Tag: Speeches

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Contribution to the Future of Europe Debate

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Contribution to the Future of Europe Debate

    The contribution made by Timothy Kirkhope MEP on 7 September 2001.

    Good public policy requires a vigorous preliminary debate. One of the problems with the European Union is the limited scope for proper debate. The moment any politician, party or grouping question anything, they are pigeon-holed as Eurosceptics or Europhiles rather than listened to as contributors to the on-going European debate. As a lawyer by profession, I am naturally “sceptical”, but would not accept the description “Eurosceptic” with all that entails. When I engage in debate, I think it is right to be at least quizzical about the merits of any proposal for my constituents. Scepticism is an important part of any debate and the problem with the EU is that there simply isn’t enough debate.

    We have ‘debates’ in the European Parliament, but the scope of that debate is limited. With respect to my colleagues, no one will ever deliver brilliant oration on the need for enlargement or the case against the single currency when we are limited to one, or if we are very lucky, two minutes. Is the level of debate or the scrutiny of legislation any better in the Committees? ‘Scrutinising’: what does that mean? It often doesn’t mean, frankly, very much at all. In any case, which newspaper regularly covers the work of the Committees, as opposed to the alleged level of expenses? If this is the level of debate, how can we expect a proper debate about the future of Europe?

    Rushed legislation is often poor legislation because it hasn’t been properly thought through. For example, when I was a Home Office Minister in the last Conservative Government in the United Kingdom, we introduced new controls on firearms following the Dunblane massacre. Looking back, this was “knee-jerk legislation”. With more debate (and with the benefit of hindsight) we would have approached things differently.

    I believe that the EU is suffering from a similar problem. It is rushing through a vision without properly considering the practicalities. This can be seen in two areas of European public policy: the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Rapid Reaction Force.

    As a member of the Charter of Fundamental Rights Convention, I welcomed the emphasis placed on the protection of human rights, but I worry about its compatibility with the European Convention of Human Rights. We are in a situation where we have two sets of human rights law: we have the Convention set up by the Council of Europe and the Charter established by the European Union. Both the Charter and the Convention deal with the same area of law but with different wording. Why does the competence of the EU need to include an area that is dealt with satisfactorily by the Council of Europe? Two sets of human rights law will undoubtedly harm rather than help the very people it was designed to protect.

    Similarly, would a separate European Rapid Reaction Force help or harm the security of the peoples of Europe? The resolution of the Balkans conflict was brought about through NATO not the EU. “Exactly,” argue supporters of the new defence initiative, “that’s why we need an independent European defence force.” I argue the reverse. Only if we maintain our links with NATO, and through NATO our links with countries outside the EU, will we guarantee maximum security for the peoples of Britain and Europe. Why does the competence of the EU need to include an area which NATO already excels in?

    It is true that some countries are more enthusiastic about European integration than the British, but this does not mean that Britain’s horizons end at the Channel. Britain is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of NATO and one of the G8, and the Queen is Head of the Commonwealth. Britain and the British Conservative Party is internationalist in outlook. But we are worried that the creation of a European Federal State would reduce British horizons rather than expand them. Does accepting the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights mean rejecting the non-EU members of the Council of Europe? Is support for a European Rapid Reaction Force a rebuff to our NATO allies? People assume that support for ‘ever closer union’ entails internationalism. I believe that Britain’s internationalism should be pursued through the European Union as well as through other international groups.

    The Conservative Party’s opposition to a European Federal State is also grounded in its natural scepticism towards the institutions of the European Union. We passionately believe in democracy and accountability and for that reason we support the development of the Ombudsmen to act as a ‘check’ on the institutions on behalf of the peoples of Europe. We also recognise that the applicant countries have made massive sacrifices to adopt the acquis communautaire and we want to ensure that the enlargement process is not used as an excuse by the institutions to increase their power. For this reason, we welcome Neil Kinnock’s report but we do not think it goes far enough. A much more radical approach is needed to check the institutions and ensure the long-term prosperity of the European Union.

