Author: admin

  • PRESS RELEASE : Victory can be achieved only in battle, and fixing the end of the war will still be diplomatic – Volodymyr Zelenskyy

    PRESS RELEASE : Victory can be achieved only in battle, and fixing the end of the war will still be diplomatic – Volodymyr Zelenskyy

    The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 21 May 2022.

    Ukraine can win the war with Russia only on the battlefield, but the final dot will still be put at the negotiating table, because that is the only way to settle many difficult issues. This was stated by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an interview with the host of the United News telethon.

    The Head of State noted that even today he can repeat the words he said three years ago after his election as President of Ukraine: we did not start this war, but we have to end it. However, the meaning of these words has changed.

    “I really thought that the war could end with dialogue. But, unfortunately, I thought that this was a dialogue with the appropriate timing, that it would be possible to find answers to many questions and many decisions with the Russian side. I really thought so. And now it is a hybrid. That is why the war is so difficult. And the victory will be very difficult. It will be bloody, it will be in battle, but the end will definitely be in diplomacy,” the President explained.

    At the same time, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is convinced that the end of the war will still lie in the diplomatic sphere, because there are a number of issues that can be resolved only at the negotiating table.

    “We want everything back. And the Russian Federation doesn’t want to return anything. That’s why the ending will be at the negotiating table,” he said.

    The Head of State also noted that the specific purpose and agenda of his future meeting with the Russian President, which is inevitable for registration of the end of the war, will depend on the moment when it will take place.

    “Everything changes. There is a hybrid war, honestly, there will be a hybrid peace as well. And hybrid meetings. For example, if we met today, the issue of Mariupol would also be on the agenda. If we meet in two or three months, maybe this issue will not be on the agenda, or maybe it will. We don’t know,” he said.

    At the same time, the President of Ukraine stressed that in any case the issues of the end of the war and the establishment of peace, deoccupation of Ukrainian territories, exchange and return home of Ukrainian military and civilians should be resolved at the negotiating table.

    “A lot depends on us, but a lot depends on Russia, too. Without talking to them, we must then state the result we have. We want the territories back and this war to be over. But how and when it will happen depends on the time when the conversation with Putin will take place. I think that the conversation between Ukraine and Russia will definitely take place. But we don’t know in what format: with or without intermediaries, in a wide circle or in the format of bilateral conversation,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Speech by Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak at the Atlantic Council think tank

    PRESS RELEASE : Speech by Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak at the Atlantic Council think tank

    The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 20 May 2022.

    Ladies and Gentlemen

    Thank you for having the time for this very important meeting for me.

    I would like to start my speech today with a short video – a documentary footage of the prehistory of current events in Ukraine, what is happening now, and where we are going.

    Recently, it has become very popular to look for analogies to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the events surrounding this war. Historical parallels are always inaccurate. This is rather “yes, but…” than “exactly so”. But they allow us to imagine a possible future in the light of past experience.

    Well, we are very pleased that the world has gone the path from the “second Munich” to the “second Lend-Lease” and the second frontline – this time the sanctions one – in a matter of months. However, today the attempts to turn today’s Ukraine, which successfully opposes one of the world’s largest armies, into the second Czechoslovakia look very strange. All this time we are emphasizing, and I will emphasize this again: it will not work. We will never give up.

    More than anyone in the world, we seek peace. But fair peace is crucial for us. Peace at any cost is not an option for us. We did not start this war. We did not seize foreign territories. But we have to return and will return ours. Ukraine is Kherson, Donetsk, Luhansk and Sevastopol. Our sovereignty and territorial integrity are not a compromise for us. This approach did not work in 1938, and now it will not work even more so. Russia’s political culture does not provide for a regime of dialogue. Its basis, as we all see, is terror, blackmail and coercion. And the language of power. Therefore, there is only one way to prevent the war in Ukraine from escalating into a war in the region and even a world war: to help Ukraine win. And as soon as possible.

    First of all, weapons. I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Biden, both parties and the people of the United States for their military assistance. For unprecedented historical support and an inspiring example for others. America has reaffirmed its leadership in the free world by uniting democracies to resist Russian aggression against Ukraine.

    We truly thank you for the Lend-Lease. Your weaponry saves thousands of lives today, every minute, every second. Not just our soldiers, but also civilians. Because for Russian terrorists who call themselves military, civilians are also perfectly legitimate goals. Just as infrastructure facilities. This means that any weapon for Ukraine is a defensive weapon. Our allies in America, Europe and elsewhere are well aware of this. But I must also tell you that we still lack heavy weapons. We still need high-precision missiles, we need drones, air defense systems, ammunition and much more. And very importantly, we are still waiting for the MLRS. I learned this word, like many Ukrainians, for life. We are still waiting for them.

    That should not be the case. In the first, critical stage of the war, we spent too much time negotiating supplies, searching for these weapons. Meanwhile, people stopped tanks with bare hands in our cities. Now that we have a chance to completely liberate Ukraine from the aggressor, it is inadmissible to delay. We have very different potentials with Russia. Therefore, the liberation war of Ukraine, the war for freedom, should not turn into a war until the last Ukrainian. After all, it will not end there.

    If successful, the Kremlin’s circle of historical reconstruction will continue to build its empire. Ukraine stands between it and the free world. It protects not only itself. Not only democratic values. It protects the way of life common to the West. Because, despite the hopes of short-sighted politicians, it will not be preserved. It will vanish if we do not win. Then voters will start asking them awkward questions. In particular, about betrayed heroes.

    However, we do not care about their possible answers now. We need weapons. Without limits. Immediately. I would like to repeat once again: we are very, very grateful for the Lend-Lease. But I will allow myself a baseball term: this is the first base. We are not just set up for a home run. According to Wikipedia, our big goal is a grand slam. We need to move on. All bases must be reached.

    So, the second thing I would like to talk about is the increase in sanctions pressure. To motivate Russia to stop the war, it is necessary to deprive it of resources – financial, technical, technological. More aggressive financial and energy sanctions are needed.

    In March, the President initiated the creation of a special sanctions group. And after talking to our friend, friend of Ukraine Michael McFaul, we decided to create this group. I am happy that the Atlantic Council has joined this group as well. We have assembled a team of international and Ukrainian experts. Michael and I are co-chairs of this group, so it is often referred to as the Yermak-McFaul group. It is working on assessing and improving sanctions mechanisms. Today we can already talk about certain results of this group’s work.

