Author: admin

James Callaghan – 1977 Statement on Meeting with the French President

The statement made by James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 13 December 1977.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the talks I have had yesterday and today with the President of the French Republic, M. Valery Giscard d’Estaing.

The objective of these annual meetings is to develop the habit of regular but informal consultation between British and French Ministers so that this becomes the most natural way of exchanging views on matters of long-term importance to both countries. On this occasion, I was glad to be able to welcome the President to Chequers together with the French Prime Minister, M. Barre, and their colleagues the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Defence. On the British side, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Trade, and the Minister of State for Industry took part in our discussions The talks took place in a friendly atmosphere and revealed a broad similarity of approach to the main issues of the day.

As I reported to the House on 7th December, current questions affecting the European Community were fully discussed at last week’s meeting of the European Council. At Chequers, the President and I discussed the longer-term development of the Community. We found that our views were similar. We discussed the important and pressing question of the Community’s fisheries policy, on which the Commission’s proposals will provide the basis for a further meeting of the Fisheries Council next month.

We resumed our discussions on the world economic situation and were in agreement that it is essential for the OECD and the Community to achieve their growth targets next year if unemployment is not to rise still higher. Our own fight against inflation, which is making good progress, needs the help of more expansionary policies in the strongest economies. We discussed the problems arising from the surpluses accumulated by the OPEC countries and by Japan.

In a thorough review of our bilateral relations, we agreed to establish a Committee for Industrial Co-operation, drawn from senior officials of the two countries, which will identify new areas of industrial co-operation between us. These will include offshore oil technology, technology that is peripheral to the computer industry, the paper industry and the machine tool industry, among others. We welcomed the contacts already established between British Leyland and Renault on possible co-operation between these companies which, while leaving the initiative to them, we support and encourage.

We discussed a proposal for a 2,000 megawatt cross-Channel electricity cable link. We noted that the generating authorities in our two countries are in negotiation towards an agreement and expressed our support for this. We reviewed prospects for co-operation in the supply of defence equipment, and welcomed the significant progress that is being made. We exchanged views on possible new projects in the field of civil aviation. We agreed that quick decisions were needed on the various options which had opened up and that these matters should be decided on the basis of the commercial and market factors involved.

We agreed that there will be annual meetings in future between senior officials of our countries who are concerned with economic management. In a wider framework, we agreed to encourage the Franco-British Council to organise annual meetings, such as we already have with the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries, between leading British and French politicians, industrialists, trade unionists and others to discuss matters of common concern.

We had a very thorough and useful exchange of views on the international situation, devoting particular attention to the prospects for a Middle East settlement and to Africa, on which our thinking was very close. We agreed to deepen consultation between us on African problems.

This latest meeting has confirmed once again the value of these exchanges as a positive and constructive basis on which to build Franco-British friendship.

Mrs. Thatcher

May I put three points to the Prime Minister? First, does the Prime Minister agree that in these days we are not short of Summits, of committees of co-operation or of Summit statements, particularly about the need for extra growth, and that they are all phrased in the same terms? The only thing that we are short of is results from the Summits. It is ironic that this statement on the need for industrial growth comes on a day when industrial production is once again down. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any practical proposals for growth have ever emerged from these Summit meetings?

Secondly, in view of our need fox greater agricultural production, did the Prime Minister discuss with the President the need to devalue the green currencies? Thirdly, did he tell the President that it is his intention to increase his commitment to defence expenditure in accordance with our own commitment to our other allies?

The Prime Minister

It is true, I think, that there are far more international meetings than there ever have been and that sometimes the results are not commensurate with the effort which has been put in. Nevertheless, there are problems here of interdependence which have not been solved and cannot be solved by any one country. I know that I speak for the President of France, as I speak for myself, when I say that this exchange of views is of very great value, and I do not think that the right hon. Lady is doing justice to these exchanges by the approach that she takes.

Certainly the matters of the cross-Channel electricity link, the supply of defence equipment, and the examination of new fields for co-operation in the industrial areas are of value. What happens, as the right hon. Lady may discover one day, is that one can supply a political impetus. When issues are being discussed by officials—no doubt very well—or by industries, it sometimes needs Heads of Government and appropriate Ministers to get together in order to give the real push. That is the value of it, not that any great results come out of any one meeting. I should like to cut down on the number of meetings that I attend in this way, but I do not think that it would be of value to this country if we were to cut off these Summits. Therefore, I do not agree with the right hon. Lady about that.