    Politicians are supposed to be answerable to the people: I am, I always have been and I will continue to be as long as I serve my constituents. This duty includes a proper debate to prevent a simplistic approach to the future of Europe with its accompanying harmful effects. The Conservative Party will continue to argue the case for a free enterprise, free trading Europe, with more checks on the institutions and more accountability to the people; and we will also voice our united opposition to a European Federal State as part of the debate that Europe so desperately needs.

  • Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Speech on Europe After 9/11

    Timothy Kirkhope – 2001 Speech on Europe After 9/11

    The speech made by Timothy Kirkhope MEP on 30 November 2001.

    It is now a truism to say that the atrocities of 11 September were a momentous event. Whether the current “fight against terrorism” ranks alongside the Gulf War or the Second World War is an academic question: what matters is that the first war of the new century is the issue of the moment.

    Like the Second World War, the fight against terrorism is having as much impact on the “home front” as it does on the “international front”. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Home Secretary is playing as important a role in the conflict as the Foreign Secretary. When terrorists are the enemy, rather than states and when anthrax attacks on citizens are as much of a possibility as sniper attacks on soldiers, home affairs becomes as important as foreign affairs.

    Therefore, the central question for Justice and Home Affairs ministers and spokesmen during this crisis is: ‘Should the principles that govern our actions be irrevocably and permanently changed by this crisis, or should they just be adapted for the duration of the present conflict? Let me give a few examples:

    The UK Government has recently brought in retrospective legislation to deter anthrax hoaxers with penalties of up to seven years in prison. This is the first time in modern history that legislation has taken effect before being approved by the House of Commons. This law will be applied retrospectively to those who commit anthrax hoaxes between Sunday 21 October and the date Parliament approves the legislation. Naturally, I am pleased that David Blunkett has acted against anthrax hoaxers, but the precedent this legislation sets worries me. Essentially, the aim of the legislation is laudable, but the procedure used to implement must be questionable.

    Secondly, the European Parliament is united in a wish to prevent terrorist groups from funding their activities from the proceeds of criminal activities such as drug smuggling. But there are worries that the principle of client confidentiality between lawyers and clients could be severely undermined by the money laundering directive proposed by the European Council. The original wording of the directive would have compelled lawyers to alert the authorities if they had “reason to believe” that their client was seeking advice for money laundering purposes. Whilst our Parliament fully agreed that client confidentiality is secondary if a lawyer “knows” about money laundering activities, the catchall “or has reason to believe” would have been is a serious blow to an important legal principle apart from its unclear meaning.

    Then there is freedom of speech for elected representatives. The Chief Whip for the Labour Party in the UK responded to a Labour Member of Parliament calling for greater United Nations involvement in the fight against terrorism: “It was people like you who appeased Hitler in 1938!” As Chief Whip of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, I feel that in this case the Labour Party is mistaking constructive criticism for outright opposition. The Labour movement is known to have a long history of pacifism that should not be confused with support for Osama bin Laden.

    These examples illustrate how the fight against terrorism has changed the way in which we conduct Home Affairs. There are other questions including whether traditional freedom of movement should be limited in the European Union; whether freedom of association should also be restricted; and whether the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be curtailed in the aftermath of 11 September. We need to think carefully before we act decisively and permanently.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2001 Speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2001 Speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative MP for Chingford, on 10 December 2001.

    “When I accepted this invitation to speak to Conservative Friends of Israel, I had hoped it would be a rather different occasion.

    I had hoped that despite events of September 11, we would be definitively winning the war against global terror.

    I was optimistic that the State of Israel, a lighthouse of democracy in a troubled region, would feel a little safer and a little more secure.

    I wanted very much to celebrate with you the first day of Chanucah, the festival of lights, but I also want to reaffirm the dignity of life.

    Tragically, the events of the last few days in Israel remind us that we still have a long way to go before the scourge of terrorism is eradicated.

