UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Graham Brady – 2022 Statement Confirming Vote of No Confidence in Boris Johnson

    Graham Brady – 2022 Statement Confirming Vote of No Confidence in Boris Johnson

    The statement made by Graham Brady, the chair of the 1922 Committee, on 6 June 2022.

    The threshold of 15% of the parliamentary party seeking a vote of confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party has been exceeded.

    In accordance with the rules, a ballot will be held between 1800 and 2000 on Monday 6 June, details to be confirmed. The votes will be counted immediately afterwards. An announcement will be made at a time to be advised. Arrangements for the announcement will be released later today.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments on No Confidence Vote in Boris Johnson

    Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments on No Confidence Vote in Boris Johnson

    The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 6 June 2022.

    From the vaccine rollout to our response to Russian aggression, the PM has shown the strong leadership our country needs. I am backing him today and will continue to back him as we focus on growing the economy, tackling the cost of living and clearing the Covid backlogs.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1992 Speech on Recessions and Unemployment

    Michael Heseltine – 1992 Speech on Recessions and Unemployment

    The speech made by Michael Heseltine, the Secretary of State of Environment, on 19 February 1992.

    I beg to move, To leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: congratulates Her Majesty’s Government on its success in winning the battle against inflation and in bringing interest rates down; welcomes the recent reduction in the balance of payments deficit and the fact that exports are at record levels; notes that the United Kingdom has some of the most competitive tax rates in the world, including the lowest level of corporation tax in either the G7 or the European Community and that Government spending on training has increased by two and a half times over and above the rate of inflation since 1979; recognises that the foundations for economic recovery are now firmly laid; and rejects totally the policies of the Opposition, which would lead to soaring inflation, greater public sector borrowing, higher taxation, increased unemployment, rising interest rates, declining investment and a spiralling cycle of higher wages and prices which would destroy any prospect of recovery and plunge Britain into perpetual recession.”. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will of course identify the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Monklands—[Interruption.]

    Mr. John Smith

    Monklands, East.

    Mr. Heseltine

    —the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know that the main thrust of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument was to suggest that the recession in this country was the responsibility of the Government, and of the Government alone.

    Nobody questions the nature of the recession with which we have to grapple. It has never been disputed by my colleagues or by myself. It is interesting that in this morning’s newspapers the effect on the German economy is so adequately described—to indicate as clearly as possible the effect of recession on that economy.

    I fear that this morning’s newspapers reveal another casualty of the recession. Labour’s campaign, as The Guardian reveals, has quite failed to convince the British people that the British Government are to blame. Only 9 per cent. of the British people believe that the recession here is the fault of the British Government.

    If the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has scanned this morning’s newspapers, what he will have found interesting is not the uncritical columns of the Daily Mail or the Daily Express, but what he might have found in the uncritical columns of The Guardian. The Labour party, dismayed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s failure to pin the blame on the Tory Government, is looking for a scapegoat.

    I read with some surprise that, despite the onslaught from the Labour party, its members have already lost faith in the man at the front end of the attack. No Conservative Member would say such things, but I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s colleagues, loyal to a man, are concerned that he is not radical enough on the economy”. I gather that it is felt—dare I say it—that he is ” less clever than he thinks and less busy than he should be”. There is even a suspicion growing—only on the Labour side, of course—that he has left Labour boxed in”, and that his policies are deflationary and offer little comfort for the unemployed or for debt-laden firms”. [AN HON. MEMBER:”Is that The Guardian?”] Yes, that was The Guardian. The tumbrils are rolling. This evening’s Evening Standard carries the headline: Labour’s knives out for Smith”. The debate began as a vote of confidence in the Government’s economic policies; it has rapidly become a vote of confidence in the shadow Chancellor. I find no difficulty in agreeing with some of the anxieties that flow from the whispers on the Labour Benches, although I totally reject the implication that what is needed is not less but more of them.

    Nothing more reveals the willingness of the Labour party to misread the harsh nature of present events than the accusation by the Leader of the Opposition in the House two weeks ago that the Government are “inventing recessions abroad”. The report of the Bundesbank—the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East will not feel that I am undermining his position in saying that I trust the Bundesbank’s views on the German economy rather than his—is that the main reason for three successive quarters of negative growth in Germany is the international recession which is reflected in particularly low investment activity”. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should think again. Inventing recessions? How does he explain unemployment in Germany of 3 million? Did we invent the fact that in the past three months, industrial production fell by more in the United States, in Japan and in Germany than it did in the United Kingdom? Did we invent the fact that there are economic problems across the world, from Stockholm to Sydney? Did we invent the comment on Japan by Russell Jones of Phillips and Drew? He said: There’s no doubt in my mind that the manufacturing sector is in recession”.

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South)

    The right hon. Gentleman talks about inventions. Let us bring him to the facts. Do he and the Government take responsibility for the tens of thousands of people who have lost their houses? Does he take any responsibility for or feel any guilt about the 2.5 million people who have lost their jobs? Let him deal with the facts for which he is responsible.

    Mr. Heseltine

    We shall come to the policies that will affect those who have lost their jobs. The hon. Gentleman will welcome as much as I do the fact that houses are now beginning to sell and that the starts are 2 per cent. up.

    The issue that we must recognise is that there is one particular reason why the world economy is especially difficult for this country. Britain’s economy is one of the world’s most dependent on exports. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East knows that Scotland alone exports more manufactured goods per head of population than do Germany, America or Japan. He knows that Britain exports a greater proportion of our gross national product than Japan does. If there is difficulty in the world economy, our economy will suffer disproportionately as a consequence. If all our principal overseas markets are sluggish, we cannot avoid the consequences at home.

    The question that must concern us is the nature of the policies that we need to fight our way out of the present international difficulties. In stark contrast to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, let me set out the policies that are essential for us to fight our way out of our present position.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

    When there are so many unmet needs in Britain and so many unemployed people who could meet those needs, why cannot the two be put together to create prosperity for the 1990s?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The reason is that, unlike the right hon. Gentleman’s right hon. and hon. Friends, we are not prepared to direct labour, as all the most ineffective economies in the world have tried to do at some stage.

    The question with which we must concern ourselves concerns the essential policies which we believe we must follow to fight our way out of our present circumstances. The first essential ingredient is that we must pursue the drive for competitiveness in every aspect of the domestic economy. That is critical in the battle to contain public expenditure, to reduce inflation, to keep interest rates under control, to attract inward investment, to stimulate new enterprise and to keep our tax rates competitive. Those economic policies are essential to our policies, as are those for improving education and training, and for the safeguarding of the environment.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said that we were doing nothing. All that reveals is that he does not understand what must be done. During the past 16 months, interest rates have been cut eight times and inflation has fallen from 10.9 per cent. to 4.1 per cent. The contradiction in everything that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen says is displayed no more eloquently than in the words of the man who is something of a hero figure to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—Jacques Delors. He said that Britain is fast becoming a paradise for foreign investment. That is why, in spite of the world downturn, we have seen in recent months Toyota’s announcement of further investment in Derbyshire bringing 3,000 more jobs, Nissan’s additional £150 million in Sunderland and other inward investment projects from Kimberley Clarke on Humberside to Toshiba in Plymouth.

    The objectives are clear. The question that we must debate today is how we are to achieve those objectives. To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that he would have too much difficulty in accepting many of the priorities that I have listed. Nobody should be especially surprised about that. He is one of the few Labour Members who has served in a Government with a basic rate of 35p in the pound, a top rate of 98p in the pound, inflation running out of control at 27 per cent. and more days lost in strikes in just one month in the winter of discontent than were lost in the whole of last year. I understand that he is not leaping up and down to restore the record of a Government among whom he was prepared to serve without complaint.

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s problem is that most of his right hon. and hon. Friends are positively enthusiastic to restore, piece by piece, the regime that Labour left behind in 1979. What is at issue this afternoon is not the debate across—[interruption.]

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) will show a little more restraint.

    Mr. Heseltine

    What is at stake this afternoon is not the debate across the Floor of the House; it is in reality the debate within the Labour party and, even worse, the debate within the shadow Cabinet. On the one hand, we have the much vaunted prudence of the shadow Chancellor and on the other, the irresponsible extravagance of his shadow Cabinet colleagues.

    I hear wherever I go that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has become a star attraction in the City. Lunch after lunch, dinner after dinner, the assurances flow. The prawns are consumed and there are soft shells, soft words and soft lights. Not a discordant crumb falls on to the thick pile. “All will be well,” is the message that the right hon. and learned Gentleman conveys. “The shadow Cabinet? Don’t you worry,” is the message. “I’ve stitched them up.” The words are no sooner uttered than up pops the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, who said: If you took a poll on Labour’s public expenditure commitments in the City, you would find it almost 100 per cent. against”. Think of the tragedy, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All those prawn cocktails for nothing. Never have so many crustaceans died in vain. With all the authority that I can command as Secretary of State for the Environment, let me say to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, “Save the prawns.”