We did not discuss the question whether we should devalue the green pound. All the green currencies in Europe are capable of adjustment and it is for Governments to decide when they do so. Our Government have not decided not to devalue. It would be a question how we measure the relative importance of the consumer and the return to farmers in this sphere.

We did not discuss our contributions in the area of defence, at least not in financial terms. We discussed possible projects on which we could work together in the sphere both of a possible replacement for some existing helicopters and, indeed, of some other armaments.

Mr. Conlan

Did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of discussing the problems associated with the Concorde landing rights, and did he give the opportunity to the French Government to associate with the British Government to ensure that there will be more co-ordination than there has been in the past to ensure that Concorde can land in a greater number of places than is seemingly possible at the moment?

The Prime Minister

We discussed this briefly, but the problem of the landing rights at Singapore is basically a matter, I think, with which we ourselves have to deal, and I did not invite the French President to assist on that matter. However, there is co-operation whenever we need to work together.

Mr. Cyril Smith

Did the Prime Minister have any discussion on the problems of the British textile industry, particularly in relation to any objections that France or any other Common Market Member may have to an extension of the temporary employment subsidy? If he did have such discussions, what form did they take and can he give us any indication whether the Government will agree to any such extension?

The Prime Minister

We discussed this matter briefly, particularly in relation to the negotiations that the Community has been carrying on. I did not raise with the French President the question of the temporary employment subsidy, nor he with me. Obviously this has to be the subject of an early decision, but I cannot imagine any circumstances in which either it will not continue or there will not be a replacement of it when the present scheme runs out—unless, of course, we have the dire misfortune of the return of a Conservative Government, in which case all these schemes will be washed out and unemployment will rise to 3 million.

Mr. Amery

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President how we could exploit the 12-year lead we have over United States technology in supersonic civil flight?

The Prime Minister

We touched on this matter, but naturally we did not reach any conclusions about it. This is a matter which will come increasingly under discussion. I express only the personal view to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not expect it to be Government policy at this stage. I do not think another Anglo-French project could possibly succeed in view of the resources that would be required; it would have to be on a broader scale. But this is not a matter on which the Government have reached a conclusion.

Mr. Ward

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the need for an electricity link with France. Will he say whether the French raised the question of a gas pipeline to take advantage of Britain’s lead in this area?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, we did not discuss that, but we discussed the differences that arise in our economies because of the great good fortune that this country has with its massive reserves of coal and the oil discoveries that have been made, as well as, of course, the natural gas. I think that the French Government wish that they were in the same position. They, of course, are having to go nuclear much earlier than we are because of their shortage.

Mr. Peter Walker

Is the Prime Minister aware that all the areas of industrial collaboration that he identified are areas in which collaboration probably should be on a wider scale than merely an Anglo-French basis? For example, West Germany has a considerable interest. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking about that?

The Prime Minister

Particularly in relation to defence, we covered this aspect of the matter, and the European Programme Group, which the right hon. Gentleman may know about, is considering possible defence collaboration in the manufacture and development of particular projects on an Anglo-French-German basis. However, these were only bilateral talks between us.

On the other hand, I think that the President of France feels—and, certainly, I feel—that we share a number of problems in various areas. These are becoming increasingly known to us, and, though obviously they are also linked with Germany, perhaps we have a closer link with France. This is particularly true of textiles, for example. It is true also, I think in shipbuilding, where we have problems, in steel, and in the attitude towards the Japanese surplus. All of these are very important issues where I think an Anglo-French initiative can be and should be built—but not to the exclusion of any of our partners.

Mr. Heffer

In discussing the question of our oil and coal reserves, did my right hon. Friend stress the essential unity of the United Kingdom, particularly in view of the fact that the President of France entertained the so-called President of the Quebec Province of Canada and appeared to support independence? In view of the attitude being developed by the Scottish nationalists in relation to Scotland, this could have a significance for this country.

