Category: Speeches

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.

30/08/2022
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.

30/08/2022
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.

30/08/2022
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?

30/08/2022
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.

30/08/2022
Michael Ancram – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

The speech made by Michael Ancram to the Conservative Spring Forum on 23 March 2002.

It is a great pleasure to be addressing you here in Harrogate again. My role this year is different, but my aim is the same. To start to win the next election.

I must thank you for the enormous help and support you gave me in my three years as Party Chairman. I know you will do the same for David Davis who has got off to such a flying start, and I wish him well.

Our task over the coming months and years is to rebuild public trust in our Party. It will be won primarily on the public services. But it can be won on broader canvases too, and foreign affairs is one of them.

September 11 changed many things. It changed in particular the perception of the invulnerability of powers like America and the UK.

Defence strategies suddenly required new dimensions.

International aid came centre stage as part of international economic planning and development.

We have had a good session. The contributions we have had from the floor have been of great insight and common sense as well.

Today we face a changed world where Cold War certainties and the stability of the great blocs are gone.

What we have do now is to identify common interests, and to create agile international alliances from them.

I also believe that loyalty, and trust and friendship have an important part to play.

Loyalty to those who have stood and still stand by us; trust in those with whom we can do business; and friendship with those whose values we share.

After 11 September Tony Blair did well. I paid tribute to his role in building the international coalition against terrorism, and we gave him our support.

But since then power seems to have gone to his head.

Building coalitions suddenly turned into his “I can heal the World” speech to his conference last October.

That speech was vainglorious claptrap and it was dangerously misjudged.

For a start, how can he aspire to heal the world when he so clearly cannot heal public services in Britain?

And far from his much vaunted ethical foreign policy, too much of the rest of his actual foreign policy is coloured by three shaming features – let-down, sell-out and surrender.

Firstly let-down.

Blair told his Party Conference that “if Rwanda happened again today … we would have a moral duty to act there”, and that he would “not tolerate … the behaviour of Mugabe’s henchmen”. He talked about healing the scars on Africa.

Brave words which raised high hopes in Zimbabwe.

But they were words without action.

Blair went to Africa recently, but he never went near Zimbabwe. Nothing new.

When we called for targeted sanctions after the rigged parliamentary elections in 2000, this Government wrung its hands and did nothing. The same when the illegal land grabs began. And when voter registration began to be rigged in November.

On each of these occasions we called for real pressure on Mugabe and on each occasion the Government did nothing. They even accused us of irresponsibility.

And when in February they finally saw the light, it was too late.

So in the face of murder and torture in Zimbabwe whatever happened to Blair’s ‘moral duty to act’?

As Mugabe’s thugs stole the election where was the active non-toleration he had promised?

Far from healing the world – or even the scars on Africa – he stood by while the open wound which is Zimbabwe gaped and bled, and he did nothing.

He let the people of Zimbabwe down, and in the process killed his ethical foreign policy stone dead.

There is still just a chance to retrieve something from this mess.

The Commonwealth suspension was a start and I pay tribute to Australian PM John Howard for it.

But we must start now in earnest to bring together a wider international coalition including the US, the Commonwealth, the EU and the states of southern Africa, to exert real pressure on the Mugabe regime to hold new free and fair elections under international scrutiny. Only that way can democracy be restored.

Our Government should lead this initiative. They should stop talking and start doing – and we will chase them until they do.

And then there is sell out, betraying one’s friends.

This government has no qualms about betrayal.

Blair and Straw are turning their backs on centuries of loyalty to Britain and to the Crown by selling out the sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar.

They are preparing a deal with Spain to share sovereignty over the rock and a bribe for Gibraltar to accept it.

But however it is wrapped up, sovereignty shared is sovereignty surrendered.

Gibraltarians will have no part of it and neither will we.

And nor can that deal just be parked for another day if Gibraltar says ‘no’. It must fall.

Let me be clear. An incoming Conservative Government will not feel bound by any deal on sovereignty which has not received the freely and democratically expressed consent of the people of Gibraltar.

And then there is Surrender.

Bowing to European pressure against military advice to participate in the military initiative in Macedonia.