    Mr. John Smith

    I forgive the Secretary of State for not knowing that Monklands is not in Edinburgh. It was very revealing about Conservative attitudes to Scotland. [Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Gentleman asking his hon. Friend where it is. It is in Lanarkshire. However, I ought not to badger the right hon. Gentleman about his lack of knowledge of his country. While we are of divisions within parties, does the Secretary of State hold to the view expressed in his article in November 1989 in The Times that Britain should sign the social charter?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that the matter was then negotiated brilliantly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister [Interruption.] The Labour party has been duped on the social charter. Labour Members all know that the Germans want to export their high costs, that the French cannot resist the social charter because they have a socialist Government, and that other countries will not take any notice of it. The Labour party has been duped into signing up to that extravagant impost on our industrial economy.
    I have to recognise that there is another lacuna in the dilemma that we on this side of the House face. Up to now I have discussed the unlikely hypothesis of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East being the Chancellor of the Exchequer should a Labour Government emerge. I assumed that we should enjoy the bespectacled geniality of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But there is even dispute about that. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) tells us: Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling Scottish home rule affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to act as Minister of Health administering health in England and Wales. At a stroke, the shadow Health Secretary—a Scot—is gone. By the same standards, the shadow Chancellor—a Scot—is gone; the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary 364—another Scot—is gone. All Scots, all gone. Never have I heard so convincingly and eloquently made the case for devolution.

    Let us assume that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East survived the scenario sketched by the hon. Member for Livingston. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think that he has trouble now, but in those circumstances his trouble would hardly have begun. Not a day passes when his protestations of economic constraint are not shot to pieces by his colleagues. As each Labour spokesman promises a new priority, urgent action, immediate initiative—

    Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No.

    Each Labour spokesman has his own variant of a crash programme. That is exactly what it would be—the biggest crash programme in British economic history.

    Let us look at the heart of the matter. Only two weeks ago, Labour’s housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) tried to cook the books by redefining public borrowing. He promised—his phrase was eloquent—a phased release of up to £8 billion of capital receipts, without, of course, increasing the public sector borrowing requirement. Consternation in the Opposition camp. Urgent telephone calls. But they were all abroad somewhere out there across the continent. Dramatic disruption of the grand tour. Then, before we knew where we were, the climbdown.

    Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Mr. Heseltine

    No. I am not giving way. In order that the hon. Gentleman does not get the quotation wrong, it might be helpful to provide the House with the quotation from The Times of 6 February this year in which he continued his saga of this phased release. He said: There is no plan to revise the PSBR. I was wrong. I withdraw it. This is not really about the phased release of capital receipts. We have witnessed the phased release of the Opposition spokesman on housing. The whole House will wish to join me in saying, “Good luck, good fortune and goodbye.”

    Mr. Soley

    I have the advantage over the Secretary of State of having the script available to me with the exact words. What I said, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young) will tell him, was that there should be a phased release of capital receipts and that that would have an impact on the PSBR. That is precisely what I said. The interesting thing, as the hon. Member for Acton will agree, is that he went on to say that the Government were also keeping that very option under review.

    Mr. Heseltine

    The Times now joins the list, along with the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Guardian, of unprincipled misrepresentation of Labour’s policies.

    Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North)

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago, the Secretary of State wilfully and deliberately misquoted comments attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) who, with the benefit of his script, has corrected him. Should not the Secretary of State apologise to my hon. Friend?

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

    I fear that that is a point of frustration, rather than a point of order. [Interruption.] Order. These are matters for debate, not for points of order.

    Mr. Heseltine

    Without taking issue with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not frustrating me, it is frustrating them. All that I want to know is, if the transatlantic or trans-European phone calls produced a result, how much did they add to public expenditure as a consequence? Opposition Members cannot have it both ways.

    Mr. Soley

    I am willing to give the Secretary of State a copy of the script. I have the exact words, as taken down at the time. I am happy to give them to him either in half an hour or later. If I give them to him, will he give an apology to the House?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I am just old-fashioned: I believe what I read in The Times. I, the House and the country want to know what deal the hon. Gentleman did with the right hon. and learned member for Monklands, East. How much public expenditure was slid under the carpet which they thought that no one would see?

    Mr. George Howarth

    Apologise.

    Mr. Heseltine

    I had not intended to raise the matter, but as I hear the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Howarth) interrupting from a sedentary position, I tell him to go back to Knowsley and look at Cantrill farm, as it once was. It was one of the great housing slums of Europe. It took a Tory Government to rescue it.

    Mr. Howarth rose—

    Mr. Heseltine

    I will not give way.

    Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not one of the conventions of the House—[Interruption.]—there are such things—that when a Member names another Member as part of a speech, he is willing to give way when requested to do so?

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    It is certainly up to the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he gives way, but I am afraid that many of the common courtesies which we used to extend to each other in the House were forgotten a long time ago.

    Mr. Heseltine rose—

    Mr. George Howarth

    At least because of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State has learnt some courtesy. He mentioned Stockbridge village. Will he confirm that the Stockbridge Village Trust has been technically bankrupt for the past three years and that, without the guarantees which have been provided by the Labour council in Knowsley, it would have been in the hands of the receiver?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The Labour council of Knowsley begged me to rescue that estate. The hon. Member should never forget that the Abbey National and Barclays bank made it all possible.

    If I may leave the junior spokesman for the environment, I should like to come to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—no slouch he, when it comes to egging up the public expenditure ante. Within the past few months, by his team alone we have been asked to support: local authority bids for an extra £2 billion a year; the full release of all those capital receipts; the unfettered discretion of local authorities to clobber the business rate payer.

    That is just part of the hon. Gentleman’s programme. Then there is the problem of renationalising the water industry. In the past few weeks—this is why there has been so much muttering on the Labour Back Benches—we have heard about the £1 billion so-called recovery package, about the £800 million that Labour wants to spend on training and the £50 million that it wants to spend on the national health service by cancelling private health insurance.

    But hold on: not to he outdone, the hon. Member for Dagenham says that renationalising the water industry is a “priority” for Labour. What will all that cost—about £4 billion, just to get control of it. That will cost about four times the size of Labour’s recovery package; five times the amount that it proposes to spend on training; and 80 times what it deems to be essential for the national health service. All for one purpose—to buy off the hard left of the Labour party. The consequence would be a return to the regime when Labour cut water investment. That was Labour’s contribution to the environmental enhancement of that vital industry.

    Before the day is out, the hon. Member for Dagenham will be back on his feet, defending the higher tax rate plans of the Labour party, which overnight would do more to destroy the housing market than any other single thing one could do.

    Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham)

    I know that the Secretary of State can hardly wait for me to get to my feet. When I do so, I shall attack the Government’s record on the recession—something which the right hon. Gentleman has so far notably failed to defend.

    Mr. Heseltine

    My colleagues and I tremble on our feet. I promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall all be here waiting for the great hour when the hon. Member for Dagenham flattens us. I confess that I had intended to go out to dinner tonight, but I shall not do so now.
    I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Member for Dagenham. Why should he respect the shadow Chancellor’s edict, when the leader of the Labour party designs policies over Luigi’s pasta, late at night—economics bolognaise?

    Several Hon. Members rose—

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. The Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear to me that he is not giving way.

    Mr. Heseltine

    I do not want to pretend that the Leader of the Opposition isolates himself from advice, to act alone. He does not act alone—he does it with the aid and assistance of some of Britain’s leading economists, even if they are heavily disguised as journalists from the Galleries of the parliamentary Lobby.

    There was the leader of the Labour party—wrestling with the twin complexities of national insurance on the one hand, and how to carve up the shadow Chancellor on the other. Picture the scene. The Leader of the Opposition, fighting to prevent long strings of spaghetti from slipping through the prongs of his fork, while the minutiae of national insurance were slipping through the caverns of his mind.

    Mr. Foulkes

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Mr. Heseltine rose—

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. There are points of order.

    Mr. Foulkes

    In my constituency, the level of unemployment is more than 20 per cent. Is it therefore in order for the Secretary of State to give us nothing other than a music hall turn?

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the chair.

    Mr. Heseltine

    So, there we were, it was the politics of Bedlam—fork-twisting, head-spinning, mind-boggling—the right hon. Member for Islywn (Mr. Kinnock) firmly in charge. He would have been better employed wrestling with the damaging consequences of his tax policies on the national economy.

    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is not that far apart from his leader on putting up tax rates. In a recent interview, David Frost put it to him that The Economist had pointed out that, under his proposals, Britain would have the highest tax rates for middle managers anywhere in the world. Quick as a flash, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said, “Ah.”—[HON. MEMBERS: “Ah!”]—I paused because it is so awful that I had to check it before I read it. He said, by way of excuse, “Ah, what they took was not all the countries in the world; what they took were the G7 industrial countries.”

    So, there it is, on the record, staring us in the face. Put the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East in the Treasury and, as long as he can find some clapped-out, down-at-heel, fly-blown socialist economy with higher tax rates than we have in this country, he will be content to point his lawyer’s finger and say that someone, somewhere is suffering more than we are.

    The Opposition have the effrontery to come to the House and talk of job creation. They talk of better education. They did so when they were in government. They called for a great debate, which consisted of agonising over the collapse of education standards that the worst excesses of Labour’s social engineering had delivered.