    Fifteen people killed in Israel by terrorism a week ago last Saturday. Twenty-five dead because of terrorism the day after. Over 230 Israelis killed by suicide bombers and other means since 1994. Hundreds more injured.

    After September 11 many in the West have had to come to terms with terrorists whose utter disregard for human life has led to suicide bombers and the use of anthrax. This is something Israeli citizens contend with every day and every night.

    What we were forced to accept on September 11, is something that Israel learnt a long time ago. You cannot appease terror.

    Make no mistake, the individuals who perpetrated the latest atrocity in Israel have no wish to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Israelis. The recent murders took place just as the American Envoy Anthony Zinni was trying to negotiate a cease-fire.

    They have no desire to improve the life of their fellow citizens.

    Their sole objective is to destroy Israel and everything she represents – liberal values, pride in the nation state, economic achievement. This truth was so passionately expressed by Binyamin Netanyahu in my talks with him a few weeks ago.

    Similarly, those who attacked America did not care to change American Foreign Policy towards the Arab world. They did not want to improve the plight of Afghan citizens. They wanted to destroy everything America stands for. The bombing of the World Trade Centre was not an attack on America’s policy towards Islam. It was an assault on scientific, technological and economic achievement – it was an attempt to destroy democracy, capitalism and the rule of law.

    It is this fanatic hatred of the West and its values that give us a warning that Al Quaeda, Hamas and others will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. Who knows what biological, chemical or nuclear weapons terrorists would unleash if given the opportunity?

    That is why my party has given backing to President Bush’s plans for an effective ballistic missile defence shield – for the United States and her allies. Far from holding back on missile defence, the events of September 11 have made it all the more important to press ahead.

    Our fight against terror must not stop in Afghanistan. The days of safe havens for terrorists are over. No longer can we appease or turn a blind eye to regimes that support terrorism. As the Chief Rabbi said only recently, ‘terror is evil, whoever is responsible and whatever is the reason’.

    Last week, I visited the United States and met with President Bush and other members of his Administration.

    I agree with the President when he said after the events in Israel that it was the moment for those who want peace to ‘rise up and fight terror’. I am glad that the US Administration has taken action to target the finances of terrorist organisations like Hamas.

    Against this background, surely it is time that our national broadcasters, not just, but including the BBC, stopped describing Hamas and jihad with such euphemisms as radical and militant?

    Let us call things what they are: They are terrorist organisations.

    Such fudging of what Hamas or Islamic Jihad are confers some sort of legitimacy on people who are terrorists. Such misappropriation is absurd when even Palestinian moderates in Jerusalem describe the suicide bombers as terrorists.

    I join President Bush in calling on Chairman Arafat to do everything in his power to ensure that those responsible for the murder of innocent Israelis are brought to justice.

    Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not interested in peace. They demand nothing less than the destruction of Israel and all that it stands for. The violence and terror they use have become ends in themselves. Israel has the right to defend herself accordingly.

    It is now up to the Palestinian Authority to show that it will no longer tolerate terrorism. More than that, it must never again allow terrorists to justify their monstrous acts in the name of the Palestinian cause.

    One of our historians Sir Martin Gilbert, made an astute observation. He said: ‘Israel is often the centre of world attention. This is seldom for her achievements, which are considerable, or for the quality of life which she has created, and which is the envy of many nations’.

    I agree. This is a sad reflection on the world as it is, not on the world as it should be.

    This is not just because of fifty-four years of achievement – against all the odds. Nor because of the contribution that Israel has made to science, agriculture, technology, and many other spheres, across the world.

    For me, it is Israel’s contribution towards civil society that is the most important.

    A country, which was founded upon the work of volunteers and philanthropic activity – and has today over 28,000 voluntary and charitable organisations – has much to teach us about public service, responsibility, compassion and duty towards others.

    It seems to me that these values are steeped in the Jewish tradition. All across the world Jewish organisations and others work hard to support Israel, whether it is through philanthropy or by actively sending volunteers to help in Kibbutzim, hospitals or schools. Other organisations like the Conservative Friends of Israel do so much to ensure that Israel’s voice is heard in Westminster and Whitehall. This matters because Britain’s diplomatic tradition ensures that that message is carried beyond Britain shores.