    We have already published two detailed documents on what sanctions are needed and how to implement them. These documents are in fact guides to sanctions policy. Due to lack of time, I will list only the key areas. I must emphasize at once that the United States, the European Union and other democracies have done a lot here. But most of the work is still ahead.

    The Kremlin will be influenced only by a total ban and embargo on Russian energy. As it is both a key source of power for Russia’s imperial ambitions and a geopolitical weapon. We warned about this, by the way, at the beginning of the Nord Stream 2 project. Unfortunately, not everyone heard us then. The current situation provides a unique chance to overthrow Moscow’s energy dictatorship in the short term. In other words, the restructuring of Europe’s energy consumption today is what we believe is self-defense and investment in its development. In particular, green energy. Energy freedom and energy democracy seem to us to be the key to the future.

    Full blocking sanctions are also needed against all Russian banks, starting with the largest. Payments for gas in rubles are categorically unacceptable. Sanctions should include disconnection from payment systems, freezing of assets and their subsequent confiscation.

    All sanctions must be coordinated and synchronized. To achieve maximum effectiveness, secondary sanctions mechanisms against states, businesses and individuals that help Russia circumvent them are essential. This is where the United States can play a crucial role.

    We move to the third base. Economic assistance to Ukraine. We are without exaggeration astonished by yesterday’s Senate decision on an additional 40 billion for Ukraine and are infinitely grateful for the strong support provided earlier. We also hope for the facilitation in the post-war reconstruction of our country as soon as possible. Obviously, we will need comprehensive resuscitation tools like the Marshall Plan. The opening of the markets of our allies and partners for Ukrainian goods would give impetus to the further recovery of our economy.

    Post-war Ukraine, and we do not just believe, we are sure, will be a huge construction site, a field for innovation and investment. This is a chance to build a global showcase for the success of the community of democracies. At the infrastructural, technological, and, of course, value levels. After all, the crisis always opens up opportunities. Ukraine enjoys an unprecedented credit of confidence. We paid very dearly for it – human life. Thousands of human lives. But thanks to this the world saw that the contradiction between the politics of values ​​and realpolitik can be overcome. Those who support Ukraine today are making a value-based choice, but that choice will pay dividends. Today, even Hollywood and Silicon Valley are familiar with such things. And they are with us – at the call of the heart and with a view to the future. It is an organic union of freedom and entrepreneurship. Because Ukraine today is a frontier. The land of brave and sincere people. President Zelenskyy, our fighters and the entire Ukrainian people prove it every day.

    At the same time, justice is when the aggressor pays for the restoration. And pays as much as possible. Therefore, the issue of reparations and compensation is extremely important for us. We need a legitimate international mechanism that will compensate for the losses caused by Russia and operate despite its categorical refusal to cooperate. By the decree of President of Ukraine Zelenskyy, a profile working group has already been established, which I have the honor to chair. Ukrainian and international experts, including Markian Kluczkowski, Jeremy Sharp, Amal Clooney and many others, are working on a project of such a mechanism, and we will soon present it officially.

    Home base. Restored must be preserved. Ukraine will remain an outpost of democracy in Europe. Literally. So we need security. We need security guarantees. This war must be Russia’s last. And if Moscow is openly claiming that it is at war with the West in Ukraine, the West should make every effort to ensure the victory of Ukraine. So that Ukraine fully restores its territorial integrity and sovereignty, and Russia does not try to take revenge. It should be clearly understood that when we talk about security guarantees for ourselves, we are not asking. We offer to invest in our common future.

    What do we see as these guarantees? The war taught us to believe only in facts. And here they are. We live among the wreckage of a world order. Russia’s presence in the UN Security Council paralyzes the organization’s activities. The OSCE has lost its meaning of existence. NATO is the only institution today capable of providing a reliable security umbrella to its members. However, its doors are open to everyone except Ukraine.

    In such circumstances, we are forced to look for other options. After all, our goal is to deter Russia from new aggression. It can be a treaty or a system of treaties that will oblige the parties to prevent it. We intend to establish an international expert discussion to develop approaches to solving this problem. I think there are experts present who are ready to join this platform. So we will be glad if you come forward and let us know.

    Unfortunately, the sad experience of the Budapest Memorandum has convinced us of one thing: any agreement between Ukraine and the guarantor states must be legally binding and duly ratified by the parliaments of these countries. Obviously, we do not see Russia among the guarantors, as it has based its policy on terror and systematic violations of basic norms of international law.

    Ukraine has proven its resilience on the battlefield, so providing maximum opportunities for self-defense should be one of the cornerstones of this treaty. No security guarantees from third parties can completely replace Ukraine’s strong defense potential. So we expect the guarantor states to help in this. In particular, with the removal of all politically motivated restrictions on the supply of conventional weapons to Ukraine, as well as the deepening of military-technical integration and defense cooperation.

    Due to the long-standing decision of Europeans not to irritate the Kremlin, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. But it can strengthen the defense capabilities of the Alliance’s Black Sea and Baltic fronts. This is a good offer, we think. In general, Ukraine’s deep involvement in multilateral formats that improve its integration with the international community is a significant security factor. Therefore, we will not accept alternatives to EU accession, which have recently been put forward again.

    A lasting and flexible sanctions policy as a safeguard against revanchism must also remain one of the key factors in the security guarantees system.

    We consider this set of measures to be basic. It could become a testing ground, and the basis for the creation of a global coalition of responsible states that will be ready to respond effectively to any aggression within 24 hours. I would like to recall that President Zelenskyy proposed such a format of cooperation in March. We call it U24, United24.

    At the global level, this security system can start building a new architecture of international relations, reforming institutions and restoring the Westphalian principles of equality and respect for sovereignty. Here, the United States could also play a leading role in the process, once again creating a new model of global leadership.

    Finally, I will return to the not-so-precise historical parallels that are often made today. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait under the slogans “one people” and “response to preparations for aggression.” You all know well how it ended. Here it can be said without objections. This is not about history. It’s about the future.

    I thank you all very much. And availing myself of this opportunity, I would like to thank you on behalf of all Ukrainians for supporting us, for working and contributing, I am sure, to the Ukrainian victory that will take place soon. Victory not only of Ukraine, but our common victory.