    Twelve years ago, only one in eight of our young people went through higher education. Today, that figure is one in four and it is heading for one in three. The Government are investing £2.8 billion in training, enterprise and vocational education—that is two and a half times as much in real terms as was invested in the final year of the last Labour Government. In addition, the private sector is spending £20 billion on training its employees; exports are at an all time high; inflation is at 4.1 per cent., below the average of the European Community and that of the G7 countries. Interest rates are down by 4.5 per cent. in just over a year. We have some of the most competitive tax rates in the world and the lowest level of corporation tax in either the G7 countries or the European Community. All the Labour party can do is talk about taxing the rich, as though that will help the economy.

    The Labour party does not understand that there is a whole generation of young people out there—the skilled, the talented and the enterprising—who need to believe that there is a future for them here, in Britain, where energy and initiative will be rewarded.

    We want to see young teachers seek the initiative to assume responsibilities as head teachers. We want young engineers to believe that it is worth their while to be promoted to production managers. We want young doctors to stay and practice in Britain and aim for the privilege and reward of running our hospitals. We want young scientists to relish the opportunities to explore tomorrow’s frontiers in our laboratories and research establishments.

    Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North)

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for someone who is making a speech to the House to speak only to those on his Benches? Is this a leadership bid?

    Mr. Heseltine

    Why should I not speak to my own Benches? We are the governing party and we will stay that way because the Labour party is out of date, out of touch and out of office. We will keep them there.

  • Michael Heseltine – 1992 Speech on the Local Government Bill

    Michael Heseltine – 1992 Speech on the Local Government Bill

    The comments made by Michael Heseltine, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, on 20 January 1992.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    Judging by the representation on the Opposition Benches, that is an uncontroversial statement. As this Government’s local government policies unfold, and fewer and fewer members of the Opposition parties turn up to oppose us—or even to listen to us or criticise us—it has become self-evident that we are winning the intellectual debate day after day.

    The Bill is about preparing local government for the 21st century. It involves a review of all local authorities so that we can bring local government closer to the people. It involves the extension of competitive tendering, which will continue the disengagement of local authorities from direct service provision and which will promote their strategic and enabling roles. The Bill requires the publication of standard performance measures, which will give local electors the information that they need to judge their own council’s performance.

    The new local government commission for England, which is proposed in part II, will review the structure of local government. It will have a rolling programme of reviews, examining the shire counties area by area, and assessing the case for unitary authorities in those areas. We know that most local authorities want unitary status and we believe that such status will provide a better structure for the future in most areas. However, it will be open to the commission to recommend that there should be no change to the existing structure in some areas. We have already made it clear that we do not intend that either the county or the district tier of the local authorities be abolished as a whole. People want local councils with which they can identify and local people will be given a significant voice in the commission’s reviews. I expect to see more unitary authorities with a strong local identity.

    Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

    I apologise for asking my right hon. Friend to give way so early in his speech, but I intervene on an important point. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what really matters is the quality and cost of the local government services that are provided to the people whom we represent, yet nothing in the Bill specifically refers to that need as a criterion for change? Before a costly and traumatic reorganisation of the structure of local government is embarked upon, is it not necessary to show ordinary people that demonstrable improvements are available to them as a result of that change and that, without those improvements, there is no case for change?

    Mr. Heseltine

    My hon. Friend raises a most important point. If he studies the draft guidance that we have issued for the local government commission, he will see that we have placed considerable weight on the need to demonstrate that there is an economic case for change. I know that my hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am to consider that part of the legislation which provides for an extension of competitive tendering and which gives the Audit Commission the ability to reveal comparisons between one authority, and one service, and another, which is what he is interested in achieving. I shall come to that part of the Bill in a few moments.

    Sir Charles Morrison (Devizes)

    I too am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend but, as his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) referred to the economic case for change, does he agree that if there is such an economic case for change, it must be made on the basis that where there are unitary authorities, which, as a matter of principle, I strongly support, those authorities must be of an adequate size? If we have endless small unitary authorities, we shall simply add enormously to administrative costs.

    Mr. Heseltine

    My hon. Friend has raised an interesting issue that will involve the House and local government practitioners in much debate in the years ahead. As my hon. Friend and I remember all too well, that was the argument that was made in the early 1970s when it was suggested that we should establish a minimum size standard to cope with the provision of certain services. However, at that time we did not give sufficient attention to the concept of an enabling authority, which has the possibility of buying in services from larger, perhaps neighbouring, authorities. Therefore, it is possible to have both a larger-scale provision of services and more local, smaller-scale authorities which buy in and then provide services. It would be wrong for us to block the option of seeking to have an advantage of scale, through private sector or other public sector providers, while placing the structure much closer to individual people.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

    On a factual point, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are looking positively and constructively at the de minimis provision, and at providing an increase from the current level of £100,000 to about £250,000, which was promised in the debate on 17 December last year?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for being unable to identify the issue to which he refers. However, if he writes to me, I shall do my best to respond in specific terms. The de minimis provision with which I am familiar cannot be the one about which he is talking, which is the old cut-off point below which capping did not apply. As I do not wish to fail to provide an adequate response to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will let me know exactly what de minimis provision he has in mind.

    Mr. Dalyell

    I am talking about the Scottish authorities and their concern about de minimis provision.

    Mr. Heseltine

    In that case, the hon. Gentleman can be absolutely sure that he will receive the diligent reply from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), to which he is accustomed.

    Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

    I am sorry to have to intervene in my right hon. Friend’s speech when two important questions have already been asked of him. I hope that he will not be too bored to hear again my concern that we do not make the same mistakes that we made in 1972. Is he aware that there is still widespread anxiety that, when his Department establishes a commission, there will be a hidden agenda on, say, size or functions? What can he say to those of my constituents, especially in Christchurch, the priory of which celebrates its 900th anniversary in 1994, to assure them that, contrary to the universally expressed wishes of the local citizenry, they are not likely to be subsumed into some suburban, subtopian and grotesque unit of local government, which they would detest universally, to a man and to a woman?

    Mr. Heseltine

    I cannot believe that my hon. Friend would suggest that I, of all people, have ever had a hidden agenda—[Laughter.] Well, I can assure my hon. Friend that the horrendous spectres which he has waved before us and which the local government commission will doubtless address do not in any way form part of our plans for the future of local government. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that a constructive reply.

    Trying to address the issue of local accountability will be a crucial task for the local government commission. We are pleased that Sir John Banham, with his experience at the Audit Commission, has agreed to become the chairman of the new commission when he stands down from the Confederation of British Industry this summer. As I have already said, we have issued a draft of the guidance that we propose to give the commission. Copies have been made available to all hon. Members and we have invited views on the draft by the end of this month.

    The guidance should require the commission to assess community identities and the impact and effectiveness of any proposed new structure. It will be important for the commission to consider the most effective exercise of functions and the delivery of services, consistent with community identities and the wide public interest.

    The commission will be able to obtain advice from other expert organisations, and particularly from the Audit Commission, to assist it in its work. However, it will be the following matters that will influence decisions.

    I cannot stress too often that money spent on excessive public relations campaigns will be wasted cash. Although I have said this before, perhaps I may trespass on your tolerance, Madam Deputy Speaker, by repeating this advice to local authorities. They will not enhance their case by employing expensive public relations consultants to spend the local people’s money trying to create a synthetic case, which will be looked at in great detail and dispassionately by the local government commission when it begins its work.

    Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)

    I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today. His speech was similar to that which he made when he told us that he would get rid of the poll tax. Is what he is trying to say an apology to the people of Britain who have been struggling under a local government system that has never really worked, ever since the Conservatives put it through the House in 1972? Is it not an admission of failure that he has had to come to the Dispatch Box today and introduce the Bill?

    Mr. Heseltine

    If what the hon. Gentleman suggests is true, the only apology that is necessary is from the Labour Government who ruled Britain for significant periods after 1972 and did nothing whatever to put the defects right. Once again, when reform is required, it is a Conservative Administration who address the issue.

    Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)

    Apologise.

    Mr. Heseltine

    If another apology is required, it is from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for psyching up the level of community charge bills and encouraging local authorities to increase their expenditure, to add another burden to the tax increases with which we are already threatened by a future Labour Government. [Interruption.] Although few Opposition Members are present, I hope that they will allow me to make progress with explaining to the House the merits of yet one more piece of refreshing Conservative legislation.
    The Bill sets out a framework for the procedures that the commission will follow in conducting its reviews, including the arrangements for consultation with local authorities, local people and other interested organisations. The commission will initiate a review, with publicity. If appropriate, it will outline proposals or options. There will then be an opportunity for local authorities and other interested parties to put their views.

    The commission will then prepare draft recommendations and invite comments on them. We are particularly anxious that local people should put their views on the local government structure that they want to see in their areas. Once the commission has considered comments on the draft recommendations it will draw up final recommendations which it will publish and submit to the Secretary of State for the Environment. If necessary, I can ask the commission to carry out further investigations or, indeed, to supply more information. Finally, an order implementing the commission’s recommendations will be laid before Parliament.