    We in Britain face a major challenge. Even with growing prosperity our social problems seem ever greater.

    Even with vast and growing state resources devoted to our public sector, our health, transport and education infrastructure are failing. They need drastic reform, yet this Government is wedded to the system – a state monopoly which has crowded out other types of care.

    Yet despite the work of so many in this room like David Garrard, Michael Heller and the Jewish community as a whole, we have a desperate need to renew and replenish values of service to others, compassion and responsibility to those in need.

    Our mission must be to find ways of providing public services that actually work for the public. So that every school is good enough for your child; so that you get to choose the doctor and the hospital you want and trust; so that your train runs on time.

    That is why, I and my Shadow Cabinet are visiting public services across Europe, where health and education systems put Britain to shame. Countries like Germany where healthcare is a successful mix of care provided by the voluntary and faith communities as well as by the public and the private sectors.

    There is one precondition for making this happen in Britain: a new spirit of public service.

    Divisiveness damages our communities. Our civil life has been badly hurt at every level, whether it is by narrow interest groups in public policy, or hooliganism on our streets.

    Working for the common good, and demanding that others do so too, with respect for everyone and respect for their liberty, is the basic principle on which we can deliver improvements.

    Our party is dedicated to public service. Its whole ethos is based on voluntarism. So many of our activists dedicate themselves to community endeavour through charitable and voluntary activities.

    Yet none of this is being recognised. We have allowed our opponents to characterise us as greedy and selfish. We have let ourselves be unfairly caricatured as the party which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

    As leader I will make it my priority to visit examples of community endeavour across the country. I want to see at first hand how faith inspired organisations, charities and voluntary groups are changing people’s lives. How a well-run residents group can rejuvenate a run-down council estate. How volunteers can equip the young and unemployed with crucial skills to succeed in life.

    Just as we unleashed business entrepreneurs in the eighties, I want to unleash the social entrepreneurs. I hope many more will be young entrepreneurs.

    Where would we be without the social entrepreneurship that established the Dixons City Technology College in Bradford, one of the best schools in the country?

    Where would we be without the social entrepreneurship of those who have done so much to set up successful Jewish schools like the Joy and Stanley Cohen Primary School in Hertsmere?

    Where would we be without the social entrepreneurship of those behind organisations like Jewish Care that do so much to assist the vulnerable, or like the Jewish Marriage Council, which helps keep families together?

    Many other social entrepreneurs – faith inspired organisations and voluntary groups – full of compassion and dedicated to public service – are already operating in their thousands up and down the country to help individuals in need. Some are here today. We need to support them and learn from them.

    I am told that David Ben Gurion once said: ‘In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles’.

    As the leader of the Conservative Party, I think I know what he meant.

    Our party must once again be disciplined and determined to return to Government. We must inspire people to believe that we are on their side – our policy must be about helping people to achieve.

    That is why I have set in train the biggest review of our policies for twenty-five years. Too often, we have been defined by what we are against, not what we are for. I am determined that over the next few years we will set out an imaginative and inspiring agenda. This will be an agenda which will give people dignity, self-respect and a better life for themselves and their families.

    I said at the beginning that I had wanted to celebrate with you. I believe we still can. The modern miracle that is Israel should be celebrated and encouraged.

    I am proud that the majority of my Parliamentary party are members of CFI. The level of support which CFI has, shows all too clearly the depths of warmth and feeling that Conservatives have to Israel and all she stands for. CFI has an enviable record of achieving worthy objectives and I congratulate Director Stuart Polak for over ten years of exceptional work.

    I am delighted that Gillian Shepherd who does so much for CFI is now our Party Vice Chairman and is now responsible for selecting our next generation of Parliamentary Candidates.

    When I was in the United States, I was reminded of the words of one of America’s greatest Presidents, George Washington: ‘May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of other inhabitants – while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid’.