  • PRESS RELEASE : President offers to extend the simplified procedure for admission to higher education institutions to graduates from all territories of Ukraine, which are currently temporarily occupied

    PRESS RELEASE : President offers to extend the simplified procedure for admission to higher education institutions to graduates from all territories of Ukraine, which are currently temporarily occupied

    The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 19 May 2022.

    President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy believes that entrants from all territories of our state, which are currently under the temporary occupation of the Russian Federation, should be able to enter Ukrainian universities under a simplified procedure. He said this during an online meeting with students and rectors of Ukrainian higher education institutions.

    The President reminded that in 2020 a simplified mechanism for admission to Ukrainian universities for graduates from the temporarily occupied territories of the Donetsk, Luhansk regions and the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was introduced. According to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, entrants from the temporarily occupied territories of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions should have the same opportunities.

    “The issue of the list of temporarily occupied territories needs to be worked out. I will instruct to prepare the necessary decisions,” the President stressed.

    In addition, responding to the students’ appeals, the Head of State instructed Minister of Education and Science Serhiy Shkarlet to develop a mechanism for resolving the issue of payment under contracts for students from the temporarily occupied territories.

    “Today we recognize the Kherson region as a temporarily occupied territory. That’s why I don’t understand why a student from the Kherson region has to pay money,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy said.

    The Head of State offered to develop a solution that would help remove this urgent problem for students from the temporarily occupied districts of the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv regions and Donbas.

    The President also noted that he likes the motto “Education despite the war” and called on Ukrainian students to continue their studies, despite hostilities, because Ukraine needs smart, educated, professional people.

    “Students must continue to acquire knowledge. I wish you to take all the knowledge you can. This is also a very important work for the benefit of our state. We need clever people who understand their profession. People who can really revive Ukraine, production, technology,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy summed up.

  • Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on the Compulsory Acquisition of Land

    Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on the Compulsory Acquisition of Land

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 1 April 1998.

    I am pleased to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). His point about RDAs’ ability to blight gives me great cause for concern. It reminds us one of the key elements at the heart of the Bill: the centralising powers that lie within it. That ability to blight is, effectively, the means by which the Secretary of State can cast a shadow over a constituency such as mine, which consists largely of green-belt land at the narrowest point between Coventry and Birmingham, the so-called Meriden gap.

    My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) mentioned the Secretary of State’s ruling that green-belt land in the west midlands could be used for an industrial purpose. That caused local people concern at many levels. Industrial development on green-belt farm land was opposed by the local council and by the local Member of Parliament. When the public inquiry decided that it should not be used for that purpose, that decision was overturned. That area is close to my constituency. Hon. Members can understand why that case has caused great concern in relation to the sort of power that might be given to RDAs. In fact, it has resulted in a loss of confidence in the planning process.

    I shall illustrate that. Currently, there are two planning applications for the building of motorway service areas alongside the M42 in my constituency. Having seen what happened in the Peddimore case, my constituents are concerned that, although the application has gone to and been rejected by the council, the Minister might simply overturn the decision, which was supported by the local community. That has resulted in perhaps a premature presentation of petitions on the part of my constituents to the Minister. The Government have only themselves to blame for that loss of confidence in the planning process.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this is about not the planning process in general, but the compulsory acquisition of land. She should direct her remarks specifically to that.

    Mrs. Spelman

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was illustrating merely that that decision has given rise only to concern in relation to RDAs’ power of compulsory purchase of green-belt sites.

    There is a risk that blight will result from a conflict between the planning authority—the local authority—and the right of compulsory purchase of a future RDA. I should like to illustrate where I believe the tension may arise.

    There are several installations and developments of regional significance to the west midlands. There is the airport, Birmingham International railway station and the national exhibition centre. Indeed, they are of national significance. All have gently expanded over time as a result of agreements between the various planning authorities.

    My concern arises from the fact that a regional development agency may rule that one of those strategically important sites should be expanded and find itself at loggerheads with the local community and local planning authority. The RDA may indeed make use of a compulsory purchase order and fail to get planning permission from the local authority.

    If the compulsory purchase order remains at the disposal of the RDA, we shall see only an increasing number of conflicts between the RDA and the authority that has the power to grant permission, which may result in land compulsorily acquired resting idle. There are already many examples of that in my constituency, where it is difficult to obtain planning approval in a green-belt area. If the clause is not amended, I envisage only increasing conflicts. It would seem logical for the reference to compulsory purchase orders to be deleted.

    Mr. Lansley

    Does my hon. Friend agree that blight under these circumstances can also apply the other way round? If a body does not have planning powers, it might none the less seek planning permission in relation to a specific site or collection of sites. That might in effect blight that area because of the knowledge that, at some subsequent point, in pursuance of that planning application on land that it does not own, the body may seek a compulsory purchase order from the Secretary of State, so devaluing the prospects for that particular ownership of land.

    Mrs. Spelman

    I thank my hon. Friend for that illuminating point. It serves me well as it relates to my next point. Blight is currently tightly defined. In a constituency such as mine, much of which is blighted by the transport network that runs through it—the many motorways and the installations to which I referred earlier—when constituents seek redress for the way in which their property is affected and find themselves just the wrong side of the blight line, they are in an unenviable position. My concern is that that will be only aggravated by the potential conflict between an RDA that has the power to acquire land or that may threaten to acquire land, and its inability to get the matching planning powers from the local authority. It seems more logical to remove the provision than to leave the tension inherent in the Bill.

  • Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on Road Tolling

    Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on Road Tolling

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1998.

    I was aware that a range of charges was being considered and I would be interested to know whether there are plans for other such schemes. If there are, I should like to make a plea on behalf of the retailers in the heart of the city of Birmingham who are concerned about the prospect of road pricing as they feel that it might deter retail customers.

    Perhaps it would be useful to consider toll-free times and zones. There is no doubt that the heaviest congestion on the west midlands motorway network occurs around commuter times. Shoppers can arrange to travel to the city centre during off-peak times. I should be most concerned for the overall economy of the region if shoppers were deterred from supporting retailers in the city centre because they were penalised by the road-pricing system.

    Where road-pricing systems operate on the continent, particularly in France, the local communities benefit from toll-free zones. The peage system on French motorways that pass close by major cities is often suspended at certain times. Local people have to put up with so much pollution, noise, nuisance and congestion that it would be hard for them to bear most of the burden of the cost.