    As well as conducting reviews of local government structure, the local government commission will take on the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission. It will be responsible for any reviews of boundaries and electoral arrangements which are needed as a consequence of structural review. It will also be able to carry out separate reviews of local government boundaries or electoral arrangements, at my request.

    As now, there will continue to be reviews of electoral arrangements at mandatory intervals of not fewer than 10 and not more than 15 years. Therefore, the Bill also provides for the abolition of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Any reviews begun by the Boundary Commission but not completed by the time that it is abolished may be transferred to the new Local Government Commission. Our aim is that the commission should consider the structure of local government area by area so that it can make tailor-made recommendations for each area about the most appropriate structure to meet that area’s particular needs and circumstances. That calls for flexibility.

    Therefore, the Bill provides for parliamentary orders to change the structure of local government area by area. Such orders will be subject to affirmative resolution procedures.

    Mr. Paul Channon (Southend, West)

    When my right hon. Friend says “area by area”, what does he mean? When the commission gets down to its job, will it look at a county at a time or, in some cases, units smaller than a county? How will the commission decide which areas to select for review?

    Mr. Heseltine

    My right hon. Friend raises an interesting question. We do not anticipate that the areas will be smaller than counties. Indeed, we expect that they will usually include several counties. Undoubtedly, there 41are areas where local ambitions or requirements might indicate that cross-county boundary reorganisations are appropriate. For example, in certain areas old counties disappeared. They might reappear and county boundaries might have an effect on the matter.

    Part II of the Local Government Bill also contains enabling powers, subject to Parliament, for setting up a residuary body or bodies, or a staff commission or commissions. As the House will know, such bodies have been found helpful in previous reorganisations. But we intend to set them up only if the need for them is clear.

    Part I of the Bill deals with competitive tendering. It is almost uncontested by local authorities—at least in private—that competitive tendering has powerfully changed local services for the better.

    Mr. William O’Brien (Normanton)

    What of quality of service?

    Mr. Heseltine

    If the Labour party intends to abolish competitive tendering, that is an additional interesting revelation about its policies. I am only too anxious to give way if anyone wishes to suggest that there will be no more competitive tendering. It is obvious that the winds of change have blown such socialist nostrums from Labour Members’ minds. Competitive tendering is one more item on the long list of items that the Conservative party has implanted in the national culture of how to deliver services.

    Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

    Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a difference between competitive tendering and compulsory competitive tendering?

    Mr. Heseltine

    Yes, there is a difference. In the case of voluntary competitive tendering, Labour authorities do not do it. In that of compulsory competitive tendering, they do.

    Research by the Institute of Local Government Studies has shown that work awarded through the competitive tendering procedures costs 6 per cent. less on average, and that in general standards are maintained or improved.

    Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Will the Secretary of State confirm that only 40 authorities were surveyed by the Institute of Local Government Studies? On page 132, paragraph 13.36, in its conclusion it says: Confidence in the financial assessment of the impact of competition must be limited. Outturn figures for the post-tender period are not available. The changing accounting practices that have resulted from competition have made the provision of information and comparisons of cost before and after competition difficult. In other words, it said that it did not really have the evidence, but it took a good stab at it.

    Mr. Heseltine

    If the hon. Gentleman is so sceptical about the benefits of competitive tendering, why does he not have the courage to pursue the logic of the argument and say that his party will get rid of it? He knows, as everyone knows, that competitive tendering, imposed where necessary by the Government, has shaken up service delivery standards in local government like nothing that we have seen in recent decades. That is why the Conservative party has the courage to say so, and intends to extend competitive tendering. We will obtain better value for money and higher quality services, despite the worst attempts of the Labour party to frustrate that aim.

    The costs have materialised at 6 per cent. less on average and in general terms standards have been maintained or improved. But that is an average position. The truth of the matter is that there are many more extreme examples. No one in the House will forget the state of the city of Liverpool when its trade unions, encouraged by the Labour party, tried their customary strong-arm tactics against the Labour council of the time. We had the unedifying sight of pile upon pile of rubbish towering in the city centre streets. When the city went to tender, the in-house team bid £7.9 million. The private sector bid £3.9 million. The private sector cleaned up the city.

    Liverpool was not the only dramatic example. When we used our powers to force Camden council to re-tender its street-cleaning and refuse services, it replaced an ineffective and costly in-house service with a private sector contract that swept the streets and saved the local taxpayer millions of pounds.

    So the question remains whether those who oppose compulsory competitive tendering seriously believe that without that process those cost savings and management improvements would have taken place in many local authorities. There is a stunned silence from the Labour Benches because Labour Members know in truth that those improvements would not have taken place without compulsory tendering. The fact is that in the past too many authorities ran their services more for the convenience of their work forces than for the communities that they should have served.

    Where authorities, on behalf of their chargepayers, wish to employ an in-house team for these services compulsory competitive tendering has forced them to demonstrate that their team can do the job as efficiently and effectively as an outside contractor. That discipline has meant that they have had to knuckle down and get on with the business of providing services for the citizen, and not jobs for the boys.

    We now have to extend competition into local authority white-collar services.

    Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Why?

    Mr. Heseltine

    Here we go again. The question is again asked immediately. The Labour party says that it will not prevent competitive tendering in respect of the services to which it now applies. I shall be very interested to hear whether the Opposition intend to prevent its extension and thus deprive people of the further enjoyment of improved services.

    Last November we published a consultation paper entitled “Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services”. That document proposes initially to extend CCT to a number of construction-related professional services, such as architecture and engineering, and then eventually to bring the stimulus of competition to a range of core corporate services, such as finance, legal services, personnel and administration. The consultation paper made it clear that we recognise that the existing CCT procedures under the Local Government Act 1988 may need revision for such services.

    For the activities already covered by the 1988 Act local authorities decide on the quality of services that they want and then set specifications for the job. Once they have received tenders it is up to them to ensure, in a fair and objective fashion, that tenderers can meet their specifications. But in the case of professional and technical services considerations of quality are more complex and more difficult to measure. It is for that reason that we are prepared to consider a modified tendering procedure with a separate quality threshold and double-envelope tendering. This would enable authorities to look at the prices tendered by those who come up to the standards that they and their local communities require and then to judge on the basis of price alone. It is our intention that this Bill will provide powers to modify the existing CCT procedures for the professional and technical services to take account of this and other concerns.

    As it stands, clause 8 does not not do that. Instead, it purports to provide a wholly inflexible and unusable power which could not address the particular concerns relating to professional services. It would treat quality in architecture on the same level as quality in refuse collection. I give notice that, in Committee, we shall table amendments to restore the necessary flexibility to this power.

    Mr. Dalyell

    I wonder whether the Secretary of State can answer a question that bothers West Lothian district council. In the event of the authority’s having misgivings as to the capability of the lowest tenderer to maintain a quality service, what remedies are available to it at the tender-evaluation stage? This is a matter that bothers serious people.

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, and I have just answered his question by my reference to the concept of double-envelope tendering, whereby quality thresholds are set and firms have to ensure that those are met. Above the quality thresholds, it is a question of price. The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly legitimate question, but it is one that we have anticipated and answered.

    Mr. Allen McKay

    On the question of quality, it is well known that firms submit tenders even though architects would advise that those firms could not do the job. On paper the costing looks good, but practical experience is another matter. In such a case, would an authority, on the advice of its officers, be able to eliminate a tender?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that invariably officers advise against competitive tendering techniques. They invariably produce a range—

    Mr. Allen McKay rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    I have twice given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want now to reply to his questions.

    If we had not introduced the rigour of competitive tendering regimes, we should not have seen the dispersion of activity towards the private sector. Local government, if it had had the will, could have done these things on its own initiative. However, it took legislation to change the minds not only of local politicians but of local officials and, in particular, of the trade unions behind them.

    Mr. Allen McKay rose——

    Mr. Heseltine

    I have dealt with the issue, and I wish now to move to the third aspect of what I have to say.

    Clauses 8 and 9 contain enabling provisions, and they will not affect local government activities until we bring secondary legislation before Parliament. The consultation paper sets out a number of ways in which we intend to use these enabling powers if Parliament grants them. We shall carefully consider responses to the consultation paper and shall bring forward our proposals for secondary legislation in due course.

    I should like now to come to a question that has been raised by Conservative Members—local authority performance standards. Everybody knows that service standards vary. We know about authorities in whose areas rents are not collected and repairs are not done. We know about the bins that are not emptied and about the streets that are not swept. We know that costs too vary. The whole House must know that, in general, costs under Labour authorities are higher than costs under Conservative authorities. It is still true that, on average in local government, a vote for Labour costs the individual payer £80 a year extra.

    The citizens charter White Paper promised that electors would be given the information they need to enable them to judge the services provided by their local councils and the costs. Those electors should know that it costs 8.69p per head to collect the rubbish in Tory Wandsworth, and 23.28p—nearly three times as much—in Labour’s Camden. They should know that it costs £10,000 per km to maintain the roads of Labour’s Lancashire, but only half that in Tory Lincolnshire. We know that these variations exist. [Laughter.] I am not surprised that hon. Members find it funny that services in Labour-controlled areas should cost so much more.

