Category: Speeches

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

    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!

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

    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!

  • Pam Cameron – 2022 Comments on Healthcare in Northern Ireland

    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.

  • Steve Barclay – 2022 Comments on Trip to Warwickshire Health Facilities

    Steve Barclay – 2022 Comments on Trip to Warwickshire Health Facilities

    The comments made by Steve Barclay, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 5 August 2022.

    With the backlogs due to COVID it is vital that we innovate to speed up diagnosis and treatment. So it was great to see the state of the art new diagnostic centre in Nuneaton, which opens in 10 days time, and to discuss with local GPs how this will also help them deliver improved patient care.

    Diagnostic one-stop shops, like the George Eliot Hospital, are right at the heart of local communities and are helping to speed up access to X-rays, lung function tests, ultrasound and endoscopy. By bringing under one roof cardiac and respiratory diagnosis with access to pathology investigations, it will allow patients to attend once rather than need repeat visits. It is also good for staff retention and progression to have these new facilities with state of the art equipment.

    This, combined with other innovations in the region like remote monitoring at Manor Park Surgery are supporting the NHS on the biggest catch up programme in history.

  • Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech at the International Working Group on Women and Sport Handover

    Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech at the International Working Group on Women and Sport Handover

    The speech made by Nigel Huddleston, the Minister for Sport, Tourism, Heritage and Civil Society, at New Zealand House, Edgbaston Golf Club on 4 August 2022.

    Thank you to New Zealand for your generous hospitality.

    I am genuinely delighted to be able to attend today’s event which starts the official handover of the International Working Group on Women and Sport from New Zealand to the UK.

    It is great that the event could be happening at the very same time as Birmingham 2022, which – and this is worth repeating – has the largest female sport programme in the history of the Commonwealth Games and will be the first time a major multi-sport event will feature more women’s than men’s medal events and I think that is fantastic.

    I am absolutely committed to supporting women’s sport at every opportunity – pushing for greater participation, employment, commercial opportunities and visibility in the media. The fantastic success of the Lionesses this weekend shows just how far we have come.

    The UK has a strong track record and strong history of empowering women and girls through sport. There is a long way to go but we have much to be proud of in this area.

    The media profile of women’s sport is continuing to rise and recent research shows that two-thirds of UK sport fans currently follow some form of women’s sport, and half have attended an event featuring women’s athletes.

    Our domestic initiatives, like This Girl Can, are inspiring millions of women and girls to get physically active. Something that is particularly important as we recover from the pandemic.

    We have also seen the growth in audiences for women’s sport.

    Recent research published by Women’s Sport Trust shows that domestic women’s sport attracted a record British broadcast audience of nearly 33 million in 2021, the main drivers being The Hundred and the FA Women’s Super League.

    And the leadership role of certain media outlets is very important, including the BBC, which made the strategic decision to make sure that many of those matches were on BBC One, peak time. It worked. It showed that there is a mass audience for women’s sport. And that is pivotal. If the eyeballs are there, then the money and commercial opportunities start flowing. Instead of just doing that because it is the right thing to do, we will have increasing competition to hold these events and make sure these events are on TV because they are commercially viable and commercially lucrative.

    And a record crowd of more than 87,000 attended this year’s UEFA Women’s Euros final – the highest attended match at either a men’s or women’s European Championship.  I was lucky enough to attend some of the matches including the final and I can honestly say that there was a superb atmosphere. The spectators were evenly balanced and importantly, more than 100,000 children were spectators in those matches. I know the whole nation will have been inspired by the Lionesses.

    There have also been record sponsorship deals struck with women’s sports leagues, such as Barclays’ sponsorship of the Women’s Super League, the premier women’s football league in England.

    And the UK is due to host a number of high profile women’s sports events this year, including the Rugby League World Cup and the Billie Jean King Cup. Plus Birmingham 2022 of course which is going on at this moment in time.

    We are working tirelessly to make the most of these events in showcasing women’s sport, and encouraging more women and girls to get active as a result. But we recognise that we need to go further.

    The IWG is a great opportunity to build on this success and not only share the fantastic work we are doing but to learn from other countries too.