    I invite the Minister to tell us about some of the studies that the Government might be carrying out in relation to best practice elsewhere in Europe. The city of Zurich in Switzerland has managed to stabilise traffic growth, so it would be interesting to take a lesson from that major European city. I should also draw the Minister’s attention to the success of the Umweltkarte in Freiberg in south Germany that has limited the access of heavy goods vehicles to city centres by introducing a scheme to encourage synchronised deliveries. Instead of several lorries travelling to the city centre each day, one lorry distributes to a variety of outlets. If that is too complicated, it is often possible to have a depot outside the city from which short-distance distribution facilities are arranged. That reduces the number of large heavy goods vehicles and their attendant pollution in city centres.

    I should like to commend what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said about pollution. Although the subject is outside the remit of the Minister’s Department, let me draw her attention to the health aspects relating to the composition of vehicle fuel.

    We should re-examine the effects of pollution on health and the development of cleaner fuel. In that respect, British legislation has mirrored that in the United States. The removal of lead from petrol under the previous Conservative Government was a major success and represents an important contribution to the nation’s health, but vehicle fuel still contains components that are detrimental to health. In the United States, progress has been made in the reformulation of gasoline—particularly the removal of benzene, which scientists tell us is just as carcinogenic as lead. Perhaps there is a case for taking another look at the health aspects of fuel composition as part of the general objective of the Bill.

    The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) advocated the use of bicycles. I recall from my days in that city that the greatest danger to health was being run over by one. She drew attention to the pollution in Parker street in Cambridge city centre. I recollect that that is also largely due to the variety of fuel used by the public transport fleet—notably buses—as diesel fuel has a high level of particulates. Perhaps as one of the more general objectives of the Bill and our efforts to improve the nation’s health, we should look again at the composition of fuel.

    Finally, to return my point about land use in relation to transport, let me make a strong plea for the on-going study on the allocation of additional homes to different parts of Britain. Last Friday, I visited a wire rope manufacturer, Webster and Horsall, at Hay Mills in Birmingham. When the company was looking for more staff, it advertised for recruits who could walk to work. The factory’s shift pattern and the availability of public transport meant that people coming from Chelmsley Wood in my constituency had to take at least two buses, and spent at least an hour and a half getting to work. That led to reduced reliability and many staff resorted to bringing their cars to work.

    As part of the Government’s strategy to provide new homes, I urge them to consider urban regeneration, not just for the sake of the urban economy but to benefit the country overall by relieving congestion on our arterial and commuter roads.

  • Caroline Spelman – 1997 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Caroline Spelman – 1997 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    The maiden speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, on 19 June 1997.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I thank the House in advance for listening, given the foreshortened length of the debate. The House will appreciate that I pay tribute to my predecessor, Iain Mills, with a note of sadness. He was much respected in Meriden as a good constituency Member. He worked hard for those in need, especially in Chelmsley Wood in the north of the constituency, where he helped to secure a local Benefits Agency office. The sad circumstances of Iain’s death must be a challenge to us all not to let a colleague down and to try harder to help colleagues facing problems or ill health. The House will want to reassure his widow that Iain’s tragedy will strengthen our resolve to care for each other in the years ahead.

    I wanted to speak in the debate on agriculture because of the acute pressures on the countryside in my constituency, especially the Meriden gap, a narrow corridor of green belt only six miles wide at its narrowest point between Coventry and Birmingham. As a newcomer to the area, selected only 11 weeks before the general election, I was struck by the fragile character of this rural area. Meriden, as the name implies, lies at the very centre of England and boasts excellent communications. With Birmingham international airport, the west coast main line and the midlands motorway network passing through, one can reach London, Bristol, Manchester, Paris or Amsterdam in an hour and a half—except on a bad day, in which case one would be jolly lucky to get to Wolverhampton in that time.

    Meriden has conceded some of its best countryside to the prestigious national exhibition centre, a beneficiary of those good communications. That illustrates the willingness of my constituents to move with the times and be well connected, to welcome the facilities of modern business and transportation. However, that comes at a price. One can still find idyllic green country lanes in the villages of Barston, Berkswell and Hampton in Arden, but rising over the brow of the hill one is soon reminded of the proximity of the cities by the sound of traffic and the glow of lights.

    What happens to the Meriden countryside will depend on the future shape of the common agricultural policy. The beef crisis has placed an exceptional strain on small family farms devoted to dairy and beef farming. Uncertainty has probably been the greatest strain. As we have heard that the incidence of BSE has fallen from 1,000 cases a week to 100 and that there is a prospect of eradicating the disease by 2001, a timetable for lifting the ban must now be possible. Meriden’s small farms are small by British standards, but they are far from small in European terms. It is the Meriden-sized farms that may fall through the gap between very small farms, which are supported to prevent the desertification of the countryside as in rural Greece or Portugal, and the large farms typical of the Beauce in the Paris basin, which could probably survive with no support at all. I hope that the Minister agrees that any move towards modulation would be counter-productive to efforts to reform the CAP into a more market-oriented policy. It would disadvantage British farmers and could result in Meriden’s farms going under concrete for ever.

    Meriden’s farmers will also struggle to compete if the support system for the CAP is not overhauled before the enlargement of the European Union. Anyone who has visited the vast collectivised farms of eastern Europe will realise the competitive advantage that they would enjoy, with their economies of scale and low wage costs. Unless the CAP is reformed into its separate economic and social aspects, it will collapse under the strain of supporting huge east European farms with unrealistic subsidies. I urge the new Government to fight hard to prevent British farmers from being disadvantaged by CAP reform and to watch out for the national aids that are often used by European countries to offset the impact of reform but distort agricultural markets.

    Only a small percentage of my constituents are farmers, but the land that they tend, and the environment that it offers, is what attracts many more people to quit the city and raise their families in a relatively healthy, safe and harmonious environment. Those who choose to live in the leafy suburbs of Knowle and Dorridge have weighed up the benefits of dwelling poised between town and country. All too often, I am shown new developments where once stood bluebell woods and open fields. Residents are right to protest at the loss of the rural amenity for which they originally moved to the area. This is where the values of middle England are nurtured: honesty, fairness and mutual respect. To undermine this fragile framework, in which young people are brought up and the elderly retire with security and pleasure, would be a step backwards from the rural legacy that made England a green and pleasant land.