    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

    Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Conservatives were in charge of the Lancashire county council the standard and maintenance of our roads were well above the national average but that they are now below the national average?

    Mr. Heseltine

    But not in cost. As we should expect, my hon. Friend makes a most eloquent point.

    We all know that these variations exist, but the electors should not have to rely on stray admissions to find out what is going on. I refer, for instance, to the admission of Keva Coombes, the former leader of the Liverpool council. In July 1990 The Independent quoted him as having confessed: The council’s problems are not down to resources, rather inefficiency. It costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas. Some hon. Members—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I among them—will remember Maureen Colquhoun, an ex-Member of Parliament and an ex-councillor in Labour Hackney. She summed up the situation in Hackney in these words:

    There was only one reason for Hackney council losing seats at the 1990 elections—the total failure of the Labour Group … to deliver services. The record is shameful. She went on to make another observation—and this is a matter of which I have experience and in respect of which I know how she feels. She said: Tenants were not treated as people at all. These are the words of a former Labour Member of this House describing Labour in local authorities.

    We do not think it good enough to rely on these accidental admissions, so clauses 1 to 4 provide the basis for systematic comparisons. Standards of service and costs should be reported on a common basis determined by an independent body. That is what the Bill provides, and the Audit Commission is already preparing proposals that will allow the public to compare the cost in their area with the cost in other areas of services of similar standards.

    Mr. Blunkett

    The Secretary of State has made comparisons. Does he believe that all comparisons are fair? Would he say that it is fair to compare the costs for collecting a single tonne of rubbish? Will he confirm that in Wandsworth it costs £39.28 to collect a tonne of rubbish, in Westminster it costs £21.33, but in Haringey it costs £16.62 and in Newham £19.08? Will he confirm that in Chiltern, a Tory-controlled authority in Buckinghamshire, it costs three times as much to collect the rubbish as it does in Labour-controlled Milton Keynes, down the road? If there are to be comparisons, will they be across the board, so that we can see the kind of rubbish that the Secretary of State is talking?

    Mr. Heseltine

    As on so many other occasions, having listened to what I have had to say, the hon. Gentleman has come round to agreeing with me. We shall give him exactly what he wants—all the statistics for all the services for all the authorities. I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that, because now he will come through the Aye Lobby in support of our Bill. We have another convert on the Labour party Benches.

    Mr. Enright

    Will the Secretary of State also look at the statistics on additionality in RECHAR areas?

    Mr. Heseltine

    The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that this matter is being carefully considered by the Government, and when we have something to say, we shall make a public statement. However, to the best of my knowledge, that policy is not covered by this Bill. If I am wrong, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will correct me, because I have nothing about it in my briefing notes.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

    If it is not in the Secretary of State’s briefing notes, he cannot say anything about it.

    Mr. Heseltine

    No. If it is not in my briefing notes, it is not there.

    Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

    Before he leaves accountability, will my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the proposed changes that are made, accountability will be achieved only if responsibility and authority are vested in the same pair of hands? Whatever he does in this review of local government, will he ensure that that principle is scrupulously adhered to?

    Mr. Heseltine

    My hon. Friend will have heard what I said earlier about the local government commission because it is with the intention of seeing the emergence of more unitary authorities that we are introducing the Bill. My hon. Friend will therefore be able to support us with enthusiasm.

    The Audit Commission has issued a paper—”The Citizens Charter: Local Authority Performance Indicators”, and I have arranged for copies of it to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The paper sets out the Audit Commission’s preliminary thinking on how it would set about its new tasks. The paper is most important and one that the House will want to consider with great care. As I have said, all the figures will be published and the resulting publicity will be a powerful motivator. Authorities will no longer be able to hide behind vague definitions of standards and vague assessments of costs.

    Let me make two things clear. First, standards of performance are central to the provisions in clauses 1 to 4 and to the future development of the so-called league tables. There was some confusion about this matter in the other place. The Bill makes it clear that the subject matter of comparisons is to be standards of performance achieved, as is set out in clause 1(1) at the beginning of the Bill. The criteria of comparisons follow, and are cost, economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

    Secondly, the requirement for the Audit Commission to give directions to local authorities requiring them to give the public information on their performance in no way detracts from the freedom of authorities to decide for themselves what standard of service to provide. The Bill is concerned about the reporting of levels of service delivered. This will enable the public to make their judgment on whether their authority is delivering good value for money.

    Clauses 5 and 6 implement another aspect of the citizens charter. In too many cases, local authorities do not respond to their auditors’ reports and recommendations. Clause 5 imposes on bodies a new duty to respond promptly, formally and in public to auditors’ public interest reports made under section 15 of the 1982 Act.

    There are doubts about the ability of the Audit Commission to publish information about individual authorities—in other words, to name names. Clause 7 will enable the Audit Commission to disclose information on which bodies fail to comply with the requirements of performance standards or contravene the accounts regulations—for example, by failing to publish their accounts on time—or are subject to an auditor’s report. They could also disclose the contents of such a report and the body’s response. I see no case for shielding authorities which do any of those things from the publicity that their performance should properly attract.

    Both in the citizens charter provisions and in the proposals for structural reform, the Bill puts the interests of the people first. It will provide voters with the facts about the way that councils discharge their responsibilities. It will extend the benefits of competitive tendering and it will lead to a local government structure that takes account of the needs of each area and of the views of local citizens. I believe that it will lead to a significant advance in the quality of local government, and I commend it to the House.

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the European Council

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the European Council

    The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 30 May 2022.

    Dear Mr. President Michel.

    Dear Mrs. President Roberta.

    Dear friends!

    I am glad to be able to address all of you without exception. Today is the 96th day of Russia’s full-scale war against our state, against all of us and against all of you. Against European unity.

    Russia wants to see at such meetings not a united European Council that we see now, not a united European Union, but 27 separate states, 27 fragments that cannot be put together. This is their wish.

    This policy of the aggressor is consistent, and there is no delay in it. Unlike Europe, Russia does not need to hold such summits and seek compromises for weeks. By the way, I want to thank you for talking about these compromises, for striving to find help and support for Ukraine.

    So, they are not ready to compromise, choosing what to do to achieve their goals. And now we see how the Russian offensive in Donbas is destroying our cities, destroying the communities of Ukraine, and at the same time how the European unity, the desired European unity may falter.

    On April 8, the 44th day of the war, the EU’s fifth sanctions package was imposed. And 52 days have passed since then. What happened during this period?

    At that time, as of April 8, there were 169 children on the list of those killed by the Russian occupiers in Ukraine. As of today 243 children are on the list.

    At that time, as of April 8, 928 educational institutions were destroyed. Kindergartens, schools, universities. As of today – 1888.

    According to the information for the past day, the number of Russian missile strikes at Ukraine is already almost 1,600. Russia has used more than 2,400, almost 2,500 different missiles against us, against the civilian population. And then, as of April 8, there were less than a thousand strikes and they used about a thousand missiles. This is the progress of their aggression.

    And, of course, I want you to understand me – I’m not blaming any of you. It is only the Russian state that is to blame for everything that is happening. But I am convinced that it is obvious to each and every one of you that there should be progress in sanctions for this aggression. And for us it is crucial. And it will help us a lot!

    The progress that makes Russia begin to seek peace. And only this can be our common demand. Peace. There can be no compromises at the expense of our territorial integrity, our sovereignty!

    I am grateful to everyone who promotes the sixth sanctions package and tries to make it effective. However, unfortunately, for some reason it is not there yet. And why do you depend on Russia, on their pressure, not vice versa? Russia must depend on you.

    Why can Russia still earn almost a billion euros a day by selling energy resources? Why are banks of a terrorist state still working with Europe and the global financial system? Serious questions. And why are Russian propaganda channels still active in the European Union? This is an information weapon of the Russian Federation. Why are Russian civil servants who support the war and judges who openly support repression still not under sanctions?

    Each of these important questions is not just about sanctions packages or the war in Ukraine. All this is about us. All this is about Europe itself.

    Dear friends!

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    Only through greater unity can we find effective responses to everything that Russia is doing against us and against you. If someone torpedoes a ship, one or more cabins cannot hope to stay afloat when others drown.

    You can see that the consequences of Russia’s aggression have gone beyond our continent. And they will definitely return with even bigger problems for the whole of Europe. For example, large-scale famine in Africa and Asia will mean a threat of a new large-scale migrant crisis for southern and south-eastern Europe.

    And when you hear food blackmail from Moscow, please know that this is their deliberate strike at your societies. To ensure this strike, Russia simply uses the people of Africa and Asia as hostages, deliberately pushing them to starvation. So that people from there flee to you en masse. Are you ready for this? I don’t think so.

    Let’s take a look at price instability in the energy market. It’s not just some of the usual market fluctuations periodically observed.

    Last year, Russia created conditions for the record increase in gas prices. Now, investing in instability, Russia is making all energy prices skyrocket. For what? For Europeans to protest, not against the aggressor and their aggression, but against their own states. Against you personally. Against their leadership.