Failing after five long years to get the illegal French ban on British beef lifted.

Losing the agreement which we had with France to control asylum seekers at Calais.

Surrendering ever more areas of decision making within Europe. Thirty one national vetoes surrendered in the Nice Treaty alone.

Surrender may be a word which flows readily from New Labour lips. It will not flow from ours.

And in the middle of all this poor old Jack Straw.

Eaten alive by Peter Hain who wants his job, and sidelined by the PM who does it.

Caught between the Rock of Gibraltar and the hard place of Europe.

When you next see him on TV with his arm raised don’t be fooled. He’s not waving, he’s drowning!

On Zimbabwe and Gibraltar our approach is essentially based on things as they are and not as we would wish them to be.

September 11 created a new bond of friendship and shared values between ourselves and the US.

The old ‘special relationship’ got a new lease of life as we were able to show America that once again our interests coincide and our values are the same, and that they can do things better with our help and with our counsel.

That relationship has always been one of partnership not subservience.

That is what we must now work on, a renewed Atlantic Charter based on the reality that Europe and America work best in partnership rather than in rivalry, and that the partnership of the US and the UK lies at the heart of it.

Afghanistan and the destruction of al Quaeda is a good example. Iraq is another.

The Iraqi threat is indisputable. Horrific weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a despot who will use them or give them to others to use in every part of the world.

Our shared objective is the destruction of these weapons before they can be used.

The means of achieving it must be effective and enduring. We cannot rule any option out.

That is the perception we share with America. That is why we back them. And that is why we must persuade others in Europe to do the same.

There are however those in Europe today who believe that the EU will only meet its objectives when it becomes a rival to America with its own Foreign and Security policy.

They set a false and dangerous choice, one which could drive the US away from us at a time when the US does not so much need us as we need the US.

It also would leave foreign and defence policy moving at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy. It would be bad for Europe and for us.

We want to see not Europe or America but Europe and America with us as the natural bridge.

Europe must change, and Europe knows it.

The growing gulf between people and institutions in the EU underlines the need for change and calls for greater democratic accountability, and so do we.

That process has begun, and we want to be constructively engaged in it.

The paths are there.

We want to see an enlarged Europe, a partnership of sovereign nations, working together to strengthen the single market whilst retaining basic rights of self-determination.

A vibrant Europe for the 21st century must be fuelled by deregulation and decentralisation, returning more power to the national parliaments, not least over agriculture and foreign aid.

We want a European Union built from the bottom up, an EU which derives its power from the national parliaments and which is accountable to them.

As constructive Europeans we should not be afraid to urge the reopening of the treaties to bring Europe up to date with the modern world. That after all is what IGCs are for.

We should not be frightened of revisiting those areas that are not working.

To do otherwise, Mr Blair, is to bury one’s head in the sand.

If Europe is serious about change these are the challenges it cannot duck.

We are part of the EU and we will remain so.

But we also occupy that unique position from which we can bring Europe and America closer together – and the Commonwealth too.

We can restore our traditional role of bringing people together, of bringing democracy and free trade to other countries to their benefit and ours.

We can become a force for good by building relationships and partnerships with peoples and countries as we find them – once again from the bottom up.

Even in opposition we can begin that process.

We can start to rebuild international trust in our ability to deliver.

And in doing so we can show that we believe in Great Britain again.

That as so often in the past we are the only party which believes in Great Britain, which has pride in our flag and our history and our future too.

People instinctively know that in Iain Duncan Smith we have a leader who will always hold that pride and that flag high. They cannot say the same for Tony Blair.

When we speak with the voice of the British people we win.

So let us be clear. We are proud of our country.

We will speak with the voice of the British people for Britain again.

We will restore respect and trust in Britain across the world again.

We will stand up for loyalty, for trust and for friendship again.

And we will win.

30/08/2022
Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on the Energy Price Cap

The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 26 August 2022.

Ofgem’s announcement that the energy price cap will rise to £3549 in October confirms what many of us have long feared. Despite repeated warnings, the Government has consistently failed to intervene and Ministers must act now to prevent this cost of living crisis becoming a national disaster.