  • Caroline Spelman – 1997 Speech on Women in Sport

    Caroline Spelman – 1997 Speech on Women in Sport

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 27 June 1997.

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on their appointment to the Opposition Front Bench and wish them much success and a run of good form in their time in their new capacity. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks); as a new Member, I very much look forward to witnessing his renowned quickness of wit.

    Sport is central to the British way of life. Although we probably have more of a tendency to watch than to participate, just over half the adult population plays some form of sport once a month. We all know that that frequency of playing sport is not likely to benefit our overall condition. It is also a fact that women are less likely to play sport than men.

    I approach the debate from the perspective of the fitness that sport can confer. “The Health of the Nation” initiative, set up under the previous Government, set a goal of reducing obesity among women by one third by the year 2005 and by 25 per cent. among men. The third progress report of that initiative, which was published in July last year, showed that no significant step had been achieved towards either of those targets. Another finding of the progress report was also worrying, in that the proportion of children aged 11 to 15 who smoke has risen by 50 per cent. since 1988.

    The promotion of sport among young people is vital if the health of the nation is to be improved. The Sports Council currently allocates £4 million per annum to various sporting initiatives involving young people. However, there is patently more success in encouraging sports uptake among young men than among young women.

    In 1993, a shoe company undertook some research, which showed that three out of five teenage girls played no sport at all outside school. For young women, the only sporting activities being undertaken twice a week are cycling, walking, keep fit and weight training. Further research shows that 66 per cent. of girls dislike the kind of sport on offer in schools and particularly object to competitive sports where there are winners and losers. It is different for boys: only 38 per cent. said that they disliked sports with a competitive element, which shows a different approach to sport and exercise among men and women.

    Another marked contrast is that only 30 per cent. of 14 to 16-year-old girls undertook sport to be with their friends, which compares with 52 per cent. of boys. That shows that the social aspect of sport is less important for women, although that may have something to do with the type of sport on offer.

    Sport for young women does not enjoy a good image. In the modern idiom, we would say that it is not cool for a young woman to do sport. I urge the Minister to think of ways to change that. Let us consider media coverage of women’s sport. Of all the television sports coverage in this country, only 6 per cent. is devoted to women’s sport, and the figure for newspaper coverage is only 13 per cent.

    To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), it is no good being glib about sponsorship. Commercial sponsors are not interested in sport if there is very little media coverage, which is what women’s sports suffer from. Commercial sponsors are reluctant to back women’s sports because they do not get the television and newspaper coverage that they need.

    It is therefore no wonder that even committed teenage sportswomen could name only one famous British sportswoman. I am sure that we could all name her, too—Sally Gunnell—but what about our other athletes such as Kelly Holmes and Tessa Sanderson? In addition, it is really only athletes and tennis stars who have become household names in women’s sports.

    Mr. Ashton

    Is it not a fact that many young women go in for aerobics and classes or even dance in nightclubs, and that they provide their main forms of exercise? That is why women do not go out on to a muddy football field.

    Mrs. Spelman

    I am coming to that very point in relation to the national curriculum’s contribution to sport.
    The problem is that young women often lack a well-publicised role model. Perhaps the Minister for sport and the Department for Education and Employment could look at ways in which the profiles of successful sportswomen could be raised in education, so that young women have a wider range of role models.

    The image of women’s sport is not helped by the way in which it is reported. The back page of The Mirror on 25 June—I am not sure how many hon. Members had the chance to look at it—had what can only be described as an uncompromising photograph of the world-class tennis player Monica Seles in action, with disparaging remarks about her weight gain. Young women need positive role models, not the running down of the sporting achievements of stars.

    The previous Government launched a number of initiatives to promote sport for young people, one of which was the introduction of two hours of physical education into the national curriculum. I am glad that the Heart of England school at Balsall Common in my constituency has shown how that time can be used creatively, taking account of the attitudes towards sport of young men and women that I mentioned earlier. Girls and boys can choose a sport from a range of options. They have an opportunity to try those sports and then pursue them in more depth. The sports teachers also use that time for modules about anatomy and physiology, so that young people learn about the way in which exercise can keep them in good shape. The school recognises that young people need a positive experience of sport. Forcing teenagers into strange and unmodish sports kit to do a sport that they would never choose can be detrimental. The school has proved that embracing the times with aerobics and dance classes can be fun and beneficial.

    I think nostalgically of my time at school, where sporting attainment was held in equal esteem with academic achievement. The dedication of teachers who gave up their Saturdays to promote our school teams left a great impression on me.

    I was encouraged to hear the hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggest that we could do more to promote the use of sports facilities out of school hours. Even if that is not supervised by professional teachers, it could be done by ex-professionals. Fathers often put in time at weekends to run sports coaching these days. More often than not, that is for boys’ sports. What can be done to encourage mums to show up on a Saturday and give a good example to young women, by giving up their free time to encourage them in their sport? The teaching profession could also be encouraged to reconsider such a contribution on a Saturday morning. Such dedication from a mentor who gives up their free time to encourage a child to pursue a sport in depth has a wider lesson for life than just the pursuit of a sport. That willingness to make a sacrifice rests with us when we think back to the time when we were encouraged at school.

    I am greatly concerned about the future funding of sport if national lottery funds are diverted into mainstream public policy areas such as health and education. The lottery has made a real difference to sport. The Secretary of State said today that the number of national lottery awards to sport has risen to more than 3,000 and that £540 million of lottery money is going to sport. That dwarfs the Government’s £50 million of dedicated core funding for sport in the past year. Small clubs and groups all over the country have benefited from improvements to their sports facilities—the refurbishment of a sports pavilion, the purchase of a new set of goalposts or the installation of a ramp to make facilities accessible to the disabled. Taking away the profit motive from running the lottery may sound “cute”, as the Financial Times said, but the victims will very likely be the good causes the lottery is purportedly set up to serve. It is decision time for the new Labour Government. We need to know where the academy of sport and the national stadium will be. The uncertainty does not serve the industry. How will the Government prevent the dilution of sports funding from the national lottery? When will their election pledge of a youth sports unit be fulfilled? How will they shift a generation of potential couch potatoes into regular exercise and invest for the health of the nation in the next millennium?

  • PRESS RELEASE : Speech by Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak at the Chatham House think tank

    PRESS RELEASE : Speech by Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak at the Chatham House think tank

    The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 19 May 2022.