    The UK Secretariat’s vision for a ‘just and sustainable post-pandemic world where women and girls play a full and equitable role’ is something that I feel passionately about.

    It is vital that we continue to strive for greater equality and opportunity in sport.

    We have been working with our women’s sport working group in the UK, which many of you have attended, to look at some of the challenges and opportunities that exist and I am really keen that we continue to make progress as a result of these discussions.

    I would also like to commend the work of the current hosts New Zealand in sharing, promoting and supporting stories of inspiring change from around the world.

    Their development of the world’s first IWG Insight Hub as a home for the world’s best research, insight, case studies, news and interactive programmes such as training and seminars has also been ground breaking.

    I believe the IWG can be a catalyst for women’s sport as we recover from the impact of the pandemic.

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the role you have all played in securing the IWG secretariat for the UK.

    It’s absolutely essential that we work collectively to share the messages behind the bid of inclusivity, equity and collaboration.

    I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that women’s sport continues to thrive not just in the UK but on the international stage.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2022 Comments on Admission by Rishi Sunak he Removed Funding from Deprived Areas

    Anneliese Dodds – 2022 Comments on Admission by Rishi Sunak he Removed Funding from Deprived Areas

    The comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Chair of the Labour Party, on 5 August 2022.

    Proof Rishi Sunak and the Tories deliberately funnelled taxpayers’ money to rich parts of the country.

    If your school is crumbling, your hospital overflowing or your police station closing, remember who’s to blame.

  • David Cameron – 2006 Speech at the Business in the Community Annual Conference

    David Cameron – 2006 Speech at the Business in the Community Annual Conference

    The speech made by David Cameron, the then Leader of the Opposition, at the Business in the Community annual conference held on 9 May 2006.

    I’m delighted to be able to join you this morning.

    I feel very much at home with Business in the Community.

    The cause that you champion – corporate responsibility – was always very much part of my personal values when I worked in business.

    And now that I’m in politics, it’s a central part of my political values.

    I believe passionately that we’re all in this together – government, business, the voluntary sector, families and individuals.

    We have a shared responsibility for our shared future.

    And if you read my Party’s new statement of aims and values, Built to Last, you’ll see that shared responsibility is one of the two core values that define the modern Conservative Party we’re building.

    The second of our core values is trusting people.

    Today I want to explain how those two values – trusting people and sharing responsibility – relate to business in general, and specifically the work you all do as members of Business in the Community.

    I’ll start by setting out our attitude to corporate responsibility.

    In a few years time, I hope that Britain will have a Conservative Government.

    So you need to know where you stand.

    How would a future Conservative Government approach corporate responsibility?

    What kind of policy direction should you expect?

    I take the view that sharing responsibility is a positive thing.

    It’s not about annoying box ticking.

    And it certainly isn’t about nannying.

    When it comes to the role of politicians and government, it never ceases to amaze me that some people simply cannot grasp the distinction between exhortation and regulation.

    I understand the difference and it would inform my actions in government.

    Modern Conservative attitude to Corporate Social Responsibility

    So let’s start with the big picture.

    For too long, the Conservative Party has allowed itself to be painted into a corner.

    Our instinctive and healthy suspicion of excessive government intervention in business affairs has too easily been turned into a false caricature.

    For some, we have become associated with the view that the only social responsibility of business is to make as much money for shareholders as possible.

    Of course we in the Conservative Party understand that profits are the lifeblood of capitalism, the greatest wealth-creating system known to man.

    Of course we recognise that profitable companies, large and small, are vital both for our economic prosperity and for our quality of life.

    Companies provide jobs, wealth and opportunity, constantly improving the goods and services that make people’s lives easier and happier.

    Business also generates much of the tax revenue that pays for public services.

    So I have always passionately believed in the dynamism of the free market and its power to do good.

    But, equally, I’ve never believed that we can leave everything to market forces.

    I’m not prepared to turn a blind eye if the system sometimes leaves casualties in its wake.

    Unless shortcomings are addressed, the entire system risks falling into disrepute.
    If a supermarket opens a convenience store on the high street and uses its financial muscle to drive down prices until small shops are forced out of business – and then immediately puts prices up again – we need to complain.

