. Phil Silverman / Shutterstock
A wider reason for the relative bargain in valuations of European football clubs is the risk of relegation – something that is not part of the closed leagues of most US sports. While the threat of relegation (and promise of promotion) has always been an integral part of English and European football, the jeopardy this brings for supporters – and a club’s finances – does not exist in the NFL, NBA, Major League Soccer and similar competitions.
The Premier League, with its three relegation spots at the end of each season, has featured 51 different clubs since it launched in 1992. Only six clubs – Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton – have been ever present, with Arsenal now approaching 100 years of consecutive top-flight football.
Other Premier League clubs have experienced the dramatic cost-benefit of relegation and promotion. Oldham Athletic, who were in the Premier League for its first two seasons, now languish in the fifth tier of the game, outside the English Football League (EFL). In contrast, Luton Town, who were in the fifth tier as recently as 2014, were promoted to the Premier League in 2023 – only to be relegated at the end of last season.
While it is difficult to compare football clubs with basketball and American football teams, the financial difference between having an open league, with relegation, and a closed league becomes apparent when you look at women’s football on both sides of the Atlantic.
Angel City, a women’s soccer team based in Los Angeles, only entered the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) in 2022 and is yet to win an NWSL trophy. But last month, the club was sold for US$250 million (£188m) to Disney’s CEO Bob Iger and TV journalist Willow Bay – the most expensive takeover in the history of women’s professional sport.
In comparison, Chelsea – seven-time winners of the English Women’s Super League and one of the most successful sides in Europe – valued its women’s team at £150 million ($US196m) earlier this summer. While there are a number of factors to this price differential, the confidence that Angel City will always be a member of the big league of US soccer clubs – and share very equally in its revenue – will have made its new owners very confident in the long-term soundness of their deal.
The story of Angel City FC, the most expensive team in women’s sport.
A further attraction for American investors is the potential to enter two markets – one mature (men’s football) and one effectively a start-up (the women’s game) – in a single purchase. In the US, the top men’s and women’s clubs are completely separate. But in Europe, most top-flight women’s teams are affiliated to men’s clubs – with the exception of eight-time Women’s Champions League winners Olympique Lyonnais Feminin, which split from the French men’s club when Korean-American businesswoman Michele Kang bought a majority stake in the women’s team in February 2024).
While interest in, and hence value of, the WSL is now growing fast, the women’s game in England is dwarfed by viewer ratings for the Premier League – the most watched sporting league in the world, viewed by an estimated 1.87 billion people every week across 189 countries.
These figures dwarf even the NFL which, while currently still the most valuable of all sporting leagues in terms of its broadcasting deals, must be looking at the growth of the Premier League with some jealousy. This may explain why some US franchise owners, such as Stan Kroenke, the Glazer family, Fenway Sports Group and Billy Foley, have subsequently purchased Premier League football clubs.
Ironically, for many spectators around the world, it is the intensity and competitiveness of most Premier League matches – brought on in part by the threat of relegation and prize of European qualification – that makes it so captivating. However, billionaire investors like guaranteed numbers and dislike risk – especially the degree of financial risk that exists in the Premier League and English Football League.
European not-so-Super League
In April 2021, 12 leading European clubs (six from England plus three each from Spain and Italy) announced the creation of the European Super League (ESL). This new mid-week competition was to be a high-revenue generating, closed competition with (eventually) 15 permanent teams and five annual additions qualifying from Europe. According to one of the driving forces behind the plan, Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer:
By bringing together the world’s greatest clubs and players to play each other throughout the season, the Super League will open a new chapter for European football, ensuring world-class competition and facilities, and increased financial support for the wider football pyramid.
The problem facing the Premier League’s “big six” clubs – and their ambitious owners – is there are currently only four slots available to play in the Champions League. So, their thinking went, why not take away the risk of not qualifying? However, the proposal was swiftly condemned by fans around Europe, together with football’s governing bodies and leagues – all of whom saw the ESL proposal as a threat to the quality and integrity of their domestic leagues. Following some large fan protests, including at Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge, Manchester City was the first club to withdraw – followed, within a couple of days, by the rest of the English clubs.
Under the terms of the ESL proposals, founding member clubs would have been guaranteed participation in the competition forever. Guaranteed participation means guaranteed revenues. The current financial gap between the “big six” and the other members of the Premier League, which in 2022/23 averaged £396 million, would have widened rapidly.