The Prime Minister

I discussed the question of devolution with the President and told him that I thought the best way to preserve the independence and unity of the United Kingdom was for the devolution Bill to go through in the form that, broadly, it is in now—and I believe that this would take a lot of poison out of the propaganda that is being used, in Scotland in particular.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President of France the Philistine and even barbarous policy followed by the French Government towards the culture and language of Brittany, which is now leading to the destruction of an ancient language?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir.

Mr. James Johnson

In view of what the Prime Minister said about M. Giscard d’Estaing and fishing policy, is he aware that in the eyes of our fishing industry the French are a bête noire? Did they discuss the tough and patriotic line taken by the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? If so, did M. Giscard d’Estaing say anything about the 50-mile exclusive limit?

The Prime Minister

I think that it would be true to say that there would not be normal relations with France unless there was some friction between fishermen off the South-West coast and French fishermen, who claim ancient and historic rights to fish there. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out—and I supported him in this—that because of the need to preserve our fishing stocks there is more identity of interest between the French and ourselves, if we choose to exercise it, than on the surface there might seem to be. We hoped that the French would join us in defending these coastal rights that we have put forward.

Mr. Henderson

Did the Prime Minister find any movement in the French view towards the position that our fishermen have taken, namely that we must have exclusive control over territorial limits if we are to have conservation in the future? Did the French President indicate that when he visits Edinburgh he intends to say “Vive l’Ecosse libre”?

The Prime Minister

I cannot compete in this linguistic exercise. I cannot say that the French President made any alteration in the French approach to this problem. It is an important issue to him because of unemployment among French fishermen and he has his interests to look after. The question is whether we can identify a joint interest here in the preservation of our coastal areas. I think that we can.

Mr. Marten

As a great believer in Franco-United Kingdom co-operation rather than British-French co-operation, may I ask whether the accord which seems to have stemmed from this meeting extended to a joint belief that no extra powers should be given to the directly-elected Assembly, if there is one? Do France and Britain see eye to eye on that point?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that I want to go any further than the phrase that I used—namely that we found that our views were similar.

Mr. Skinner

In view of the Leader of the Opposition’s scathing remarks about this summitry—I am sure that the Prime Minister knows that I am a sceptic about these matters—does my right hon. Friend think that the Leader of the Opposition’s worldwide summitry has tended to establish her as more of an international statesman, taking into account what she has had to say this afternoon and that she has travelled to Australia, Yugoslavia, Italy, China and a score of other places? On the specific matter of direct elections, is the Prime Minister saying that both he and Giscard d’Estaing are agreed on the phrase that he used, namely that to delay for another year does not really matter?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, not on that point. I am sure that the French President would much prefer us to come to a conclusion so that elections could be held in 1978.

As for world travel, it is not for me to comment on anyone else’s travels, by any means of locomotion. But I am bound to say, having read the debate yesterday, that it seems to me that we have a new test to apply to international trade, namely that all trade with Communist countries is bad unless the Leader of the Opposition has visited them.

Mr. Forman

In reviewing the intractable problems of the world economic situation with the French President, was there any meeting of minds between Her Majesty’s Government and the French Government on the vital importance of Britain and France using their influence jointly in gatherings such as GATT and elsewhere to increase the trade potential for our exports to developing countries and also to improve the access for their exports to our countries?

The Prime Minister

That is a very important and interesting question. I cannot say that we spent time on it in the discussions yesterday, but it is certainly a matter that our officials could take up and I shall be glad to bring it to their attention.

Mr. Faulds

Did my right hon. Friend discuss the Middle East with the French President, more particularly in view of the fact that the French Government make a more realistic appraisal of their interests in that part of the world—an example which we might well follow?

The Prime Minister

Yes. We discussed this subject and we each put forward our own views about it. As to whose position is more realistic I would not care to say, except that I am glad to be able to report that I keep in constant contact with the leaders both of the Arab countries and of Israel. I had a telephone conversation yesterday with Mr. Begin—

Mr. James Lamond

Reverse charge?

The Prime Minister

It really would take a Scot to think of that. I am also keeping in close communication with the Arab leaders on these matters and shall continue to do so.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Another long statement is to follow. I shall take two more speakers from each side. Mr. Ian Lloyd.