    Or if employers are making it harder, not easier, for people to combine fulfilling work with their family life, we should speak out.

    And if the cultural impact of business activity has a negative effect on our society’s values, we need to complain.

    These are the kinds of things I mean when I say that I’m prepared to stand up to big business.

    But I will also always stand up for businesses.

    Because I know that we need successful, profitable, enterprising businesses to create wealth for individuals and the community alike.

    And I believe that it’s more than possible, indeed it’s essential, for these businesses to operate ethically and treat their employees, customers, suppliers and local communities fairly.

    This has always been the Conservative tradition.

    It was Tom King, a minister in Mrs Thatcher’s government, who convened the Sunningdale Anglo-American business conference in 1980 which led to the establishment of Business in the Community 25 years ago.

    It was Michael Heseltine who saw the potential for business to play a leading role in urban regeneration in response to inner city riots.

    And today we understand that corporate responsibility practice has developed enormously over the years…

    …now encompassing not just what companies do with the profits they make, but how they make those profits in the first place.

    Reclaiming corporate social responsibility from the left

    So I want to reclaim corporate responsibility for the political centre-right.

    If we leave this agenda to the left, we will end up with left-wing responses that are bad for business and bad for society.

    It’s the sort of thing Ronald Reagan had in mind when he lampooned the attitude of over-zealous state interventionists…

    “If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it.”

    You can add to that list…

    …”ban it”…

    …”control it”…

    …”develop a cross-cutting strategy for it”…

    ….and “set up multi-stakeholder workstreams to facilitate dialogue about it.”

    I suppose I should be careful here, we’ve probably got stuff like that going on in our Policy Groups…

    But for me, the right approach to corporate responsibility was captured some years ago by one of the real heroes of the corporate responsibility movement in this country, Alan Knight.

    When he was leading B&Q’s pioneering work in this area, he described corporate responsibility in the most straightforward possible way, as being a “good neighbour.”
    We all know what a good neighbour is in our personal lives.

    Someone who behaves with respect for others.

    Not leaving litter and rubbish in the street; not playing loud music in the middle of the night.

    And as well as avoiding behaviour which causes harm and annoyance, a good neighbour will occasionally go out of their way to do something friendly.

    Offering to babysit one night. Or let workmen into your house if you’re out one day.

    It’s exactly the same for business – whether you’re a small business like a pub or a newsagent, or a huge global business like Microsoft or Tesco.

    It’s only reasonable to expect that you behave responsibly.

    The difference with big businesses comes in the range of areas where they have responsibilities.

    A company like Tesco has countless ‘neighbours.’

    The communities where its stores are based. The customers who shop there. The farmers and other businesses that supply the products it sells. The people who work in its stores and offices.

    And for a company as big as Tesco, you could say that all of us are its neighbours, since Tesco affects all our lives – by helping to shape our culture, habits and lifestyles, or through the environmental impact of its carbon emissions.

    So to those – and there a few of them around – who still see corporate responsibility as socialism by the back-door…

    …I say that it’s nothing more sinister than the good manners we look for in our personal lives.

    Our approach – deregulation in exchange for more responsibility

    I know there are also still some corporate responsibility sceptics in the boardroom.

    To them I say this.

    The real world alternative to corporate responsibility is not some buccaneering, profit-maximising utopia.

    It is the dead hand of state regulation and enforcement.

    No society has ever allowed businesses to operate without consideration of wider social impacts.

    History is littered with examples of hubristic enterprises being brought up short by legislative interference.

    Increasingly – thanks to the efforts of Business in the Community and similar organisations around the world – it is understood that corporate responsibility makes good business sense.

    And the more that companies voluntarily adopt responsible business practices, the more compelling the case for a lighter touch on regulatory inspection and enforcement.

    Of course businesses understand the sense of some regulations – but it is the over-officious and bureaucratic way they are applied that often rankles and frustrates.

    This is not a party political speech but it’s worth noting that in recent years, as regulatory burdens have gone up, the UK has fallen down the international league tables of competitiveness.

    We need an alternative to the proliferation of laws, rules and regulations…

    …of statutory authorities and inspectors.

    So I want the Conservative Party to develop its own distinctive approach to corporate responsibility.