Without Government support, some Londoners will not only be forced to choose between heating or eating but could struggle to do either. The Government must immediately freeze bills and introduce a Lifeline Tariff to ensure the most vulnerable people in our city receive a basic amount of free energy every day.

Through transformative initiatives like my Warmer Homes scheme I’m committed to doing all I can to support Londoners through this deepening crisis but, with energy prices soaring and more families struggling to make ends meet, this Government needs to step up and take urgent action now.

30/08/2022
Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments at Start of Notting Hill Carnival

The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 26 August 2022.

I’m delighted that Notting Hill Carnival will be returning to the streets of west London this weekend. This community-led celebration of Caribbean history and culture has become one of the world’s biggest street festivals and part of the very fabric of this city. I urge everyone planning to attend Carnival to arrive early to make the most of this wonderful celebration of our capital’s diversity.

30/08/2022
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech on Independence Day in Ukraine

The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 24 August 2022.

The free people of independent Ukraine!

And that says it all. Just four words, but how much is behind them today. On the 182nd day of the full-scale war. How many symbols and meanings, feats and losses, joy and pain are in these words. And mainly how much truth is in them. Our truth. Truth about our present, with which it is impossible to argue, as it is impossible not to see and not to admit. We are the free people of independent Ukraine. After six months of the attempts to destroy us, we are the free people of independent Ukraine. And this is the truth about our future. The free people of independent Ukraine.

Six months ago, Russia declared war against us. On February 24, the entire Ukraine heard explosions and gunshots. And on August 24, it wasn’t supposed to hear the words “Happy Independence Day”. On February 24, we were told: you have no chance. On August 24, we say: Happy Independence Day, Ukraine!

During these six months, we changed history, changed the world and changed ourselves. Now we know for sure who is really our brother and friend, and who is not even a casual acquaintance. Who did not lose his name and reputation, and who worried for the terrorists to save face. Who doesn’t really need us, and where the door is really open for us. We understood who is who. And the whole world learned who Ukrainians are. What Ukraine is. No one will say about it anymore: it is somewhere over there, near Russia.

We started to respect ourselves. We understood that despite any help and support, no one but us will fight for our independence. And we united.

We didn’t have HIMARS yet, but we had people willing to stop tanks with their bare hands. They were not ready to close the sky for us, but we had people willing to cover their native land with themselves.

The Ukrainian people and their courage inspired the whole world. They gave humanity a new hope that justice has not completely left our cynical world. And it is still not force that wins in it, but truth. Not money, but values. Not oil, but people.

Yesterday the world was not united. COVID-19 clearly showed: it’s every man for himself. Ukraine has changed this in six months. All world history textbooks will have a section “Times when Ukraine united the world”. When democracy grew teeth again. When tyranny receives an answer in the language it understands.

Someone said: Europe is no longer a player. Weak, disunited, passive, sleepy. Ukraine invigorated the whole continent. Europe takes to the squares. Europe introduces tough sanctions. Europe unanimously recognizes that Ukraine is a future member of the European Union.

Big business realized that money still smells. With blood, cinder, death. Corporations and brands are leaving the Russian market, and people have become more important than potential losses.

Never before in the world has public opinion had such an influence on politicians. Today, people dictate trends and rules of behavior to the authorities. Being indifferent, inactive and slow is a shame. Being indecisive and too cautious is a shame. Speaking sluggishly, vaguely and too diplomatically is a shame. Not supporting Ukraine is a shame. And saying about fatigue from Ukraine is a shame. This is a very comfortable position: fatigue is a cover to close your eyes. And today we hear from world leaders and ordinary citizens: we will be with you until the end, until your victory.

Dear people!

We always paid tribute to all the fighters for independence, called this day the main holiday, and the blue-yellow flag – a shrine, put our hands to our hearts while singing the national anthem, and proudly said “Glory to Ukraine!” and “Glory to Heroes!”. On February 24, we had to prove our words with deeds.