Mr. Ian Lloyd

Since this important conference concentrated on the question of industrial growth, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he and the President had before them the interesting report by the Economic and Social Committee of the Commission on the subject of industrial growth? Did he or the President refer to the criteria set out in that report, and did the Prime Minister explain to the President why not one of those criteria was satisfied by the Polish shipbuilding deal?

The Prime Minister

The House gave its answer on the last part of that question very forcefully last night. The speeches led me to the conclusion that the Opposition were a little unwise to raise the question.

As for industrial co-operation, we discussed what bilateral approaches could be made between British and French industry, except in the defence sector at which, as I said, we looked in a wider context. Although we had at the back of our minds the document referred to by the hon. Gentleman, we did not discuss that paper in particular.

Mr. Hayman

In view of the grave problems of the civil aircraft industry in France and here, can my right hon. Friend tell the House when the urgent decisions on new projects, to which he has referred, are likely to be made?

The Prime Minister

Both the President and I will ask our respective industries to work hard at this subject and to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible. I know that that answer is not very definite. We had in mind that the industry should be able to evaluate the position by late spring, and that both Governments could then reach a conclusion. I repeat, however, that this issue must be approached on a commercial basis.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson

In an earlier reply the Prime Minister seemed to rule out the possibility of any future versions of Concorde. Will he tell us what discussions he had about the existing Concorde production line and whether there is any prospect of further aircraft being ordered?

The Prime Minister

We did not discuss that matter, but I cannot hold out any hope that there will be any extension of the existing line. There are no orders for further numbers of Concorde.

Mr. John Garrett

Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the French President the superior rate of economic growth in France, which has obtained for some years past, and the extent to which that has been due to interventionist national planning and public ownership of the financial institutions? Did my right hon. Friend feel that we had anything to learn from the French experience?

The Prime Minister

I think that both of us have something to learn from each other. But in the eyes of the major parties in France there is clearly not the same ideological objection to public enterprise as exists in the mind of the Conservative Party here. Therefore, the French have been able to approach the issue on a less dogmatic basis than seems possible here. There is certainly a great deal of intervention by the French Government in their industry, as is well known.

The French will not have such fast economic growth next year as they would like. We hope that our rate of growth will be much faster as a result of the fact that we have now overcome inflation. Indeed, our rate of growth next year might even approach that of the French.

07/08/2022
James Callaghan – 1977 Speech on Pay of Nationalised Industry Board Members

The speech made by James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 15 December 1977.

The Government have given careful consideration to the difficult question of the pay of nationalised industry board chairmen and members.

The recommendations of the Review Body on Top Salaries for salary levels at 1st January 1975, on which the Government deferred a decision in the wider national interest, were for increases of the order of 30 per cent. on average, and considerably more for some individuals. Substantial absolute sums were involved. Inevitably, therefore, the salaries of this group are at present significantly out of line with their counterparts elsewhere.

But, in deciding how far they can go, the Government must have regard to the measures which are still being taken in the national interest to control inflation and which continue to demand very considerable restraint from all sections of the community. The Government therefore have to consider not only what scope there is within the current pay guidelines, but also how the absolute sums involved relate to what the community as a whole is being asked to bear.

The Government have concluded that at the present time a general increase of 5 per cent. with effect from 1st January 1978 is the most that can be allowed but that up to 10 per cent. should be paid to the less-well-paid members of the group tapered so as to ensure that the lower percentage applies at salaries above £13,000 a year.

The Government recognise that this will still leave nationalised industry board members significantly out of line with their counterparts elsewhere. They will wish to look again at the way forward when the Review Body on Top Salaries makes its recommendations for April 1978.

07/08/2022
James Callaghan – 1977 Parliamentary Answer on the House of Lords

The Parliamentary Answer given by James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 27 January 1977.

[Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made in his consideration of the position of the House of Lords.]

The Prime Minister

The Government are continuing to keep the position of the House of Lords under review.

Mr. Roberts

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of the House of Lords in anything like its existing form is a necessary advance towards democracy? Does he accept that this matter must be tackled by the next Labour Government if not by this one?

The Prime Minister

I certainly agree that the House of Lords is not the epitome of the democratic system, but I think that we had better undertake one constitutional change at a time.