    An approach that is consistent with our passion to help make Britain’s economy more competitive.

    And an approach that is true to our core values – trusting people and sharing responsibility.

    I want to explore the potential for a new understanding between business and Government.

    With this new understanding, businesses that have publicly signed up to a commitment to responsible business practices would enjoy a lighter touch regulatory enforcement regime.

    The same rules would apply to them as to all businesses – but the presumption is that they are in conformity unless proven otherwise.

    Responsibility should be more about what business can do – and less about what business must do.

    It should be about innovation rather than regulation; opportunities rather than obligations.

    Specific issues – our working group

    I want the Conservative Party to lead the debate over what those opportunities could be in the years ahead.

    And I’m delighted to announce today the formation of our Working Group on corporate responsibility, comprising distinguished experts in the field, including Business in the Community’s very own David Grayson.

    The aim of the Group is to help us move beyond the stale battle between those campaigning for a stronger regulatory regime, applying to all companies…

    …and those who instinctively resist any regulatory encroachment.

    The point is this: corporate responsibility is not a fixed entity, but varies company by company.

    Regulation, on the other hand, tends towards requiring the same thing of everyone.

    The companies that have become leaders in corporate responsibility have manifestly not done so as the result of a regulatory regime.

    What considerations have incentivised these companies?

    How can these incentives be built upon to provide a similar spur to others?

    Business can lead change

    Companies can lead change, not just within the business community but in broader society.

    Who better than a TV company to run programmes on homelessness that can open hearts and change minds?

    Who better than Coca Cola, a firm with a better distribution network in sub-Saharan Africa than any aid agency, to get materials out to needy populations?

    Who better than Boots, an organisation that probably gets more ill people through its doors than even the NHS, to offer health education?

    They certainly helped me.

    This is the way forward.

    Exhortation not regulation

    As I have said, when it comes to getting business to behave responsibly, my bias is for exhortation not regulation.

    I am instinctively hostile to a state that seeks to impose rules and controls on business, save in circumstances where there is a clear and proven need for it.

    Compulsion should be a last resort, not a first impulse.

    But nor am I attracted to a value-neutral approach in which those in government and politics are loftily indifferent to ethically suspect business practice, regarding it as an essentially private matter.

    As well as being morally wrong, it is also foolish in practical terms.

    For if we choose to remain silent in the face of bad behaviour then we leave the field clear to those whose agenda is profoundly anti-capitalist.

    To such people every sin is proof of the inherent evil of commerce and provides a justification for their agenda of ruinous over-regulation.

    So when I see businesses behaving irresponsibly I’m going to speak out.

    And there’s one case I want to address now.
    Premature commercialisation and sexualisation

    Like many parents I talk to, I’m concerned by the impact on children of the increasingly aggressive interface of commercialisation and sexualisation.

    I have no desire to wrap kids in cotton wool.

    Growing up is about finding out what goes on in the real world

    But the protection of childhood innocence against premature sexualisation is something worth fighting for.

    Sometimes I think that our society treats adults as children, and children as adults.

    I remember a couple of years ago BHS had to withdraw a range of underwear for kids after some mums objected to the fact that padded bras and sexy knickers for the under tens were on sale.

    BHS’s initial reaction was to claim that the underwear was “harmless fun.”

    That sums up why parents are often reluctant to complain even when they feel uneasy.

    No one wants to be seen as uptight or over protective.

    ‘Relax – it’s only a bit of fun.’

    But actually, it’s not just a bit of fun – it’s harmful and creepy.

    The marketing and advertising agencies even have a term for it: KGOY – Kids Growing Older Younger.

    It may be good for business, but it’s not good for families and it’s not good for society, and we should say so.

    Business has the power to do so much good in society.

    A good society is one in which we care for our neighbours and have pride in our communities.

    A good society is one where we have time to stop and chat.

    A good society is one where work and home life exist in harmony.

    When I say that we’re all in this together, I mean that we have a shared responsibility for our shared future…

    …and that we’ll never enjoy truly meaningful lives if we cut ourselves off from each other.

    The solution to social problems like crime, drug abuse and poverty is not to insulate ourselves from their consequences.

    It is to fight them together.