For example, these clubs would have been able to sell the broadcast rights for some of their ESL home fixtures direct to fans, instead of via a broadcaster. All of a sudden, that database of fans who have downloaded the official club app, or are on a mailing list, becomes far more valuable. These are the people most willing to watch their favourite team on a pay-per-view basis, further increasing revenues.
At the same time, a planned ESL wage cap would have stopped players taking all these increased revenues in the form of higher wages, allowing these clubs to become more profitable and their ownership even more lucrative.
American-owned Manchester United and Liverpool had previously tried to enhance the value of their investments during the COVID lockdowns era via ProjectBig Picture – proposals to reduce the size of the Premier League and scrap one of the two domestic cup competitions, thus freeing up time for the bigger clubs to arrange more lucrative tours and European matches against high-profile opposition.
Most importantly, Project Big Picture would have resulted in changing the governance of the domestic game. Under its proposals, the “big six” clubs would have enjoyed enhanced voting rights, and therefore been able to significantly influence how the domestic game was governed.
Any attempt to increase the concentration of power raises concerns of lower competitive balance, whereby fewer teams are in the running to win the title and fewer games are meaningful. This is a problem facing some other major European football leagues including France’s Ligue 1, where interest among broadcasters has dwindled amid the perceived dominance of Paris St-Germain.
So while to date, American-led attempts to change the structure of the Premier League have been foiled, it’s unlikely such ideas have gone away for good. The near-universal fear of fans – even those who welcome an injection of extra cash from a new billionaire owner – is that the spectacle of the league will only be diminished if such plans ever succeed.
And there is evidence from the women’s game that the US closed league format is coming under more pressure from football’s global forces. The NWSL recently announced it is removing the draft system that is designed (as with the NFL and NBA) to build in jeopardy and competitive balance when there is no risk of relegation.
Top US women’s football clubs are losing some of their leading players to other leagues, in part because European clubs are not bound by the same artificial rules of employment. In a truly global professional sport such as football, international competition will always tend to destabilise closed leagues.
Why do they keep buying these clubs?
Does this mean that American and other wealthy owners of Premier League clubs seeking to reduce their risks are ultimately fighting a losing battle? And if so, given the potential risks involved in owning a football club – both financial and even personal – why do they keep buying them?
The motivations are part-financial, part technological and, as has always been the case with sports ownership, part-vanity.
The American economy has grown far faster than that of the EU or UK in recent years. Consequently, there are many beneficiaries of this growth who have surplus cash, and here football becomes an attractive proposition. In fact, football clubs are more resilient to recessions than other industries, holding their value better as they are effectively monopoly suppliers for their fans who have brand loyalty that exists in few other industries.
From 1993 to 2018, a period during which the UK economy more than doubled, the total value of Premier League clubs grew 30 times larger. And many fans are tied to supporting one club, helping to make the biggest clubs more resilient to economic changes than other industries. While football, like many parts of the entertainment industry, was hit by lockdown during Covid, no clubs went out of business, despite the challenges of matches being played in empty stadiums.
Added to this, the exchange rates for US dollars have been very favourable until recently, making US investments in the UK and Europe cheaper for American investors.
So, while Manchester United fans would argue that the Glazer family have not been good for the club, United has been good for the Glazers. And Fenway Sports Group (FSG), who bought Liverpool for £300 million in 2010, have recouped almost all of that money in smaller share sales while remaining majority owners of Liverpool.
Despite this, the £2.5 billion price paid for Chelsea by the US Clearlake-Todd Boehly consortium in May 2022 took markets by surprise.
The sale – which came after the UK government froze the assets of the club’s Russian oligarch owner, Roman Abramovich, following the invasion of Ukraine – went through less than a year after Newcastle United had been sold by Sports Direct founder Mike Ashley to the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund for £305 million – approximately twice that club’s annual revenues. Yet Clearlake-Boehly were willing to pay over five times Chelsea’s annual revenues to acquire the club, even though it was in a precarious financial position.
Clearlake is a private equity group whose main aim is to make profits for their investors. But unlike most such investors, who tend to focus on cost-cutting, the Chelsea ownership came in with a high-spending strategy using new financial structuring ideas, such as offering longer player contracts to avoid falling foul of football’s profitability and sustainability rules (although this loophole has since been closed with Uefa, European football’s governing body, limiting contract lengths for financial regulation purposes to five years).
Chelsea’s location in the one of the most expensive areas of London, combined with its on-field success under Abramovich, all added to the attraction, of course. But there are other reasons why Clearlake, along with billionaire businessman Boehly, were willing to stump up so much for the club.