On this day, the second all-Ukrainian referendum actually took place. Again – the main question. Again – a decisive choice. But this time it was necessary to say “yes” to independence not in the ballot, but in the soul and conscience. Go not to the precinct, but to the military commissariat departments, the territorial defense units, the volunteer movement, the information troops or simply work steadily and conscientiously in your place, at full strength, for a common goal.

We all changed. Someone was born again. As a person, individual, citizen, patriot, simply as a Ukrainian. And this, of course, is good news. Someone disappeared. Did not perish, did not die, but dissolved. As a person, individual, citizen, as a Ukrainian. And this is actually not bad news either. We will not hinder each other anymore.

We made a choice. For some, it is Mariupol. For some – Monaco. But we know who the majority is. And we finally became truly one. A new nation that emerged on February 24 at 4 am. Not born, but reborn. A nation that didn’t cry, didn’t scream, didn’t get scared. Didn’t run away. Didn’t give up. Didn’t forget.

This flag will be everywhere it should be by right. Both in Donbas and in Crimea. The enemy thought we would greet him with flowers and champagne. Instead, he received wreaths and Molotov cocktails. He was waiting for an ovation, but hears “claps”.

The occupier believed that in a few days he would be on parade in our capital’s downtown. Today, you can see this “parade” on Khreshchatyk. The proof that enemy equipment can appear in the center of Kyiv only in such form. Burnt, wrecked and destroyed.

It doesn’t matter to us what kind of army you have, what matters to us is our land. We will fight for it until the end.

We are holding on for six months. It is difficult for us, but we clenched our fists fighting for our fate. Every new day is a new reason not to give up. Because, having gone through so much, we have no right not to reach the end. What is the end of the war for us? We used to say: peace. Now we say: victory.

We will not seek an understanding with the terrorists. Although we understand the Russian language that you came to defend. And killed thousands of people you came to liberate.

And Johnson, who speaks English, is much more understandable and close to us than murderers, rapists and looters who did it in Russian.

And we don’t sit down at the negotiating table because of fear, with a gun pointed at our head. For us, the most terrible iron is not missiles, aircraft and tanks, but shackles. Not trenches, but fetters.

And we will put our hands up only once – when we will celebrate our victory. The whole of Ukraine. Because we do not trade our lands and our people. For us, Ukraine is all of Ukraine. All 25 regions, without any concessions or compromises. We do not know these words, they were destroyed by missiles on February 24.

Donbas is Ukraine. And we will return it, whatever the path may be. Crimea is Ukraine. And we will return it. Whatever the path may be. You don’t want your soldiers to die? Free our lands. You don’t want your mothers to cry? Free our lands. These are our simple and clear terms.

The free people of independent Ukraine!

We are facing this day in different places. Someone is in trenches and dugouts, in tanks and IFVs, at sea and in the air. Fighting for independence on the frontline. Someone is on the road, in cars, trucks and trains. Fighting for independence by delivering what is necessary to those on the frontline. And someone is on a smartphone or on a computer. Also fighting for independence by raising funds so that those on the road have something to bring to those on the frontline.

We are facing this day in different circumstances, conditions and even in different time zones, but with one goal – preservation of independence and victory of Ukraine!

We united.

Happy Independence Day of Ukraine!

Glory to Ukraine!

30/08/2022
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (24/08/2022) – 182 days

The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 24 August 2022.

Ukrainians!

All our defenders!

Today was a useful day for Ukraine, very meaningful. A day that showed how strong our state has become, and this is not the limit yet. We are doing everything so that the strength of Ukraine, the opportunities of Ukraine, the freedom of Ukraine only increase.

Today we celebrate the day of our flag, and it happens at a time when we are fighting against the most dreadful threat to our statehood and at the same time when we have achieved the greatest national unity. That is why we endured. Because we united and united the world around true values.

Our national flag has become a global symbol of courage. A symbol of all who value a free life. Where there is blue and yellow, there is no and will be no tyranny. Where there is blue and yellow, there are no and will not be savages.

Our flag is everywhere – from the frontline, where our warriors beat the enemy, to capitals on all continents, and it means one thing everywhere – humanity.