    We should never subcontract to the government the job of making our country a better place to live.

    There is such a thing as society – it’s just not the same thing as the state.

    You are part of society.

    You have the power, the creativity and the enterprise to help tackle some of the most pressing social challenges we face.

    You’re already doing so much.

    I want to do all I can to help you do more…

    …and to benefit commercially from doing so.

  • George Osborne – 2006 Speech to the Credit Today Conference

    George Osborne – 2006 Speech to the Credit Today Conference

    The speech made by George Osborne, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 12 May 2006.

    “I am delighted to be here at the Credit Today conference, and to follow such an impressive array of speakers who have covered such broad subjects.

    I have been impressed by the focus of the credit industry on controlling risks and striking the balance between competition and responsible lending.

    That is what I want to talk about today.

    The story of the credit industry has a rich history, and is closely intertwined with the development of the modern economy that we live in.

    The first recorded loan transactions known to man date from Mesopotamian agreements etched in stone, paying interest in silver.

    And the Romans entered into contracts based on contingent liabilities.

    In early modern times, first in Holland and later in London in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, credit began to finance an expansion of world trade that heralded the beginning of the industrial revolution.

    To pay for the ships and crew that undertook global trade, the entrepreneurs of the day needed to borrow. Until this first expansion of credit, only kings had the gold to pay for ships. But as debt finance grew, so did the merchants who brought spices from the east, and cotton from the west, and returned with cloth.

    By the end of the seventeenth century, the Government too saw the advantage of credit, and in 1694 King William III set up the Bank of England to borrow from his people. That innovation is often credited with underpinning victory in King William’s war against France three years later.

    Since then the industry has expanded, and London has grown into the largest international financial centre in the world. Over a million people now work in the UK financial services sector, and in London, nearly one in ten is employed in finance. Financial products of all kinds, including credit, are one of our key exports.

    In recent years we have seen another expansion of credit, both private and public. Since the mid 1990s, the level of personal debt has risen in double digits each year, while inflation has remained low. And the level of private sector borrowing, on and off the balance sheet, has rocketed.

    Borrowing by households has risen to almost £1.2 trillion. That’s £40,000 for every family in Britain. A fifth of that debt is unsecured, borrowed on credit cards, personal loans, and overdrafts.

    This great expansion in credit brings both challenges and opportunities.

    Free access to credit allows people and families to plan their budgets. Gone are the days when we had to wait in turn for access to a mortgage, when the building society would tell us when we were considered responsible enough to buy our first home. With freer access to credit, young people can apply for mortgages when they choose.

    Unsecured credit helps us to manage our finances, to smooth over tricky times, and to plan when we spend. Access to credit allows us to move money over our lifetime, to spend when we need it, and earn it back later. So when we discuss the challenges that are posed by debt, we must not lose sight of the huge benefits that access to credit can bring.

    As in many markets, liberalised credit markets have boosted our freedom and boosted our economy.

    But as well as these great advantages, the expansion of credit has brought challenges. The Conservatives have been very aware of these challenges in recent years.

    There are two challenges I particularly want to talk about today. First, for some, especially vulnerable, families, too much debt can cause misery and great financial hardship. And second, high levels of debt, both public and private, make the economy more vulnerable to certain types of shock, and may put macroeconomic stability at risk.

    For families, and for the wider economy, more debt means more vulnerability.

    Most of us use our credit cards every week, and many pay off our balances at the end of each month, and we can manage our mortgage payments. But that isn’t the case for everyone.

    Just this week, the governor of the Bank of England described the rise in debt and bankruptcies as a ‘social problem that is materialising’. He is right. We are in danger of becoming credit card Britain.

    Last year, three million people had problems paying off debt. Another twelve million have kept up payments only after a struggle. 1.1 million people contacted the Citizen’s Advice Bureaux with debt-related enquiries – up 47% over the past five years. So debt is a significant problem for a small but important minority. For many of those struggling with debt problems are also the most vulnerable – often living from benefits or in badly paid jobs.

    The Financial Services Authority has spoken of a ‘financial crisis’ for 18 to 40 year olds. Average debt for 18 to 24 year olds has doubled to £15,000 since 1999. And Alliance and Leicester has found that those in their 20s pay as much on average in interest as those in their 30s and 40s, despite usually not yet having a mortgage.