Mr. David Steel

Does the Prime Minister recall that one of his predecessors said that the reform of the House of Lords would brook no delay? As that was Mr. Asquith in 1910, does he agree that there has been quite a lot of brooking since then? As long as the House of Lords goes unreformed, will the Prime Minister give it some constructive work to do and get it started on the Bill for European elections?

The Prime Minister

I am happy to give their Lordships some constructive work to do. It might turn their idle hands from the mischief they have done to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The Liberal Party has had many opportunities since the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman to tackle this particular problem. If he can promise me the full support of his party on this matter without wavering or quavering, I might be tempted to look in his direction.

Mr. Michael Stewart

In the course of the Government’s review of this subject will the Prime Minister study a valuable Fabian pamphlet on it written some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy?

The Prime Minister

I always study the writings of my right hon. Friend with the greatest care.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

Is it the policy of the Government to go for a one-chamber system of government, or is it merely the policy of the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister

Yesterday morning the National Executive decided that it should go on record as being in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. I cannot see why anybody should defend it in its present form. But, as I have said, a number of issues have to be settled and a number of hurdles have to be jumped before that legislation actually appears.

Mr. Kinnock

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could more profitably advance democracy by spending this year abolishing the House of Lords and reforming the House of Commons than multiplying bureaucracy in the form of devolution?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend was not a Member of this House when I had some experience of this matter. I should want a full guarantee of his total support and that of a great many others before I embarked on it again.

07/08/2022
Dominic Raab – 2022 Comments on Construction of First Secure School

The comments made by Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister, on 29 July 2022.

This secure school is a first. It’s effectively a school with prison walls around it that will give the stubborn hard core of young offenders, who need to be in custody, the tailored curriculum and mental health support they need to turn away from crime and get into training and work.

It’s the right thing to do for them and the public, driving down reoffending, and making our streets safer.

07/08/2022
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (06/08/2022) – 164 days

The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 6 August 2022.

Dear Ukrainians, I wish you health!

I will brief you on the past week.

First of all, I want to thank all our soldiers, who are extremely bravely – and in the hottest points of the frontline, with simply superhuman efforts – holding back the enemy.

The Russian army will not change its tactics. The occupiers know that they will lose to the Ukrainians in direct struggle, they are inferior in skill, and that is why the enemy is counting on artillery and indiscriminate shelling.

They try to destroy everything in front of them and enter the ruins. And I am grateful to everyone who, even in such conditions, still is containing the occupiers in Donbas, in Kharkiv region, in the Mykolaiv direction – wherever the confrontation is the most acute.

During this week, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and our intelligence have achieved powerful results in destroying the logistics of the Russian army, the rear bases of the occupiers. And every strike on the enemy’s ammunition depots, on their command posts, on accumulations of Russian equipment saves the lives of all of us, the lives of Ukrainian military and civilians.

Of course, I thank the partners – everyone who supplies Ukraine with the necessary weapons. In particular, another package of support from the United States was approved this week, which also includes ammunition for the HIMARS systems. Thank you very much. All of them are used as accurately and beneficially as possible for the overall strategy of our defense. We are doing everything to get yet more effective and modern weapons.

It was possible to restore the sea export of Ukrainian agricultural products. Our ports on the Black Sea are operating again. And although it is still too early to give general assessments of the process, we can still say that it is positive both for our state and for all our partners.

However, the key security risk has not yet been removed. The threat of Russian provocations and terrorist attacks remains. Everyone should be aware of this.

But if the partners fulfill their part of the commitment and guarantee the security of the supply, it will really solve the global food crisis.

And we must not forget that the restoration of our sea exports was made possible primarily thanks to our soldiers – all those who defend Odesa and secured the liberation of Snake Island. These are simply heroes.

During the week, opportunities for Ukraine in the African direction were significantly expanded. There were new contacts with state leaders and communication with journalists. I will continue this work next week – another series of negotiations is planned.

Unfortunately, we have a significant worsening of the situation around the Zaporizhzhia NPP. Russian terrorists became the first in the world to use a nuclear plant for terror. The biggest in Europe! We will draw the world’s attention to this and insist on new sanctions against Russia for creating such a global threat.

And despite the fact that the Russian shelling of the nuclear plant is one of the most dangerous crimes against Ukrainians and all Europeans, against the right to life of every person, for some reason there is no report or even a simple notification from Amnesty International about it. A very eloquent silence, which once again indicates the manipulative selectivity of this organization.