    “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up,” advises Gilbert Keith Chesterton in the book “The Thing”. That is, not understanding the reasons for the current state of affairs can lead to wrong actions that will worsen this state of affairs.

    You are aware of our current state. Ukraine is successfully resisting one of the world’s largest armies. Much longer than the world expected.

    It is important to understand clearly that no concessions could stop the Russian invasion other than unconditional surrender, a renunciation of national identity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Actual consent to colonial status.

    Russia’s political culture does not provide for a regime of dialogue. Its basis is dictation. The language of power. And Russia gained strength in cooperation with the West. What its military-industrial complex is not able to make – and that’s a lot – Russia bought. Mostly for money from the export of raw materials. First of all, energy. And even after Moscow clearly demonstrated its imperial ambitions. In Georgia. In Ukraine. In Syria. Again in Ukraine. Oil went to the West. The money went to Russia. Business as usual continued.

    This must end.

    The current war must be Russia’s last. It must end with the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. That is our victory. Our common victory with the civilized world. After all, today Ukraine is defending not only itself. Ukraine today is Thermopylae of Europe.

    Helping Ukraine is a way to resolve the contradiction between policy of values and realpolitik. It is not just a matter of moral choice, it is also an investment in European and world security. So let me paraphrase Chesterton’s statement: do not avoid participation in putting up the fence when you know why it is needed. And you know. It should consist of four parts. The first is weapons for Ukraine. The second is the continuation and intensification of sanctions pressure. The third is the establishment of reparation mechanisms and economic assistance. The fourth is building a reliable system of guarantees.

    So, about these points.

    The first is weapons. We still need it. We are very grateful to our allies for supplying it. We believe in the sincerity of your intention to fulfill your commitments. I must say that we still lack heavy weapons. We still don’t have MLRS. I learned this word, like many Ukrainians, for life.

    This equipment can save the lives of our people. Not just the military. After all, for the Russians, the civilians of Ukraine are also legitimate goals. As well as civil infrastructure. That’s why wasting time is too expensive for us – in every sense.

    The occupation and shelling of nuclear power plants by Russian troops and blackmail by nuclear strikes pose a threat of global catastrophe. The inability to exploit almost a third of our sown areas, the systematic destruction of Ukrainian agricultural and transport infrastructure by Russian troops, and the blockade of our seaports are elements of Russia’s overall strategy to put pressure on the international community. The threat of a food crisis and the risk of famine in dozens of countries, as the UN leadership warns, are absolutely real today.

    Our goal is to establish peace as soon as possible. The longer this war lasts, the greater the risks to the entire planet. But this peace must be fair. Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is not a subject for compromise. Russia must liberate our territories, including the Ukrainian Crimea and the Ukrainian Donbas.

    As you can see today, the Russian offensive is bogged down, they are moving to the defense, trying to retain the occupied territories and create the conditions for another agreement, which they will still violate soon. As was the case with the two Minsk agreements. This is unacceptable for us.

    We can’t give the aggressor a chance to devour Europe piece by piece again.

    That is why the second point is very important here, namely sanctions. Of course, they do not have such an immediate and direct impact on hostilities as the supply of weapons. But they can limit Russia’s ability to pursue aggressive policies. They are able to deprive it of the finances, technology and materials needed to restore military capabilities. Therefore, they must be long-term. Effective punishment of Russia will also deter other potential aggressors. The five existing sanctions packages are clearly not enough.

    To this end, in late March, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took the initiative to create a “sanctions” group. After that, I invited my friend and friend of Ukraine, Michael McFaul, to gather leading international and Ukrainian experts who would promptly assess the work of sanctions and increase their effectiveness. This experience has already been very successful, and perhaps a similar format should be introduced in Europe. We are ready for this.

    In April, our team presented an Action Plan to strengthen sanctions against Russia. Among the main goals are, firstly, a complete embargo on Russian energy, paralysis of the entire banking sector and access to financial markets. Due consideration should also be given to coordinating partner actions and secondary sanctions against states and companies that help the aggressor circumvent restrictions.

    At the same time, it is important to conduct thorough investigations to neutralize Russia’s corrupt influence in Europe, America and other parts of the world.

    Recognition of Russia as a sponsor of terrorism is also very important. This is a very powerful and very important step. As you know, the Seimas of Lithuania has already done that. And the US Senate has also already registered a resolution. These actions should serve as an example for other states.

    On May 9, our team presented a Roadmap – a step-by-step strategy with detailed recommendations for the European Union on the implementation of energy sanctions.

    This is extremely important. After all, since February 24, the European Union has paid $ 800 million a day for imports of Russian oil and gas. I emphasize that with this money the EU indirectly financed the Russian aggression against our country.

    We have seen such facilitation before. In particular, during the attempt to implement the Nord Stream 2 project. You remember that we warned that Russia is considering and will consider such projects as geopolitical weapons. Warned about the inevitability of energy blackmail. But they didn’t want to hear us until it was too late.

    Now we want to be heard immediately. We offer partners to use a unique opportunity to get rid of dependence on Russian energy in a short time. Destroy the energy dictatorship. And deprive Russia of geopolitical weapons. In other words, restructuring Europe’s energy consumption model today is self-defense and investing in its development and future. Energy freedom and energy democracy are the key to the future.

    We therefore welcome the European Commission’s decision to impose a total ban on Russian oil imports. We welcome the determination of those governments that are implementing the energy embargo. Our Roadmap provides recommendations for reducing shocks for European economies. This includes regulated import tax (or tariff) and storage of funds for energy on a special escrow account.

    We also welcome a similar initiative by the US government to impose tariffs on Russian oil by the European Union. Especially since the funds from the payment of duties may go to the Fund for Reconstruction of Ukraine.

    Here we reach another extremely important problem. And this is the third point – the creation of an effective mechanism to compensate Ukraine for the damage caused by Russian aggression. We need to resolve some issues as soon as possible. National courts and international arbitrations have no jurisdiction, the European Court of Human Rights cannot enforce its decisions, and the UN is almost paralyzed by Russia’s presence in the Security Council.

    Sources of compensation can be the already mentioned special taxes and duties on Russian energy and transactions, as well as public and private property. However, Russia’s foreign assets are protected by sovereign immunity, and the rights of oligarchs are protected by the inviolability of private property. And this is despite the fact that Russia itself ignores international law, and the capital of Putin’s so-called wallets is mostly of criminal origin.