    This is not a problem that is going away. As we as a nation get richer, problems with debt are getting worse. Bankruptcies have doubled in the past year. That may partly be due to a change in the law in England and Wales. But even in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the regime has not been changed, bankruptcies have risen. Last year alone, 120,000 people were declared bankrupt – three times more than in 1997.

    Even despite the benefits of more freely available credit, we cannot ignore those whose lives are made a misery by debt.

    Like the case of a lady who built up £58,000 of unsecured debt despite telling her creditors that her only source of income was from benefits. Or the pensioner who attempted suicide after she acquired 25 personal loans and credit cards totalling £135,000 of debt over a decade. A man from Yorkshire whose only income was disability benefits accrued £40,000 in unsecured debt from several lenders. When he first applied for a card he had expressed doubts to the lender about his creditworthiness, but the lender advised him to ‘be creative’.

    We need to consider imaginative solutions to these interconnected and difficult problems.

    For policymakers who believe in markets, this leaves a difficult challenge.

    I instinctively believe in the power of business to generate wealth and opportunity, as well as the tax revenues that fund our public services and infrastructure.

    Like you I want a strong and healthy credit industry. And like you I want that industry to be responsible.

    That is what David Cameron said earlier this week when he talked about corporate responsibility.

    Every time a business behaves irresponsibly, it makes it that much harder to persuade people that business is a force for good. If the political response to corporate responsibility becomes the preserve of the left, then the response is over-regulation and yet more burdens.

    That applies in the domestic debt market too. Irresponsible lending to those unable to cope is bad for people, and it’s bad for business too. In the short term, it’s bad for the bottom line as irresponsible lending is less likely to be paid back. And in the long term, it harms the good name of business and encourages those who don’t believe in or understand business at all to interfere and impose new regulation.

    So what can we do?

    Last year the Griffith report, commissioned by the Conservatives and produced by Brian Griffith of Goldman Sachs, reported on possible solutions to the challenges we face. I am glad to say that some of those recommendations have been taken up. I might suggest four areas that we must consider in more detail.

    We must, for instance, continue the FSA’s work in financial literacy, so that all families understand the consequences of taking on debt. Well informed customers are better placed to borrow responsibly – and better financial literacy will lead in turn to even less need for regulation. Some people, for instance, believe that a higher APR is a good reason to choose a credit card. According to a survey by Norwich Union, over three quarters of people find finance complicated and around half said that complexity has put them off addressing their financial needs.

    As well as boosting financial literacy to improve the responsibility of customers, we must ensure that credit advertising and credit scoring are responsible. It is a knee-jerk reaction of an interfering Government that responds to this challenge with yet more regulation. But it is in the credit industry’s own interest to advertise responsibly.

    And we can support measures for helping families out of debt. I want to pay special tribute to the work of the Citizen’s Advice Bureaux and others in helping so many people who find themselves in difficult financial situations. Their services should be properly funded, because if they are not then it is the state that will have to pick up the bill.

    These are all step we should take. But many of the most difficult cases, like these, occur when people accumulate debt from many different lenders.

    While any one loan may be affordable, taken together, loans from many different lenders can tip a family over the edge. So responsible credit scoring should take into account not just defaults, but the financial stress of any applicant.

    But that sort of responsibility is difficult without adequate procedures for data sharing. The existing data protection legislation causes difficulties, even among lenders who want to share.

    So we should consider extending data sharing among lenders, particularly of unsecured debt, so that lenders know their clients’ full financial picture before agreeing more loans. I recognise the work that the industry and the Treasury Select Committee have done in pushing forward this agenda.

    It seems to me that data sharing doesn’t just help lenders to assess the reliability of a client. But, properly introduced, it would help to protect vulnerable clients from resorting to many different lenders, often to pay interest on other debt.

    In the past there was no need to share data. Credit was effectively rationed, through queuing. And the number of lenders was small. In 1971, there was just one credit card – the Barclaycard. Now, there are over 1,300 types of credit card, and over 70 million cards in issuance – that’s more than one for every man, woman and child in the country.