This week there are new sanction steps from Canada and the United States. Switzerland made an important decision regarding support for the seventh EU sanctions package. The general tendency to strengthen sanctions remains unchanged and will continue increasing the price for this terror, terror against our people, for the terrorist state.

I want to thank everyone who develops our UNITED24 public charity platform, and all the ambassadors of this platform – Andriy Shevchenko, Elina Svitolinia, Liev Schreiber, the band Imagine Dragons, Demna. This week we summed up the three-month results of work the UNITED24 platform. More than UAH 6 billion were raised in contributions for reconstruction, equipment for hospitals, for the purchase of ambulances – dozens of ambulances were purchased. There is already the first helicopter bought using the funds raised by UNITED24. It will be used to rescue the wounded. It was possible to attract help from more than a hundred countries.

One of the most important areas for August and September is the implementation of our Fast Recovery Plan. What needs to be done in the territory liberated from the enemy to give people conditions for a normal life and to prepare for the autumn and winter season. In total, 1,060 settlements have already been liberated, and the absolute majority of them require significant restoration work, demining, and the construction of social facilities. And I thank all our partners who joined the relevant work.

In particular, this week the delegation of Estonia visited the districts of Zhytomyr region, which the country is helping with recovery. Estonia was the first within the Fast Recovery Plan to choose objects for financing.

We work with diplomats and companies in all other areas that need support and restoration.

We believe in our defenders! We help the defense!

Let’s remain united and do everything for the victory of Ukraine! It will be!

Eternal glory to our soldiers!

Glory to Ukraine!

07/08/2022
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (05/08/2022) – 163 days

The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 5 August 2022.

Dear Ukrainians!

Three vessels with grain for export left our ports today – from Odesa and Chornomorsk. Almost 60,000 tonnes of corn are on board, which are expected by consumers in Turkey, the UK, and Ireland.

The first new vessel since February 24 is heading to the port of Chornomorsk for loading.

The main thing now is the constant increase in exports. Every adequate world player is interested in this. The more our grain will be on the global market, the smaller will be the harvest of political chaos in countries, primarily in Africa and Asia, but not only there. We must remember that this year the demand for imported food in Europe is much higher than expected. European harvests are smaller because of the heat. But the Ukrainian harvest of grain and oilseeds will most likely meet the forecasts – more than 65 million tonnes are expected. Therefore, if the partners do their part of the obligations under the Grain Initiative, the security part, and do not allow new Russian provocations in relation to our exports, then the food crisis, which has been so threatening to the world, can be overcome.

But the situation on the energy market, and especially for European consumers, continues to be very dangerous due to Russia’s cynical and worked out well gas blackmail. Instead of supplying gas to the territory of Europe in accordance with the contracts, Russia even simply burns it – and this is happening more than one week. Why does it do this? So that prices in Europe rise even more, so that ordinary Europeans suffer even more and so that it will be even more difficult for everyone on the continent to prepare for winter. This is a manifestation of Russia’s deliberate anti-European policy, anti-human policy and the effect of the old mistakes of Europeans who did not want to see that Gazprom, Russian gas pipelines bypassing Ukraine are the same weapons for Russia as tanks and artillery, and each of us, each in Europe is a target for them.

And we all have to defend ourselves now. Together to prepare for the new heating season. Together to respond to any provocations of Russia in the energy sector. Together to develop sanctions in response to Russian blackmail and terror.

Today, the occupiers created another extremely risky situation for everyone in Europe – they fired at the Zaporizhzhia NPP, twice in one day. This is the largest nuclear power plant on our continent. And any shelling of this facility is an open, brazen crime, an act of terror. Russia should bear responsibility for the very fact of creating a threat to the nuclear power plant. And this is not only another argument in favor of recognizing Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. This is an argument in favor of applying tough sanctions against the entire Russian nuclear industry – from Rosatom to all related companies and individuals. This is purely a matter of safety. The one who creates nuclear threats to other nations is definitely not capable of using nuclear technologies safely.