    And if this is a threat to each and every one of you, if this is Russia’s bet on political chaos in your countries, why do some people still think they can defend themselves alone?

    Europe must show strength. Because Russia perceives only strength as an argument. It’s time. It’s time for you to be not separate, not fragments, but one whole.

    Ukraine has shown by its own example why this is important. Why it’s important to be united. In our country, starting from February 24 there is the maximum unity, everyone is working for one result – state protection. And thanks to this we managed to do what the world did not expect, Russia did not expect – Ukraine stopped their army, and everyone was afraid of it, everyone remembers. And we managed to liberate part of our occupied territory.

    Greater unity is truly the foundation of this strength. You know this. Finally, all quarrels in Europe must end, internal discord that only encourages Russia to put more and more pressure on you, on the whole of Europe.

    The sixth sanctions package must be agreed upon. It must be effective – including oil. So that Russia feels the price of what it is doing against Ukraine and against the whole of Europe. And for you and us to finally become independent from Russian energy weapons. At least from its oil part.

    And we must immediately find a solution that will prevent the food crisis from unfolding.

    Of course, I thank you for your efforts together with partners to create green corridors for agricultural exports from Ukraine. But still, you understand that a reliable guarantee of food security is impossible without ending Russia’s war against Ukraine on our land. Because there can be no peaceful trade, no steady agricultural production, if Russia retains the ability to intercept ships with Ukrainian agricultural products. And not only in the Black Sea. Or to strike at our cities, ports, elevators, other infrastructure.

    Mr. President Michel!

    You were recently in Odesa and were forced to go into a shelter due to a missile attack. Mr. President has felt for himself what I am talking about now.

    And if this was felt even at such level, why is Russia still not recognized as a terrorist state, a state – sponsor of terrorism?

    And another aspect. The European home was never complete without Ukraine. It won’t be. There will never be a full-fledged European power without Ukraine. The very fact that Ukraine remained a fragment of Europe, somewhere outside your countries, contributed to the fact that Russia has developed an aggressive appetite to seize its neighbors.

    Only the enlargement and strengthening of European unity can prevent the recurrence of what Europe experienced on February 24, in 2014, and even in 1968 or 1956.

    Therefore – at the strategic level – the status of a candidate for membership in the European Union for Ukraine should be approved already in June. I would like to express gratitude to the countries of the Western Balkans for their understanding and support for granting candidate status to our country. Thank you very much.

    On April 8, when the fifth sanctions package was approved, we also received a questionnaire from the European Union. And we have already answered it over this time. We have already provided these answers to the European Commission. Unprecedentedly fast, and most importantly – in a coordinated manner. We expect the same reaction from Europe.

    And we reject any attempt to find an alternative that no one needs, or to find something else for Ukraine. We need to be like you. We want Ukraine to receive candidate status.

    We have met all the necessary criteria for this status. And I am sure that those individual states that are still hesitant about us, you know it well, will change their minds and show our united strength. The strength of our nations who support our membership in the European Union by an unprecedented majority. The strength of your nations, the strength of your states and a united Europe.

    I want to thank you for your unity, ability to be united, energetic, to have a future in a strong European Union and to ensure that the developments in the world depend on us. So that we depend on ourselves, not on some offices somewhere in Moscow.

    Right now you can determine whether everything that the European Union says about itself is true. About unity in diversity, common values and the same approach to all European democracies.

    We need a common customs space that will strengthen both Ukraine and all those involved in trade with us. We need a common payment space that will accelerate integration at the level of ordinary people. And a common roaming space. It is very important for our displaced people, more than 5 million of them, not to experience discrimination.

    And, of course, further armed and financial support for Ukraine is absolutely necessary. Now our common freedom depends on our success on the battlefield, and your stability depends on our stability.

    And this is another reason to find and freeze, and then confiscate all Russian assets and allocate them for the reconstruction and compensation for the damage caused by the war.

    Dear colleagues!

    Dear friends!

    We have already started a conversation with most of you about rebuilding Ukraine. We are creating a large-scale recovery plan. The global United24 support project has been activated. The European Commission is also preparing a platform for reconstruction. I urge all of you to join these initiatives now.

    If rebuilding begins during the war and becomes truly pan-European, it will be one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for everyone and, of course, for Russia in particular, that Europeans are strong. And they will not allow any of the integral parts of Europe to be destroyed. Neither Ukraine nor any other part.

    And finally.

    A 9-year-old girl died today as a result of the Russian shelling of the Kherson region of Ukraine. Two more children were wounded: a 7-month-old baby and a 5-year-old girl. A normal person can’t just put up with it. With such crimes. Daily crimes. These are the deliberate killings by the Russian military of our civilians, our children. They know exactly who they are firing at.

    And I really count on your principledness and activity to bring to justice every Russian soldier who killed or tortured our people, and every commander who gave or condoned such orders. Europe can definitely do that.

    Let’s do it!

    Because this is not just a question of the aggressor’s responsibility for a particular war, but of protecting humanity as such.

    Thank you for your attention.

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (01/06/2022) – 98 days

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (01/06/2022) – 98 days

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 1 June 2022.

    Ukrainians!

    Defenders!

    Every year on June 1 we celebrate Children’s Day. A special day when adults pay special attention to the rights of children, safety and development of our kids. But since February 24, everything has changed in our country. And literally every day now is a day of protection for us. Protection of all our people, children, our future. Protection of a free country where every child can, when he or she grows up, live the life he or she wants. Without coercion and oppression.

    Everyone sees what Russia brings to Ukraine and what it wants to bring to other European countries. Total contempt for individuals, for entire nations. The Russian state despises even its own citizens so much that they do not understand the value of human life at all. Russian soldiers kill and die themselves as if they were not people, but just dust. Dust under the feet of the owners of Russia.

    The principles of our life are completely different. And although life has changed with the onset of wartime, our principles remain the same. Every person matters. This is the main thing that distinguishes us from the occupiers.

    During the 98 days of the Russian invasion, 689 children were injured as a result of the occupiers’ attacks. And these are only those we know about. We do not yet have all the information from the territory that is currently occupied. But from what is known today – 446 children were injured, 243 children died. 139 went missing.

    It is said that human consciousness does not perceive large numbers. The larger the number, the harder it is for a person to realize what is behind it. Destroyed families. Little personalities who did not even have time to see what life is like.

    Like little Denys from the Zhytomyr region, from the village of Malynivka, who died with his whole family when a Russian plane dropped bombs on the village. Denys was less than two years old.

    Like Stepan from the village of Novi Petrivtsi, Kyiv region. He was less than three years old when a Russian shell hit the yard. The kid was fatally wounded.

    Like Anya from Bucha, Kyiv region, she was 14 years old. She was killed when the Russian military fired at a minibus on the road. People were just trying to escape. Anya was in that car with her mother and grandmother. They all died.

    Polina, she was not even two years old. A Russian tank fired at a house in Borodyanka. An ordinary house. Direct hit. Polina died.

    Arina, Mykolaiv region. On March 5, she received shrapnel wounds as a result of artillery shelling, the occupiers hit the usual residential sector. She died at the hospital. Now, in June, Arina could be 4 years old.

    Svyatoslav from Odesa, he was 15 years old. He was killed by a Russian missile strike at a dormitory. It happened on May 2. His body was retrieved from the rubble of the house.

    Alisa from Okhtyrka, Sumy region. 7-year-old kid. She died on the second day of a full-scale war as a result of Russian artillery shelling. The occupiers simply fired at the houses.

    Mykyta from the city of Izyum, Kharkiv region. He was 3 years old. On the night of March 3, he was killed by a Russian air strike at the city. A total of nine people died that night.

    Two sisters – Varvara and Polina from Mariupol. Varvara was 14 years old and Polina was 11. They died as a result of the Russian shelling of an apartment building.

    I have named only ten children from the list of two hundred and forty-three. And it’s not just numbers. Each line is a separate world that was destroyed by the Russian army.

    In this list there are those about whom nothing is known at all, even the name… 243 children! Eternal memory to everyone whose life was taken away by the Russian war against us, against Ukrainians, against Ukraine.

    About 12 million of our citizens have been forced to flee their homes due to the war. More than 5 million went abroad. And the vast majority of them are women with children. We will do everything so that they can return home to Ukraine.

    Russia is also pursuing a consistent criminal policy of deporting our people. Forcibly deports both adults and children. This is one of Russia’s most heinous war crimes. In total, more than 200,000 Ukrainian children have been deported so far. These are orphans from orphanages. Children with parents. Children separated from their families.

    The Russian state disperses these people on its territory, settles our citizens, in particular, in remote regions. The purpose of this criminal policy is not just to steal people, but to make deportees forget about Ukraine and not be able to return.

    But we must find a solution to this challenge as well. And ensure that all those who killed, tortured or deported Ukrainians are held accountable.

    The inevitability of punishment is a principle that Ukraine will definitely teach Russia. But first of all, we must teach it on the battlefield that Ukraine will not be conquered, that our people will not surrender, and our children will not become the property of the occupiers.