    So policy must adapt to changing circumstances.

    I acknowledge that there are concerns about data sharing. We would not want data sharing to become an unnecessary regulatory burden. But data sharing can improve the competitiveness of the credit market. Only with more accurate information about risk can lenders price risk more accurately.

    And data sharing benefits highly credit-worthy customers too, as lenders know who the low-risk customers are too.

    So I applaud the strides have already been made by some banks to share data with customers’ consent through credit rating agencies.

    We must strike the right balance, appropriate for the challenges that we now face.

    We can see that excess debt increases vulnerabilities at the personal level. And it causes vulnerabilities at the national level too.

    Over the past nine years, the ratio of debt to annual national income has doubled.

    Four fifths of the outstanding debt has been secured against housing, and has in part financed the rapid increase in house prices.

    As the debt and house values have risen in tandem, so the average homeowner’s balance sheet has not been damaged. But the mismatch between a fixed-price debt and a variable priced asset heightens exposure to a fall in house prices. With larger debts relative to income, the impact on consumption and therefore on the wider economy of a fall in house prices would be bigger.

    The remaining fifth of households’ debt, lent on credit card, personal loans, and overdrafts, usually funds consumption. Growth in the economy is at risk if it is mainly fuelled by consumption – both by individuals and by the Government – that is funded by debt.

    An economy built on borrowed money is eventually living on borrowed time.

    And on top of all the mortgages, credit cards, and bank loans, there is one man who has borrowed more than us all. The Chancellor has borrowed a further £100 billion on our behalf. He plans to borrow another £150 billion over the next three years. And that is before you add in the billions borrowed and hidden off the balance sheet.

    These twin deficits – in the public and private sectors – combined with a current account deficit of almost 4% of GDP, means that overall, Britain is borrowing from overseas to spend, and our imports are out of balance with our exports. In other words, we have a trade deficit, which over the first three months of this year was the largest on record.

    These imbalances in our economy may not reverse soon.

    Economists play a game of trying to predict when the structural imbalances will unwind with as much enthusiasm as politicians playing the game of when Tony Blair will depart. At least in our game there’s an end in sight.

    What the economists do agree on is that imbalances caused by profligate Government borrowing and high private borrowing makes our economy more vulnerable to instability, like a sharp exchange rate movement, or a fall in asset prices.

    So just as private lending should be responsible, Government must be responsible too. We must strengthen the fiscal rules, and instead of fixing the rules to fit our spending, we must fix our spending to fit the rules. We must be transparent about Government borrowing – we must share data too. In January we proposed a ‘triple lock’ on stability to do just that.

    The modern Conservative approach to debt is part of our broad economic strategy.

    To re-build the competitiveness of our economy, by entrenching stability, and encouraging growth.

    By taking long term decisions;

    by facing up to the challenges of the new global economy;

    and by trusting people, and sharing responsibility.

    We want to build an economic strategy that can make Britain the most competitive place in the world to do business, where Government doesn’t just get in the way, with rising living standards for all.

    We are at the start of a journey, as we build the ideas, and vision, and policies that will help Britain meet the challenges of the twenty first century.

    And I would like to ask for your help in travelling on that journey too. We want to work with you, listen to you, both directly and through our policy groups on economic competitiveness and social justice, and I look forward to participating in this debate and learning from it in the months and years to come.

  • Lisa Nandy – 2022 Letter to Greg Clark after Rishi Sunak Admitted to Diverting Money from Deprived Areas

    Lisa Nandy – 2022 Letter to Greg Clark after Rishi Sunak Admitted to Diverting Money from Deprived Areas

    The letter sent by Lisa Nandy, Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State, on 6 August 2022 following the comments made by Rishi Sunak.

  • Nadhim Zahawi – 2022 Comments on August 2022 Interest Rates Rise

    Nadhim Zahawi – 2022 Comments on August 2022 Interest Rates Rise

    The comments made by Nadhim Zahawi, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 4 August 2022.

    I know today’s news will have been concerning for many people across the UK. I’ve spoken to Andrew Bailey, the Bank of England Governor to discuss the challenging global context and our continued focus to tackling inflation and supporting people with rising prices.