Today I held a meeting devoted to the sanctions policy, confiscation of Russian assets. As government officials reported, assets worth UAH 28 billion have already been forcibly seized in Ukraine. This work continues. More than 900 facilities belonging to the Russian state are proposed to be confiscated. And if we evaluate the property package not only of the terrorist state, but also of its residents, then this are 36,000 items for seizure. All this will be sent to compensate for the damages that Russia causes through war and terror.

I also heard the results of the work of the group on the development and implementation of the international compensation mechanism and confiscation of Russian assets abroad. All our partners are actively working on this – in Europe, in the United States. Work on bills that will expand the possibilities for the confiscation of Russian assets for Ukraine is underway.

And Donbas burned out by Russian strikes, the abuse of the occupiers over Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, the shelling of Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk region, Sumy region, Chernihiv region, Kyiv region, Zhytomyr region, Odesa region and other regions of Ukraine are what Russia will surely pay for: both politically and financially, and with its own future, which Russia is losing with every strike on our territory.

I spoke today with the President of Malawi. It is another African state, the ninth country, which Ukraine is in contact with for the first time at the highest level in the entire history of our independence. I assured Mr. President that Ukraine will make every effort so that every country interested in our agricultural products can meet its consumption needs. We also discussed other issues of stability and our cooperation in international organizations.

I also signed a decree awarding our soldiers. A total of 192 combatants were given state awards, 18 of them, unfortunately, posthumously.

Eternal gratitude to all who is fighting for our great state!

Thank you, great people of Ukraine!

Glory to Ukraine!

07/08/2022
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (04/08/2022) – 162 days

The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 4 August 2022.

Ukrainians!

Today, Russian terrorists once again fired at Toretsk, Donetsk region, hitting public transport stop. Eight people died, three children are among those injured. Residential buildings were damaged by projectile fragments and the blast wave – those are ordinary high-rise buildings. St. Panteleimon Church was also damaged, the priest was wounded.

It was a deliberate strike by the occupiers, another act of terror – cynical and calculated. They knew where they were hitting, and they obviously wanted people to get hurt.

However, we do not see clear and timely reports from some international organizations regarding this and thousands of other crimes committed by Russian terrorists. We saw today a completely different report from Amnesty International, which unfortunately tries to amnesty the terrorist state and shift the responsibility from the aggressor to the victim.

There cannot be – even hypothetically – any condition under which any Russian attack on Ukraine becomes justified. Aggression against our state is unprovoked, invasive and openly terroristic. And if someone makes a report in which the victim and the aggressor are allegedly the same in something, if some data about the victim is analyzed and what the aggressor was doing at that time is ignored, this cannot be tolerated.

Almost 200 religious buildings alone – temples and prayer houses of various denominations – were damaged or destroyed by Russian strikes. Almost 900 medical facilities. Over 2,200 educational institutions. Dozens of universities, hundreds of schools and kindergartens. The occupiers repeatedly deliberately fired artillery and mortars at people queuing for water, at evacuation buses, and repeatedly at public transport stops. The Russian army did not even refrain from striking at the memorials to the victims of the Holocaust, at the cemeteries… At the camp with prisoners of war in Olenivka. And there are no reports about it for some reason. This is immoral selectivity.

Anyone who amnesties Russia and who artificially creates such an informational context that some attacks by terrorists are supposedly justified or supposedly understandable, cannot but realize that it helps the terrorists. And if you provide manipulative reports, then you share the responsibility for the death of people with them.

Every day we expand the possibilities of our foreign policy – formal and informal. I spoke today with representatives of the African media – from Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya and Ghana. African countries can be affected very seriously by the destabilization of world markets and global relations provoked by Russia, in particular due to the food crisis. At the same time, in Africa there is a shortage of true information about the Russian war against our country and a surplus of Russian propaganda. We’ll do everything to change this balance.

Negotiations with the President of Guinea-Bissau took place for the first time in the history of our bilateral relations. I noted that Ukraine is ready to be a guarantor of food security for African countries. We discussed the support for our state in international organizations.

Tomorrow there will be new negotiations with a leader of an African country, and in general, only recently we started proper communication with eight leaders of African states.

Every day and in various ways, I remind some leaders of the European Union that Ukrainian pensioners, our displaced persons, our teachers and other people who depend on budget payments cannot be held hostage to their indecision or bureaucracy. 8 billion euros for Ukraine are currently suspended. And such an artificial delay of macro-financial assistance to our state is either a crime or a mistake, and it is difficult to say which is worse in such conditions of a full-scale war.