    We who cherish freedom know how much it has cost us. It has been paid for in the lives of countless generations.

    Burke said: ‘All that is required for the triumph of evil is that the good should do nothing’.

    Now for the sake of future generations of Palestinians and Israelis it is time for the good to act to defeat the men of evil and find powerful accommodation.

  • John Major – 1992 Speech at Conservative Party Rally

    John Major – 1992 Speech at Conservative Party Rally

    The speech made by John Major, the then Prime Minister, on 5 April 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to turn first to a key issue at the very heart of this Election. It is the sleeping issue – but it matters more than anything. It hasn’t been much talked about, but it’s always been there. It is something that grips our very being as the British people. I speak of the unity of the United Kingdom – the rock of our constitution. We take it for granted – but at this Election it is at risk.

    Let me therefore speak to you simply, directly and, through you, to every part of the country. As your Prime Minister, yes, but as a Briton, too. Let me speak in plain, unvarnished terms.

    At this Election there are three great constitutional battles that we are fighting. These matters go way beyond Party allegiance. They affect the birthright of us all. There is no division in the British flag between red and blue. In it, and under it, we are one people. But if we take the wrong decision next Thursday, all that could change.

    The first issue arises in Scotland. At this Election, there is a Nationalist party which proposes to tear Scotland away from our union. It is a negative case, a socialist case, a separatist case. It is the fast route to divorce between two great nations. The exchange of Great Britain for a little Scotland and a lesser union. Our admirers and our rivals across the world would think we were mad.

    The Labour and Liberal parties see short-term advantage in seeking to appease, not to wrestle with, this demon. They propose a new tax-raising parliament in Scotland. Such a plan would shake the balance of our constitution. Set us on the road to bitterness, conflict and separation.

    There will be no further debate, no referendum. Just a headlong plunge into something of disastrous consequence to Britain. Scarcely a soul in England or Wales is aware of it. But, in the consequences of these changes, our whole nation would be caught. We could be no longer a United, but a Disunited, Kingdom – an outcome which would diminish us all.

    To imperil the tried and successful Union of our four nations for Party benefit, as our opponents do, is unforgiveable. To toss aside the Union through which, over three hundred years, this country has moulded the history of the world. That is unbelievable.

    Can you, dare you, conceive of it? Consider the outcome. The walls of this island fortress that appear so strong, undermined from within, the United Kingdom untied, the bonds that generations of our enemies have fought and failed to break, loosened by us ourselves. But that is what is at risk on 9 April. Labour and Liberal policy could break up Britain.

    This Party, and this Party alone, will defend our union. I ask you – go out and tell the people of the danger we face. If I could summon up all the authority of this office I would put it into this single warning – the United Kingdom is in danger. Wake up, my fellow countrymen. Wake up now, before it is too late.

    Europe

    That is the first threat to our constitution. But there are two more, hardly less grave than the first.

    The next relates to that independence as a nation for which our ancestors toiled and fell. It relates to the nature of the European community that we want to build.

    I have never been in any doubt that our political and economic interests require us to be at the heart of Europe. We must be at the heart of Europe in order to play our full part in the debates that will shape its future.

    For there is a choice about that future. We can – as we wish to do – build a Europe of nation states, based on the free market principles that have served us well. That is the right Europe for which we will continue to work.

    But there is an alternative – to move towards a federal Europe, towards a United States of Europe, in which power is centralised and influence is focused in Brussels and the institutions of the Community, not in the Parliaments of the nations. That would be the wrong Europe.

    The people of Britain do not look for such a Europe. So they must awake again – and realise that at this Election Labour implicitly and Liberals explicitly intend to move towards a federal Europe.

    I profoundly believe that is not in the interests of this country and should never be accepted by the people of this country. Let them think then for whom they cast their vote.