From Hollywood to the metaverse
While some British football fans may have viewed the Ted Lasso TV show as an enjoyable if slightly twee fictional account of American involvement in English soccer, it has enhanced the attraction of the sport in the US. So too Welcome To Wrexham – the fly-on-the-wall series covering the (to date) two promotions of Wales’s oldest football club under the unlikely Hollywood stewardship of Reynolds and McElhenney.
Welcome To Wrexham, season one trailer.
The growth in US interest in English football is reflected in the record-breaking Premier League media rights deal in 2022, with NBC Sports reportedly paying $2.7 billion (£2.06bn) for its latest six-year deal.
But as well as football offering one of increasingly few “live shared TV experiences” that carry lucrative advertising slots, there may also be more opportunity for more behind-the-scenes coverage of the Premier League – as has long been seen in US coverage of NBA games, for example, where players are interviewed in the locker room straight after games.
According to Manchester United’s latest annual report, the club now has a “global community of 1.1 billion fans and followers”. Such numbers mean its owners, and many others, are bullish about the potential of the metaverse in terms of offering a matchday experience that could be similar to attending a match, without physically travelling to Manchester.
Their neighbours Manchester City, part-owned by American private equity company Silverlake, broke new (virtual) ground by signing a metaverse deal with Sony in 2022. Virtual reality could give fans around the world the feeling of attending a live match, sitting next to their friends and singing along with the rest of the crowd (for a pay-per-view fee).
Some investors are even confident that advancements in Abba-style avatar technology could one day allow fans to watch live 3D simulations of Premier League matches in stadiums all over the world. Having first-mover advantage by being in the elite club of owners who can make use of such technology could prove ever more rewarding.
More immediately, there are some indications that competitive matches involving England’s top men’s football teams could soon take place in US or other venues. Boehly, Chelsea’s co-owner, has already suggested adopting some US sports staples such as an All-Star match to further boost revenues. Indeed, back in 2008, the Premier League tentatively discussed a “39th game” taking place overseas, but that idea was quickly shelved.
The American owners of Birmingham City were keen to play this season’s EFL League One match against Wrexham in the US, but again this proposal did not get far. Liverpool’s chairman Tom Werner says he is determined to see matches take place overseas, and recent changes to world governing body Fifa’s rulebook could make it easier for this proposal to succeed.
The potential benefits of hosting games overseas include higher matchday revenues, increased brand awareness, and enhanced broadcast rights. While there is likely to be significant opposition from local fans, at least American owners know they would not face the same hostility about rising matchday prices in the US as they have encountered in England.
When the Argentinian legend Lionel Messi signed for new MLS franchise Inter Miami in 2023, season ticket prices nearly doubled on his account. And while there is vocal opposition to higher ticket prices in England, this is not borne out in terms of lower attendances for matches against high-calibre opposition – as evidenced by Aston Villa charging up to £97 for last week’s Champions League meeting with Bayern Munich.
Villa’s director of operations, Chris Heck, defended the prices by saying that difficult decisions had to be made if the club was to be competitive.
Manchester United’s matchday revenue per EPL season (£m)
For much of the 2010s, with broadcast revenues increasing rapidly, many Premier League owners made little effort to stoke hostilities with their loyal fan bases by putting up ticket prices. Indeed, Manchester United generated little more from matchday income in the 2021-22 season, as football emerged from the pandemic, than the club had in 2010-11 (see chart above).
However, this uneasy truce between fans and owners has ceased. The relative flatlining of broadcast revenues since 2017, along with cost control rules that are starting to affect clubs’ ability to spend money on player signings and wages, has changed club appetites for dampened ticket prices. This has resulted in noticeable rises in individual ticket and season ticket prices by some clubs.
However, season ticket and other local “legacy” fans generate little money compared with the more lucrative overseas and tourist fans. They may only watch their favourite team live once a season, but when they visit, they are far more likely not only to pay higher matchday prices, but to spend more on merchandise, catering and other offerings from the club.
Today’s breed of commercially aware, profit-seeking US Premier League owners – pioneered by the Glazer family, who saw that “sweating the asset” meant more than watching football players sprinting hard – understand there is a lot more value to come from English football teams. The clubs’ loyal local supporters may not like it, but English football’s American-led revolution is not done yet.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
Kieran Maguire has taught courses and presented on football finance for the Professional Footballers Association, League Managers Association, FIFA and national football associations in Europe.
