Blog

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.

August 30, 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?

August 30, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Speech by Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak at the Chatham House think tank

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

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

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

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

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

This must end.

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

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

So, about these points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will be the main security contours of Ukraine itself?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 30, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : President of Ukraine – I am proud that Ukrainian is fashionable in the world

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 30, 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.

August 30, 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.

August 30, 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.

August 30, 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.

August 30, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Appointment of four members to the Civil Justice Council

The press release issued by the Ministry of Justice on 30 August 2022.

The Lord Chancellor has appointed Dr Natalie Byrom, Kate Pasfield, John Sorabji, and James Walker as members of the Civil Justice Council for three years from 1 August 2022 to 31 July 2025.

The CJC is a statutory advisory body established by the Civil Procedure Act 97.

The CJC brings together members of the judiciary, civil servants, legal professionals and others representative of the varied perspectives, sectoral interests, specialist and professional expertise found across the civil justice system.

The CJC has a statutory role in keeping the civil justice system under review. It advises the judiciary, government, and rule makers on the development of the civil justice system, especially how it can be more accessible, fair and efficient. It is empowered to make proposals for change and propose and undertake research.

Biographies:

Dr Natalie Byrom – Information Architecture and Econometrics CJC Member

Dr Natalie Byrom is Director of Research at The Legal Education Foundation and founding Director of their Justice Lab initiative. She sits on the Administrative Justice Council as a member of the steering group and is data advisor to the President of the Family Division’s Transparency Implementation Group. Between 2018 and 2020 she served as an Expert Advisor on Open Data to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service, where she made a series of recommendations to improve data collection, architecture and governance in the context of the ongoing programme of digital court reform.

Kate Pasfield – Other areas of expertise relevant to civil justice CJC Member

Kate Pasfield is Director of Legal Aid Policy and Member Services for the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. She previously spent 17 years in private practice and the not-for-profit sector as a legal aid solicitor specialising in housing and community care work.

John Sorabji – Barrister Role CJC Member

Dr John Sorabji is a barrister at Nine St John Street Chambers and an associate professor within the law faculty at University College London (UCL). In 2021 he was appointed Legal Adviser to the Independent Review of the Human Rights Act. He has previously advised the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and other senior members of the judiciary on various legal and constitutional matters. He is General Editor of The White Book.

James Walker – Small and medium size enterprises (SME) CJC Member

James Walker is Chief Executive of Rightly, an organisation which helps consumers manage and own their data footprint. He is also the founder and Chief Executive of JamDoughnut, an an App that assists consumers to save money. James is also a Non-Executive of Consumer Scotland. He is a Non-Executive Director advising the Dispute Resolution Ombudsman and the Collaboration Network and sits on the Consumer Panels for the Office of Road and Rail and the Civil Aviation Authority. He formally founded and grew Resolver, a free consumer tool to assist consumers in resolving complaints and disputes and built an online dispute resolution platform.

August 30, 2022
PRESS RELEASE : Ukraine must get everything it needs to win, because prolonging the war is a risk for the whole world – Andriy Yermak on MSNBC

The press release issued by the President of Ukraine on 18 May 2022.

The Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak emphasizes that Russia’s aggressive war against our country may end sooner if the Ukrainian army receives the weapons on which negotiations are underway and there are agreements with partner countries. Prolonging the war is a risk for the whole world, he said on the American television channel MSNBC.

Andriy Yermak noted that now the Ukrainian military is succeeding on the frontline, for example in the Kharkiv region. At the same time, very heavy fighting continues in Donbas, which is an unnecessary reminder of the horrors of this war.

According to him, Ukrainians have already shown the world that they will fight for complete victory.

“And, of course, we are confident of our victory. And I am convinced that this will be a victory not only for Ukraine, but also for all our friends and partners,” Andriy Yermak said.

The Head of the Office of the President suggested that there are certain forces and people in the world who may be interested in making this war very long.

“But I can say that the longer this war lasts, the greater the risks for other countries, for the whole world that this war will affect not only Ukraine. At first, it will affect states that have borders with Russia, and then it may be a war involving even more countries,” he said.

Andriy Yermak noted that today the Ukrainian nation is showing how not to be afraid and fight. And if Ukraine receives in time everything that was agreed on with our partners and friends, it will win and will do it as soon as possible.

In particular, the Head of the President’s Office noted that Ukraine is waiting for the US Senate to approve a bill on the allocation of almost 40 billion US dollars in support of Ukraine and for President Joseph Biden to sign it.

“It’s vitally important. And we are very grateful to the American people, President Biden and his administration, Congress, the Democratic and Republican parties, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and everyone who is involved and continues to support and help Ukraine,” he said.

Andriy Yermak reminded that a team of leading international and Ukrainian experts (Yermak-McFaul group) has developed an Action Plan to strengthen sanctions against Russia, and one of its key elements is a full embargo on Russian energy.

He noted that everyone is currently watching the ongoing discussions and consultations in the European Union on the sixth package of sanctions against Russia, and expressed hope that this decision will be made.

“Because we see the reaction and position of societies in European countries that fully support my country and the struggle of Ukrainians. Because they understand that today Ukraine is defending not only itself, its independence and freedom, but also the freedom and independence of the whole world, especially Europe,” the Head of the President’s Office concluded.

August 30, 2022