    I do not believe that the people of Britain realise the scale of this danger – the Lib-Lab left would not speak for Britain in Brussels; they would act for Brussels in Britain. They are prepared to weaken Westminster, sign up to a single currency now, right or wrong, irrespective of the conditions in which it might be introduced at a later date. They would bring in the social chapter – that would strengthen trade union power, it would impose new costs on industry and, as a result, cost Britain jobs up and down the country.

    None of those policies is in the interests of the British people. None is in Britain’s interests. All of those polices are damaging. That is why we have rejected them.

    When Douglas Hurd and I, at Maastricht, refused to accept these ideas, Labour’s Mr Kaufman called it a ‘betrayal’. He is precisely wrong. It was not a betrayal to say ‘No’. It would have been a betrayal to say ‘Yes’. But this misguided Mr Kaufman is the Shadow Foreign Secretary – not that we’ve seen so much as his shadow at this election. The Labour Party will not let him speak at home for all of them – but they propose to send him abroad to speak for all of us.

    There are great issues at stake at this Election. They require a maturer judgment, fuller debate. I want partnership in Europe between nation states. But I do not want to see a United States of Europe. And the British do not want it either. But that’s what they will get if they are not careful next Thursday – a United States of Europe, Lib hook, Lab line, and socialist sinker.

    Proportional Representation

    But, ladies and gentlemen, the Lib-Lab threat does not only relate to our position in Europe. Here at home our opponents are dancing a minuet over the spoils of office that they have not won – and, for Britain’s sake, must not win. Almost casually, they are toying and trifling with a new voting system. One that would ensure permanent representation in power for the Left. Disproportionate representation for the smallest and most unpopular party that presented itself at the polls.

    They want us to have that system they use in Italy, Ireland, Belgium and Israel. Would that be in our interests? No. Would we have better government? No. We would have weaker Government. And we would have thrown away that link between the MP and the constituency that is such a precious feature of our Parliamentary system.

    But more than that. What would have happened if we had had PR in the 1980s? There would have been no reform of the trade unions, no privatisation, no sale of council houses, no income tax cuts, no nuclear shield against communism, no revival of Britain. There would have been no authority to take immediate action to regain the Falklands. No active support for the United Nations in military action against Saddam Hussein.

    Minority governments in a PR system could have been frustrated in all these things. And the Lib-Lab Left would have prevented them all.

    Let me make one thing clear. The other Parties may fiddle and flirt with constitutional change for party political gain. This Party will not. Let them put their Parties first and their country second. We will put the country first. First, last, and always. I will entertain no constitutional changes that will weaken the United Kingdom.

    The Success of Britain

    I tell you one thing that has really irritated me about this Election. It is the insatiable appetite of our opponents for running Britain down. Day after day, on subject after subject, in their view it’s Britain that’s always wrong – criticising manufacturing industry that is beating export records; rubbishing a Health Service that is treating more patients better than ever before.

    I happen to believe – and I suspect most people in this country do too – that this is a great country. I happen to believe the British people should be proud of what they’ve achieved: we the country, and we the Conservative Party. In 1979 we picked the country up off the floor where the Labour Party and their trade union friends had left it. We are not about to listen to lectures from them about all that has been done since then.

    We have the greatest literature, the proudest history, the finest countryside, the best sporting tradition, the most brilliant scientists and inventors of any country in the world. What is our job? Our job is to keep it that way. Keep Britain the best. That’s what Conservatism stands for. And that’s what we are going to do.

    We have a golden tapestry of talents in this country. We always have had. And we want them all to stay here. They will – so long as we give people the room for ambition and the incentive to succeed.

    And we have a truly open society. Don’t believe for one moment the propaganda of our opponents. We have made this a country in which people from all backgrounds can rise to the top in their chosen professions. And you only have to look round this room to see how many have done just that.

    The biggest disaster for this country would be if we brought back an old- fashioned Socialism still speaking the language of class envy and division. We are on the road to the classless society that I want to see. For heaven’s sake, don’t turn back: let’s fight on to build it.