    Therefore, we need a legitimate international mechanism that will compensate for the losses caused by Russia and will operate despite its categorical refusal to cooperate. The Presidential Decree has already established a profile working group, which I have the honor to chair. Ukrainian and international experts, in particular Markian Kluczkowski, Jeremy Sharp, Amal Clooney and many others, are working on a draft of such a mechanism, and it will be presented soon. We consider reparations agreements as an element of Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction. Among such measures, we also expect the regime of maximum admission of Ukrainian goods to the markets of our allies and partners, the launch of the so-called Marshall Plan for Ukraine.

    The case of Ukraine’s reconstruction can be a success story for the whole of Europe, as it will be a huge construction and investment platform that can give impetus to the development of European economies. A number of countries are already taking care of the restoration of our regions. For example, Denmark has taken patronage over the Mykolaiv region, Great Britain is ready to be engaged in the Kyiv region. This format should be extended to other regions. Ukraine can become a global showcase for the success of the community of democracies, absorbing all the best both in terms of infrastructure, technology and values. After all, the crisis opens up opportunities.

    But these assets need reliable protection. That is, we move on to the fourth point.

    The war taught us to believe only in facts. And here they are. The current system of international relations has been destroyed by Russia’s efforts. Every day of war is a stress test for global structures. In particular, the issue of rescuing people from Mariupol is a very hot topic today. This is the biggest test for both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations in 70 years. I must note that the United Nations and personally Secretary-General, Mr. Guterres, with whom I am in constant contact several times a day, is now taking a very active part in the humanitarian mission in Mariupol. However, this is about the consequences of aggression, and I would like to talk about preventing it.

    NATO is the only institution today capable of providing a reliable security umbrella to its members. However – I must say this – because of the national selfishness of a number of states, it continues the policy of double standards. The Alliance, maintaining the illusion of open doors for Ukraine, opens them widely to other countries. In such circumstances, we are forced to look for other options. Look for them together with our partners.

    What will be the main security contours of Ukraine itself?

    I would like to emphasize here that we do not consider an alternative to membership in the European Union. We consider any proposals for its “substitutes” that we have heard recently unacceptable by definition. For us, integration into the European Union is not only a way to modernize, reform the state and increase GDP, but also one of the factors in ensuring our security.

    If you take to the streets of Warsaw or Vilnius, or Prague, or Paris, or Vienna, or any European capital, ask ordinary passers-by which country could protect them from Russia in the event of an attack. I am sure that many of them will name our country, Ukraine. Name a country that is not currently a member of NATO, not a member of the European Union. Today, after this war, we are definitely able to strengthen these organizations. We can definitely become a valuable asset for them. And ordinary people in Europe and the world today understand this. Isn’t it time for politicians to listen to the opinion of their voters?

    We have an extremely negative experience of the Budapest Memorandum. We see attempts by some major powers to reconcile Ukraine with Russia on the Kremlin’s terms. In this situation, we have to insist that future security guarantees are legally binding and ratified by all participants.

    Obviously, we do not see Russia among the guarantors, as it systematically denies the fundamental principle of international law Pacta sunt servanda (“Treaties must be fulfilled”). It is inadmissible to even discuss the possibility of saving the face of the aggressor state and the terrorist state. Our dead and injured will not allow us to do that.

    The common goal of Ukraine and the guarantor states should be to deter Russia from aggression in the future. First of all, it means ensuring Ukraine’s defense capabilities. We have shown the whole world that we are capable of resisting the forces of the enemy that are at times superior.

    But in the future, we hope that the guarantors will remove all politically motivated restrictions on the supply of conventional weapons to Ukraine and will help quickly restore and maintain its defense capabilities at the appropriate level. Especially during the reconstruction of Ukrainian industry.

    Another key factor in the security guarantee system must remain a long and flexible sanctions policy.

    This set of security measures could become a kind of testing ground in the future – the basis for creating a global coalition of responsible states that will be ready to respond effectively to any aggression within 24 hours. Let me remind you that our President Volodymyr Zelenskyy proposed such a format of cooperation back in March. We call it U24, United24.

    To build this system, we will have to modernize international law. First of all, expand the definition of aggression to include the tools of modern hybrid warfare in it.

    Basic international organizations need to be reformed. Common sense tells us that no country can be a member of the UN as long as it behaves like a terrorist and an aggressor. It must lose all rights in the UN and other organizations on the first day of the aggression.

    In the long run, the U24 security system should become global. After all, our world is becoming more integrated. And if someone because of size, wealth or ambition believes that he has the right to reject the rules of civilized coexistence… Well. Apparently, it is exactly about them Robert Frost said: “Good fences make good neighbors.”

    Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much for your support. And keep in mind that our victory, which, I am sure, will happen soon, will be our common victory. And Ukrainians will never forget all the efforts of our friends and partners. Because today this war for freedom is not only Ukrainian. It is global.

  • PRESS RELEASE : President of Ukraine – I am proud that Ukrainian is fashionable in the world

    PRESS RELEASE : President of Ukraine – I am proud that Ukrainian is fashionable in the world

    The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 19 May 2022.

    The values that the Ukrainian people defend in the fight against the aggressor are the national idea around which our country and the whole world are united. This was stated by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy during an online meeting with students and rectors of Ukrainian higher education institutions.

    “Sometimes we look for a national idea… Each of us can have our own national idea. But look at the common values we defend – this is the national idea. Independence, our Ukraine,” the Head of State said.

    According to him, the Ukrainian people have united, defending important things from the enemy: our Ukrainianness, our children, our culture.

    “We are all united now. We understand exactly who we are, how we are different from our neighbors, who are fighting for what. We are the same. An equally beautiful country. And we are all united. Finally, our people are united. Unfortunately, for such a bloody reason, but finally it happened – the unification of the people, the state, society, mentality, ideas, the unification of the present, and therefore there will be the unification of the future. This is wonderful,” the President stressed.

    According to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukrainians not only united themselves, but also united other countries around them. And interest in Ukraine is now felt all over the world – both among politicians and ordinary citizens: people want to come to Ukraine and look at our heroic people. And this is a change in the world’s mentality, the Head of State is convinced.

    “We could not believe that we were such a nation. We are a great Ukrainian nation. Both Europe and the United States are shocked and doubt whether they could do so or not,” he said.