I am grateful to everyone who defends true values. I am grateful to everyone who helps Ukraine. I am grateful to everyone who, since February 24, has chosen the path of struggle for what makes life real: for freedom, for independence.

Very soon we will celebrate our main national holiday – our independence. Already tomorrow. We have planned many activities – something that will emphasize the path we have covered. Covered together – Ukrainians in Ukraine, throughout our territory – free and temporarily occupied, because our people are fighting everywhere. Ukrainians abroad – all those who helped, all those who spread the truth about Ukraine, all those who urged to fight for Ukraine.

No occupier feels safe on our land. All collaborators know that they have no future. And we all do not just believe – we see that our state has a perspective.

And for tomorrow, I have planned to award people who have contributed to our strength. These are people from different areas of life. Our warriors, all those who help warriors. Communication officers, railwaymen, rescuers, media workers, those who inform our people, who work in the national marathon “United News”. These are utility workers, electricians, drivers, volunteers, officials, athletes, artists – those artists who are known on the frontline, whom the army is grateful to, those who preserve and restore the positive emotions of our warriors.

I asked various ministries, regional administrations, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, media representatives to submit their proposals on who deserves awards on Independence Day. It is up to you to decide. And tomorrow the awards will be given to those who really deserve them.

Now I am near the office of the Crimea Platform, near the building that symbolizes that we care about every part of Ukraine, about every part of our people – the great Ukrainian people. Crimea is an integral part of our state, Crimea is Ukraine. Crimea is an integral part of our people. And we will certainly come to our cities in Crimea, to our people in Crimea and return to them the freedom that belongs to them by right, as well as to all our other people.

That is why we have organized a special format – the Crimean format, the Crimea Platform. We held the inaugural summit last summer and today we have already held the second one. I am grateful to all participants of the summit – 40 leaders, almost 60 states and international organizations. European leaders, leaders of the G7, leaders of the countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America. This is not just a meeting, not just a discussion. The Crimea Platform became a global forum that united the leaders of the free world. This is a community of people who help restore peace and legality for Crimea, for the Black Sea region, for all of Europe.

And the fact that we are holding the summit for the second time right now, with the expansion of the representation, is a clear response of the world to Russian aggression. Clear support for our sovereignty and territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders. Russian aggression began in Crimea, and its finale will be in Crimea as well.

In Kyiv, on Constitution Square, the Walk of the Brave was opened today – a place to honor the personal strength of those people who did not fail after February 24, who were not afraid, who did not retreat under the pressure of tyranny. Who helped us fight against Russian aggression and is still helping us. And the first name that we presented on the Walk of the Brave is the name of Andrzej Duda, the President of Poland. He was in Kyiv today, participating in the Crimea Platform. And for not a single day during these six months has he lost strength in supporting Ukraine. I am grateful to him!

I definitely want to address our Kharkiv and all Kharkiv residents separately today. You are heroic people, a heroic city. A proud city. A city with a sense of self-respect. A city that knows how to defend itself. A city whose people know how to unite. A neat city. A city that always impresses everyone who comes and sees how Kharkiv residents take care of their streets and yards even when they are under the brutal pressure of Russian terrorists.

Today is Kharkiv Day. Now our Kharkiv is not willing to celebrate. Yes, Kharkiv experienced a lot of injustice and cruelty. But Kharkiv will never be a city of black scorched windows and ruined districts. Kharkiv will never submit to this evil, which has nothing but artillery and missiles.

We will definitely liberate the entire Kharkiv region. We will find a way to guarantee security to our Kharkiv. And we will do everything to restore the city. I promise!

Fellow Ukrainians!

Tomorrow is an important day for all of us. And that is why this day, unfortunately, is also important for our enemy. We must be aware that tomorrow hideous Russian provocations and brutal strikes are possible.

The Armed Forces of Ukraine, our intelligence, special services will do everything to protect people – as much as possible. And we will certainly respond to any manifestation of Russian terror.

But please follow the safety rules strictly tomorrow. Please observe the curfew. Pay attention to the air sirens. Pay attention to official announcements. And remember: we must all achieve victory together.

Eternal glory to all who fight for Ukraine!

Glory to Ukraine!

30/08/2022