    Today I signed two new decrees on awarding our heroes. 380 combatants were awarded. In total, since the beginning of the full-scale war, 17 thousand 86 defenders of Ukraine have received orders and other awards.

    Thanks to all those who defend our state, our people, our children, we can be sure that Ukraine has everything, and has a future.

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (31/05/2022) – 97 days

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (31/05/2022) – 97 days

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 31 May 2022.

    Ukrainians!

    All our defenders!

    Finally, we have the specifics about the European Union’s sixth sanctions package on Russia for this war. The package was agreed.

    Its approval and entry into force will take some time. But the key elements of the package are already clear, and most importantly – its direction.

    European countries have agreed to significantly limit oil imports from Russia. And I am grateful to everyone who worked to reach this agreement. The practical result is minus tens of billions of euros, which Russia will now be unable to use to finance terror.

    But it is also important to understand that European countries’ abandonment of Russian oil and other fossil fuels will accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources. Strategically, this leaves the Russian state on the sidelines of the modern economy. With such an aggressive policy and a course of isolation from the civilized world, Russia simply will not be able to adapt. So, it will lose. Lose economically.

    We are also looking forward to the disconnection of one of the largest Russian banks – Sberbank – from SWIFT within the sixth sanctions package. Finally, there is the cessation of broadcasting of Russian disinformation channels in Europe. And new personal sanctions.

    We will also work on new restrictions against Russia for this war. As soon as the sixth package starts working, we will start preparing the seventh. After all, there must be no significant economic relations of the free word with the terrorist state.

    I discussed further sanctions policy of the European Union with President of Slovakia Zuzana Čaputová. I am grateful to her, a true friend of Ukraine, for today’s visit to Kyiv, for substantive negotiations and for an inspiring speech in the Verkhovna Rada.

    From the first days of the full-scale war, Slovakia has become one of our most important defense partners. And we will continue this cooperation.

    We also talked today about Ukraine’s European movement. Mrs. Zuzana personally helps accelerate the integration of our state. And we will always be grateful for that.

    We are also preparing solutions for more effective management of processes at the borders of our states. In particular, joint customs control.

    At the beginning of her visit to Ukraine, the President of Slovakia visited Irpin and Borodyanka and saw with her own eyes the destruction caused by the Russian army. Anyone who sees this for themselves no longer needs to be persuaded why Russia must bear maximum responsibility for this war.

    I believe that Slovakia will provide all the necessary assistance to bring to justice all Russian war criminals and to rebuild everything they destroyed after the war.

    Today I would also like to address those in Ukraine who are trying, so to speak, to “hurry up” the Armed Forces of our state or to indicate how to attack and where to repel enemies in the first place. Ukraine values every opinion. But Ukraine values every life first and foremost. And this is an axiom. And Ukraine will never do like Russia, which throws people into hell of battles just because Moscow wanted to seize something in a few days or by a certain date.

    Our military, intelligence, the National Guard and all those involved in the defense of the state are gradually but inevitably thwarting all the plans of the occupiers.

    The frontline situation must be assessed comprehensively. Not by one area, where there is the most tough situation and which attracts the most attention, but by the whole frontline.

    The situation in the Donbas direction is very difficult. Severodonetsk, Lysychansk, Kurakhove are now at the epicenter of the confrontation. Given the presence of large-scale chemical production in Severodonetsk, the Russian army’s strikes there, including blind air bombing, are just madness. But on the 97th day of such a war, it is no longer surprising that for the Russian military, for Russian commanders, for Russian soldiers, any madness is absolutely acceptable.

    We have certain success in the Kherson direction, as well as an advancement in the Kharkiv region. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are rebuffing the pressure of the occupiers in the Zaporizhzhia region, the key direction is Hulyaipole and Orikhiv.

    In this broad picture, it must be seen that our defenders are showing the utmost courage and remain masters of the frontline situation, despite the fact that the Russian army still has a significant advantage in equipment and numbers.

    Of course, everyone in Ukraine wants all our territories, all our people to be liberated today, as soon as possible. The full restoration of the territorial integrity of our state is our goal. But we must act carefully, valuing life.

    Everyone at all levels must now be lobbyists for the supply of modern heavy weapons and modern artillery to our state. All those systems that can really speed up the victory of Ukraine.

    Talk about it wherever it is useful and wherever it is heard. Speak to the politicians of the partner countries, to the representatives of foreign media, even to your friends abroad. This narrative of the need to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to win must be maintained constantly. I work for this every day.

    I signed a new decree on awarding our heroes. 215 combatants were awarded state awards, 17 of them – posthumously.

    Eternal memory to everyone who gave life for Ukraine!

    Eternal glory to all who are fighting for our independence!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (30/05/2022) – 96 days

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (30/05/2022) – 96 days

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 30 May 2022.

    Ukrainians!

    All our defenders!

    Today, one of the key tasks of the day was communication for the approval of the sixth package of sanctions by the European Union.

    The pause in agreeing on new sanctions in Europe has been too long. The fifth sanctions package was introduced on April 8. So, a lot of time has passed without strengthening European sanctions against Russia.

    I emphasized that this should finally be corrected – and corrected immediately – in my address to the leaders of European countries who gathered for a meeting of the European Council. In particular, to discuss this issue.

    I am grateful to Charles Michel, President of the European Council, for supporting the interests of Ukraine, the interests of the whole of Europe and for trying to find the necessary compromises as soon as possible so that the European Union’s sixth sanctions package can be adopted. Russia must feel a much higher price for its aggression.

    The key point is, of course, the oil. I believe that Europe will have to give up Russian oil and oil products in any case. Because this is about the independence of Europeans themselves from Russian energy weapons. And the sooner this happens, the more complete the abandonment of Russian oil will be, the greater the benefit will be for Europe itself in the end.

    I also spoke today about strengthening sanctions with the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France. Catherine Colonna paid a visit to Kyiv.

    In addition to sanctions, we also discussed the issues of defense support for Ukraine, our European integration and the need to act much faster to prevent the escalation of the food crisis in the world.

    Now, due to the fact that Russia has blocked our ports in the Black Sea and seized our part of the coast of the Sea of Azov, we cannot export 22 million tons of grain that are already in warehouses in our country. This is the volume that was to enter the foreign market. And Russia’s blockade of our exports is destabilizing the situation on a global scale. As a result, food is becoming increasingly expensive in different countries. Consequently, there is a threat of famine. In Africa, in Asia, in some European countries.

    This threat could escalate into a new migrant crisis. And this is what the Russian leadership clearly wants. They are deliberately creating this problem. So that the whole of Europe faces difficulties. And so that Ukraine does not receive billions of dollars for its exports. These are the billions that our economy really needs now.

    And the inhabitants of African and Asian countries are used by the Russian state simply as a bargaining chip.

    Against this background, the stories of Russian officials at various levels that some sanctions allegedly do not allow them to increase exports of their food look particularly cynical. As if they allegedly want to prevent a crisis, but sanctions allegedly hinder them. It is clear that they are lying, as always.

    First, Russian food was not blocked by sanctions. And secondly, in our occupied territory, the Russian invaders have already stolen at least half a million tons of grain and are now looking for ways to illegally sell it somewhere. To sell it in a way to make money on what was stolen and to keep the deficit in the legal market.

    I spoke today with Turkish President Erdoğan, in particular, about this threat to food security. About how to ensure normal traffic from Ukrainian Black Sea ports. And, of course, about how to speed up the end of this war – Russia’s war against our state.

    We also discussed further defense cooperation between Ukraine and Turkey.

    Today in the Luhansk region, the occupiers disrupted the evacuation from the areas of hostilities by firing at a car following the locals. French journalist Frédéric Leclerc-Imhoff was killed by the shelling. He worked for the French TV channel BFM TV.

    A little over a month ago, I gave an interview to this particular TV channel. This was my first interview with the French media during a full-scale war.

    My sincere condolences to Frédéric’s colleagues and family.

    He became the 32nd media representative killed after February 24.

    The situation in Donbas remains extremely difficult. The Russian army is trying to gather overwhelming forces in certain areas to put more and more pressure on our defenders. There, in Donbas, the maximum combat power of the Russian army is now gathered.

    Severodonetsk, Lysychansk, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Kurakhove, Slovyansk and some other settlements remain key targets for the occupiers in this direction.

    And I am grateful to all our defenders who, despite the technical and sometimes quantitative advantage of the occupiers, heroically hold the defense.

    Today, Russian troops shelled Kharkiv again. The territory of our Sumy region was also shelled across the border between Ukraine and Russia.

    The struggle for the Kherson region continues. Step by step, we are liberating our land and gradually approaching the point where Russia will have to lay down its arms, count all its dead and move to diplomacy. Definitely have to.

    Eternal glory to everyone who defends the independence of Ukraine!

    Eternal memory to all who died at the hands of the occupiers.

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (29/05/2022) – 95 days

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (29/05/2022) – 95 days

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 29 May 2022.

    Strong people of our indomitable country!

    All our defenders!