    “I am proud that Ukrainian is fashionable in the world. This sounds very cool. Ukraine is number one in the world today. I am proud of everything that belongs to the history of Ukraine, starting with the language and our traditions,” Volodymyr Zelenskyy stressed.

    According to him, Ukrainians deserve such recognition of the world and such an attitude, although now they are going through perhaps the most difficult and very bloody stage.

    However, the President expressed his firm conviction that this war will end, Ukrainian cities will be unblocked, our army will be rearmed, modern air defense will be created so that the security situation allows our country to live and develop despite some neighbors.

    The President also stressed that Ukraine needs young people and expressed hope that after the end of the war, Ukrainians who went abroad will return.

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted that today he is glad to see energy and confidence in Ukrainian students.

    “Confidence is what has united our people and given strength to our army. And it helped the Armed Forces of Ukraine to become twice as big thanks to the confidence of our people,” the Head of State said.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    Caroline Spelman – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Shadow Secretary of State for International Development at Conservative Spring Forum in Harrogate on 23 March 2002.

    My debut as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development has been nothing short of a baptism of fire. September 11th has thrust this normally cinderella subject into the spotlight. Appointed on September 13th we were straight into an international crisis, a crisis with all the potential for sparking a Third World War.

    Thank god many of the gloomy predictions of Labour’s left wing proved spurious. Our leader’s decision to give the Government bi-partisan support throughout the campaign has been entirely vindicated. He came across as a statesman and our party as a responsible, resolute and reliable Opposition. It was both the right thing to do, and the right thing for us.

    My opposite number, Clare Short has a reputation for enjoying a good spat. But this time her adversaries were on her own backbenches and she got full support from me. As a result she finds it very hard to be scathing with me and thus often she seems disarmed by my gentle reason. She knows now that the Conservatives are serious about International Development and she cannot levy the charge that we lack heart in this matter.

    People say she walks on water because she is often out of step with her own party leadership. She openly challenges many of the Government’s decisions exposing the deep divides that exist in Labour, for which we should be grateful. She may sometimes seem like a thorn in Tony Blair’s side but deep down I suspect it suits him to have her ventilate the dissent within his own party.

    Jenny Tonge the Lib/Dem spokesman on International Development does a very good job of shooting herself in the foot. Remember her naïve soundbite when she called for Afghanistan to be ‘bombed with food’, they did, and what happened? Two houses collapsed in the process.

    If you want further evidence of Liberal Dem naivety just look at their stance on Zimbabwe. In April 2000, Jenny Tonge was chastising Conservatives for being nasty to poor Mr Mugabe. She helpfully reminded us all that Mugabe was a democratically elected leader. Some democracy. Some leader. Surprise surprise all Dr Tongue’s press releases about Zimbabwe have had to be taken off the Lib/Dem website.

    Nearer to home she issued a press release describing her visit to a Children’s Hospice. Apparently she was impressed by the children’s courage- only problem, the hospice hasn’t yet been built- Nice one Jenny!

    One wonders if the Lib /Dems are capable of organising a jumble sale let alone the country.

    International Development is an area ripe for new ideas. Clare Short and I may not go in for fisticuffs over the ballot box but there are real differences in our approach to Third World problems. Just last week while Clare Short was calling for aid to be withheld from Tanzania. I argued that she was targeting the wrong part of the problem. By withholding aid, the only people she was harming were the people of Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world.

    I want our approach to the problems of the Developing World to be practical. I want to encourage independence not dependency. Give people the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty. This means revamping debt relief and freeing world markets to make it easier for poor countries to export their produce .Giving people a decent education because from education flows health, wealth and a real future. Currently every minute a woman dies while pregnant or giving birth in the Developing World, 7,000 people die of AIDs every day in Africa, 200 million Africans live on less than a dollar a day, a quarter of children in Afghanistan die before the age of five. This tragic litany can make people feel it’s all hopeless but who is it running a local charity shop, raising funds, and collecting for charities, more often than not it will be a Conservative. We know an individual can make a difference. International Development is where the Conservatives, traditionally generous donors, can show their heart and mean it.

    I am no exception. When I went out to the Afghan border before Christmas it was not just to gawp at the problems there but to try and make a difference. I discovered that a local charity which treats the victims of landmines had just lost their only evacuation vehicle. I mentally resolved to raise the money to replace it. I am delighted to say that with the help of a local agency, Islamic Relief, I have already raised over £50,000 and no doubt some of you have been donors to this Appeal – for which I say a big thank you. If nothing else this shows that Conservatives care and that we put it into action. Rhetoric is all very good, but it doesn’t save lives. Conservatives are above all practical – and we can be justifiably proud of th

    I would venture that this small gesture has more real impact than the sight of Tony Blair bestriding the continent of Africa like some Western Medicine Man ‘healing the scars’ of that continent. Apart from the rather grandiose idea what actually did he achieve? Particularly as he studiously avoided the one area of Africa that was in the spotlight and relevant to this country at the time, namely Zimbabwe.

    Can anybody give me one example of where Tony Blair’s newly discovered passion for Africa has made one jot of difference to the lives of people on that continent? That’s all I’m asking for – one example? No, I didn’t think so. In international development, like so many other areas of government, the emphasis is on style at the expense of delivery. Well, you can’t spin global poverty. Africans don’t want Tony to feel their pain – they want actions, not rhetoric.

    International development is about helping the most vulnerable. We want to make others’ lives better..

    And I’ll tell you who they are not . The poorest people in the world are NOT Labour Party donors. If Lakshmi Mittal can afford to give £125,000 to the Labour Party, and £400,000 to a campaign to introduce Tariffs in America, he is not deserving of UK aid. Clare Short’s department has now provided Mr Mittal with three loans totalling £153 million. You should not be able to buy international development.

    I want to show that we care about international development we care because we have learnt from experience the cost of turning your back on a problem: in 1938 Neville Chamberlain famously described Czechoslovakia as ‘the far away country of which we know little’. Conservatives must never be satisfied with knowing little. Conservatives are above all practical and clear-headed – and this must infuse our policy on international development. We’re not about grand gestures or media grandstanding. Above all we are practical and realistic.

    The Conservative Party has achieved great things in the past – in Britain and the world. Now more than ever we have to show that we can achieve great things in the future.