I don’t want to name the European country that is slowing it down now. Let’s believe that this is still a mistake and that it will be corrected.

I held a meeting of the Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief today. Minister of Defense of Ukraine Oleksiy Reznikov reported on the current provision of troops with equipment and ammunition. Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny, Head of the Security Service Malyuk, Minister of Internal Affairs Monastyrskyi also delivered reports. We analyzed the situation in the most acute areas of the frontline, in particular in the Donetsk region. Particular attention was paid to the state of implementation of the previous decisions of the Staff, all of them must be implemented by 100%.

I signed another decree on awarding our warriors. 192 combatants were awarded state awards, six of them posthumously. In total, more than 25,500 of our defenders have already been awarded for bravery and effectiveness in battles since February 24. More than 4 thousand – posthumously.

Eternal memory to all who died for Ukraine!

Eternal gratitude to everyone who fights against Russian terrorists!

Glory to Ukraine!

07/08/2022
Secretary to the Cabinet – List of Holders of the Role

The Cabinet Secretary is the most senior civil servant, with the role having been created in 1916.

1916 – 1938 : Sir Maurice Hankey (1877-1963)

1938 – 1947 : Sir Edward Bridges (1892-1969)

1947 – 1963 : Sir Norman Brook (1902-1967)

1963 – 1973 : Sir Burke Trend (1914-1987)

1973 – 1979 : Sir John Hunt (1919-2008)

1979 – 1988 : Sir Robert Armstrong (1927-2020)

1988 – 1998 : Sir Robin Butler (1938-)

1998 – 2002 : Sir Richard Wilson (1942-)

2002 – 2005 : Sir Andrew Turnbull (1945-)

2005 – 2011 : Sir Gus O’Donnell (1952-)

2011 – 2018 : Sir Jeremy Heywood (1961-2018)

2018 – 2020 : Sir Mark Sedwill (1964-)

2020 – : Simon Case (1978-)

07/08/2022
By-Elections for the House of Commons (2019- Parliament)

Parliamentary by-elections for the House of Commons held during the current Parliament (2019-).

MAY 2021

6 May 2021 – Hartlepool (Conservative Gain from Labour)

13 May 2021 – Airdrie and Shotts (SNP Hold)

JUNE 2021

17 June 2021 – Chesham and Amersham (Liberal Democrat Gain from Conservative)

JULY 2021

1 July 2021 – Batley and Spen (Labour Hold)

DECEMBER 2021

2 December 2021 – Old Bexley and Sidcup (Conservative Hold)

16 December 2021 – North Shropshire (Liberal Democrat Gain from Conservative)

FEBRUARY 2022

3 February 2022 – Southend West (Conservative Hold)

MARCH 2022

3 March 2022 – Birmingham Erdington (Labour Hold)

JUNE 2022

23 June 2022 – Wakefield (Labour Gain from Conservative)

23 June 2022 – Tiverton and Hoverton (Liberal Democrat Gain from Conservative)

06/08/2022
Pam Cameron – 2022 Comments on Healthcare in Northern Ireland

The comments made by Pam Cameron, the DUP’s Health Spokesperson in Northern Ireland, on 6 August 2022.

‘These are deeply disturbing figures. Behind every statistic is a family mourning the loss of a loved one and that must drive us to realise the change desperately needed to secure better outcomes for local patients.

Covid-19 and the disruption of many routine health services has adversely and disproportionately affected those on hospital waiting lists. Tragically, we may never fully know how many deaths were preventable.However, these problems did not start with the pandemic and they will not end with the pandemic either.

It may be difficult to establish how many of these deaths were directly caused by delays in receiving attention or treatment but at a minimum it is clear that thousands of people across our Province are spending their final weeks and months in pain, discomfort or with deep uncertainty about their health. That isn’t something we should be willing to accept.

At the recent election we put forward a 5-point plan, including the need to fix our NHS. At the core of that is reform and transformation of the Health Service to ensure it is capable of meeting current and future challenges. We will continue to make the case at Westminster for adequate funding and for a future local Executive to ensure the focus is on reducing waiting lists and reform of the health system.

06/08/2022