    This address of mine is dedicated to four cities of Ukraine: Kharkiv, Kyiv, Severodonetsk and Kryvyi Rih. And through them – to our whole state, to all our cities and communities.

    Today I visited Kharkiv. Both the city itself and the frontline positions of our military in the region. Kharkiv suffered terrible blows from the occupiers. Black, burnt-out, half-ruined apartment buildings face east and north with their windows – from where Russian artillery was firing. From where Russian combat aircraft arrived. They face Russia. And in them now, like in a mirror, the Russian state can see itself. See how much it lost during these 95 days of full-scale war against Ukraine.

    Russia has already lost not only the battle for Kharkiv, not only the battle for Kyiv and the north of our country. It lost its own future and any cultural ties to the free world. They all burned down. In particular, there, in Saltivka.

    I held a meeting with the leadership of the region and the city. Thanked them for being and remaining together with the people of Kharkiv, together with Ukraine. And – what is very important now – together with each other. They have one hundred percent cooperation – the army, the police, the mayor of Kharkiv, the regional state administration – everyone really works for victory and does it very effectively.

    Unfortunately, this cannot be said about the local leadership of the Security Service of Ukraine. I arrived. Clarified the situation. Dismissed the head of the Security Service of the region. For not working to defend the city from the first days of a full-scale war, but thinking only of himself personally. What were the motives? Law enforcement officers will find out.

    One third of the Kharkiv region is still under occupation. We will definitely liberate the entire territory. And everyone should work for this result in positions both at the local level and at the state level.

    Before the trip, I signed a decree awarding our defenders. 222 combatants were awarded state awards. And during the trip today I had the honor to personally present some of the awards from this decree and others that were signed earlier.

    The post-war reconstruction of Kharkiv and the Kharkiv region was discussed very objectively with the local authorities. We must use only advanced ideas, only modern technologies in reconstruction. In particular, security technologies. And the best offers from our partners. Kharkiv and all other cities and communities in our country affected by the war must be reconstructed to have the most modern look in Europe.

    Returning from the east to Kyiv at this time leaves a rather ambiguous impression. After Saltivka’s silence, there is Khreshchatyk, full of people and smiles. After the roar of artillery on the frontline – the relaxation of Kyiv residents who today walked the city. On the City Day, the Day of Kyiv, which is celebrated by thousands of people every year.

    But it is for such happiness to live, live your normal life and just quietly walk the streets of your own city that this war is going on now. That’s what we are fighting for in it. For everyone in Ukraine. Freedom and peace is what could really be felt in Kyiv today. Even in spite of the air-raid siren that sounded today as well.

    So, I wish you, the people of Kyiv, to keep this peace – the peace of life. Take care of your city. And be sure to remember what it cost to defend the capital. Remember how many lives were given for the capital.

    I understand that in your eyes – it’s summer already. I understand all this. But I want you to have an understanding – we still have to fight. The war is not over yet.

    Sophia and Lavra, Andriivskyi, Podil, Volodymyrska, Reytarska, Lypky and Khreshchatyk… I am grateful to everyone who made sure that the occupiers would never have a place here in Kyiv again.

    And I am very much looking forward to the day when I will be able to say similar words to another of our cities. A city that should celebrate its Day today in the same way as Kyiv. But… Russia came too close to it. It gathered too many forces in our Donbas. It was too prepared for the offensive there. I consider it very symbolic that the Russian military began the attempt to capture Severodonetsk by entering a hotel called “Myr” (Peace – ed.). Peace is indeed Russia’s first target.

    Having taken away our peace in 2014, the occupiers want to take away everything else. Literally everything. They want to leave us neither freedom, nor houses, nor life.

    As a result of the Russian strikes at Severodonetsk, the entire critical infrastructure of the city has already been destroyed. 90% of houses are damaged. More than two-thirds of the city’s housing stock has been completely destroyed. There is no mobile connection. Constant shelling.

    Capturing Severodonetsk is a fundamental task for the occupying contingent. And they don’t care how many lives they will have to pay for this attempt to raise the Russian flag on 32 Druzhby Narodiv boulevard (Friendship of Nations – ed.) – no matter how bitter the name sounds now – where the Severodonetsk administration is located.

    We are doing everything to repel this offensive. There was not a day that we did not try to find more weapons, more modern weapons to defend our land, to defend our people.

    And I am grateful to everyone who defends Severodonetsk and demonstrates to the occupiers that peace will still be ours. In all our state, in all Donbas and of course – in Severodonetsk.

    And another city I want to address today. For me, of course, the city is special. My native Kryvyi (Kryvyi Rih – ed.) also celebrates its birthday today. Already 247th. It would celebrate. But the time is not appropriate. The conditions are not appropriate. And the enemy is still on our land. The time to celebrate will be after our victory. And it will come.

    And today I want to wish just that – to my hometown and to all cities and communities of our great country. A shorter time to victory. We must all work for this – each and every one without exception.

    In my inaugural speech three years ago, I said that each of us is a president. And right now it is felt the most. Because our future depends not only on my actions in this office, the office of the President of Ukraine, or on what is being done in other offices in Kyiv. But also on what is being done in Kharkiv, Sumy, Kryvyi Rih and Odesa, Lviv and Uzhhorod, Lutsk and Vinnytsia, Mykolaiv and Dnipro, Zhytomyr and Chernihiv, Poltava and Kropyvnytskyi, Chernivtsi, Frankivsk, Ternopil, Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Cherkasy. Of course, in Kherson, in the Zaporizhzhia region, and in all territories of our Donbas and Crimea.

    The unity I saw with my own eyes today in Kharkiv. The heroism our soldiers in Donbas show every day. The determination of Kryvyi Rih. This is our path. The path to ensure that the peace of life is always felt throughout Ukraine and that smiles always reign, not the roar of artillery.

    Eternal glory to all who defend our state!

    Eternal memory to everyone who died for Ukraine!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (28/05/2022) – 94 days

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (28/05/2022) – 94 days

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 28 May 2022.

    Ukrainians!

    Our defenders!

    The 94th day of the full-scale war is over. The situation is very complicated. Especially in those areas in Donbas and the Kharkiv region, where the Russian army is trying to squeeze at least some result for themselves.

    The key areas of struggle at the front are still Severodonetsk, Lysychansk, Bakhmut, Popasna and other cities where the Russian offensive is concentrated.

    But our defense holds on. It’s indescribably difficult there. And I am grateful to all those who withstand this onslaught of the occupiers.

    We work every day to strengthen our defense. This is primarily a supply of weapons. Every day we are bringing closer the time when our army will surpass the occupiers technologically and by firepower.

    Of course, a lot depends on the partners. On their readiness to provide Ukraine with everything necessary to defend freedom. And I expect good news on this already next week.

    Today, the Russian army has launched absolutely senseless, openly barbaric strikes at the Sumy region. Missiles, mortars. And for what? And what does it give?

    Ukrainians of the Sumy region, as well as any other region of our state, have already understood everything about Russia. And it will not be able to add anything by the new terror. And even more so, it will not be able to intimidate.

    As a result of the Russian shelling of Mykolaiv today one person died, seven were wounded, two – in a grave condition. The shells hit a residential area, twenty meters from the kindergarten. These are the enemies chosen by the Russian Federation.

    Again and again I will remind the world that Russia must finally be officially recognized as a terrorist state, a state – sponsor of terrorism. This is simply true. This is fair and reflects the daily reality that the occupiers have created in Ukraine and are eager to bring further to Europe. And this must be legally enshrined.

    I am preparing for the meeting of the European Council, which will take place on May 30-31. I will address the participants of the meeting. In particular, I will talk about it. About terror, which has become in fact the only form of action of the Russian state in relation to Europe. Terror on the land of Ukraine. Terror in the energy market of Europe, not just our country. Terror in the food market, on a global scale. And what terror will be next?

    Only together – all Europeans – will we be able to stop such a policy of such a state.

    Of course, in my address to the European Council I will pay due attention to the progress in the development of our state, which has already been achieved and which can be achieved in the near future.

    I will also continue to address the parliaments of European countries next week. There will be many other international activities aimed at strengthening our state and increasing the joint pressure of the whole free world on Russia.

    I spoke today with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. On defensive support and fuel supply to Ukraine. On how we can unblock Ukrainian ports, and therefore prevent the food crisis from unfolding.

    Security guarantees for Ukraine were also discussed separately, and we need to intensify work on them.

    There is more and more information that the occupiers are trying to limit the departure of our people from the temporarily occupied areas of the Kherson region. They do not provide any humanitarian corridors. And they have closed the individual departure of people.

    Those who are confident in their position would definitely not make such decisions. This is clearly a sign of weakness. Manifestation that they have nothing to give people. And people do not want to take anything from them. So they try to take people hostage.

    But Ukraine will return everything that belongs to it. Everything. Definitely.

    And it’s only a matter of time. And every day this time, the time of liberation, is reduced. We do everything for this.

    Eternal gratitude and glory to all who defend our state!

    Eternal memory to everyone whose lives were taken by the occupiers.

    Glory to Ukraine!