Christina Philippou is affiliated with the RAF FA, and Premier League education programs.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3
New rules will give millions of Buy-Now, Pay-Later users key protections offered by other forms of credit.
Providers will have to ensure lending is affordable – stopping users from accumulating unmanageable debt
Rules deliver better protection for shoppers and clarity for innovative sector after years of uncertainty
Millions of shoppers are set to be protected by new rules for Buy-Now, Pay-Later products.
Buy-Now, Pay-Later products have become increasingly popular in recent years as they allow people to spread the cost of purchases over time, but users currently do not have access to a range of key protections provided by other consumer credit products.
The Government has today launched a consultation on proposals to fix this by bringing Buy-Now, Pay-Later companies under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and applying the Consumer Credit Act, ensuring users receive clear information, avoid unaffordable borrowing, and have strong rights when issues arise.
Economic Secretary to the Treasury Tulip Siddiq said:
Millions of people use Buy-Now, Pay-Later to manage their finances, but the previous government’s dither and delay left them unprotected.
We promised to take action before the election and now we are delivering. Our approach will give shoppers access to the key protections provided by other forms of credit while providing the sector with the certainty it needs to innovate and grow.
The new rules will allow the FCA to apply rules on affordability – meaning that Buy-Now, Pay-Later companies will have to check that shoppers are able to afford repayments before offering a loan, which will help to prevent people building up unmanageable debt.
Companies will also need to provide clear, simple and accessible information about loan agreements in advance so that shoppers can make fully informed decisions and understand the risks associated with late repayments. Consumer Credit Act information disclosure rules will be disapplied so that the FCA can consult on bespoke rules that ensure users are given this information in a way that is tailored to the online setting in which Buy-Now, Pay-Later products are generally used.
Buy-Now, Pay-Later users will be given stronger rights if issues arise with products they purchase, making it quicker and easier to get redress. This includes applying Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, which allows consumers to claim refunds from their lender, and access to the Financial Ombudsman Service to make complaints.
Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:
Which? has been a leading voice calling for the regulation of Buy Now Pay Later for years so it’s positive that new rules are coming in that should provide much-needed protections for users of these products.
Our research found that many BNPL customers do not realise they are taking on debt or consider the prospect of missing payments, which can result in uncapped fees, so clearer information about the risks involved as well as the use of affordability checks and options for redress would be a win for consumers.
We are keen to see legislation quickly passed to ensure that BNPL users are protected as strongly as consumers using other credit products.
Sebastian Siemiatkowski, Co founder and CEO of Klarna, said:
Congratulations to Tulip Siddiq and the government on moving quickly! They have been working with the industry and consumer groups long before coming into office. We’re looking forward to carrying on that work to put proportionate rules in place that protect consumers while fostering growth.
Michael Saadat, International Head of Public Policy at Clearpay said:
We welcome today’s update from City and FinTech Minister, Tulip Siddiq, on BNPL regulation. It is encouraging that HM Treasury has listened to industry feedback and evolved the previous framework to ensure a more proportionate approach to regulation. We have always called for fit-for-purpose regulation that prioritises customer protection, delivers much-needed innovation in consumer credit and that sets high industry standards across the board.
We will continue to support the Government and the FCA to deliver fit-for-purpose regulation that ensures consumers are protected in a way that supports the UK’s thriving FinTech sector.
Chris Woolard, Author of the 2021 Woolard Review, which looked at change and innovation in the unsecured credit market, said:
Today marks a significant milestone for consumer-focused financial regulation. The proposed package of regulation would implement the recommendations of the Review and mean millions of people up and down the UK will benefit from stronger financial protection as they borrow using BNPL, especially the most vulnerable in society. The incoming regulation will also provide long-term certainty and standards for the market.
The consultation will be conducted quickly – closing on 29 November – to reflect the urgent need for action to protect consumers.
Final legislation is expected to be laid in Parliament in early 2025. Once the legislation is laid, the FCA will finalise the rules so they can take effect in 2026 – bringing clarity to the sector after years of uncertainty about how it will be regulated.
This follows the Prime Minister saying he would remove regulation that needlessly holds back investment and growth. Today’s announcement brings in much needed regulation that stops people spiralling into debt.
Justin Basini, Co-Founder and CEO of The ClearScore Group said:
We welcome this consultation to bring Buy-Now, Pay-Later borrowers under the same protections and creditworthiness assessments as other mainstream financial products such as credit cards and loans.
It is a sensible step in ensuring that this new, important form of credit continues to provide much-needed flexibility for consumers while also managing any risks.