    No Return to Socialism

    Ladies and gentlemen, the choice at this Election could not be clearer. It is whether we continue with the work of the 1980s in changing Britain. Or whether we – and we alone in the world – turn back the clock.

    I know that over the years we in Britain have sometimes been the odd man out. But it would be more than odd, it would be stark staring mad for Britain – and Britain alone – to go back to Socialism, when it’s being kicked from doorstep to dustbin in almost every country of the world.

    All the world is turning to the free enterprise policies in which we Conservatives believe. The ‘British disease’ of trade union militancy, constant strikes, headlong decline; it’s a thing of the past now. This Conservative Government curbed it, then cured it. Now people in every continent are queuing up for a dose of the British cure – low tax, deregulation, private ownership, trade union controlling policies – that’s another export from Britain that the whole world is buying.

    Are we alone about to reject it? Will this be one more great British invention which all the world copies, while we throw away the patent? Is that what you want for your children, ladies and gentlemen? For other countries to race ahead of us, using our ideas? What folly that would be. We must never let it happen. NEVER. We must fight with every fibre of our being to prevent it. And we will.

    But it could happen. No other country could do it to us. But we, the British people, could inflict this damage on ourselves. We could take that sword of Socialism and fall on it. And if we did our country would fall with it. The choice will be yours on Thursday.

    On that crucial day we could decide that Britain will be the last refuge of a dying and discredited Socialist creed. We could lurch blindly down a cul-de-sac that by the middle of the ’90s would make Britain the last left-wing country left.

    And we would be left. Left out, left behind, left impoverished in the most competitive decade the world has ever known.

    In our country, we are one of the cradles of competition and enterprise, and, were we to abandon them, we would be a laughing stock in a world now singing the anthems of ownership and freedom. But here at home it would be no laughing matter. We would be left adrift.

    Ladies and gentlemen, can you believe that the people of Britain will make such a colossal mistake? I know them better.

    These are the people who in the ’80s won the Cold War, saw off the trade union barons, achieved the biggest rise in living standards this country has ever known.

    Can you believe they won’t see what the people of America, Germany and Japan have always seen, what the people of Sweden, Denmark and France now see, what the people of Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia don’t need to see? That Socialism cannot be trusted, and ought not to be voted for.

    Of course, they can see. I know the mood of the people. Unlike some of my opponents, I’ve been out there amongst them, day after day after day from the beginning of this campaign.

    They can see why Socialism ought not to be voted for. Because one of the duties of Government is to take – and to hold to – the decisions that are right in the long-term. And this the modern Labour Party has never been able to do.

    They have changed their minds – or claim to have changed their minds – on all the crucial issues of our time – the market economy, nationalisation, devolution, Europe, and the necessary reforms to our great social institutions. It would be a nice change to find a subject on which they hadn’t changed, for a change.

    But above all they have wavered on defence. In the Cold War they campaigned to disarm in the face of the Soviet nuclear threat. It was Margaret Thatcher who insisted we install Cruise missiles here, while Soviet missiles were targeted on us. She was bitterly opposed by Labour, with their present Leader in the van. But she persevered. And because she did, fewer missiles are now pointing at us. Who was right? We were. Who was wrong? They were. And because of what we did we won the Cold War in Europe.

    But do the Labour Party acknowledge our success? Do they admit for a moment that their tactics would have lost the Cold War, not won it. No. Now the heat is off, now that others have won it, Mr Kinnock comes out boldly and claims he would stand firm. Welcome, but a bit late. That shows two things: that he was wrong before. And that he hasn’t even the courage of his own past lack of convictions. And who knows even now where he stands on the crucial question of the full Trident deterrent that Britain needs? His defence policy is a case of now you CND, now you don’t. And if you can’t trust his judgement on the defence of the realm, who knows what judgement we should trust? Ladies and gentlemen, because he has such a past, he doesn’t deserve to decide your future.

    The Road to Recovery

    I understand why some, who scorn the Labour Party, have been hesitating about joining our cause. I know what is in their minds. The difficulties caused for us – and for all the great economies of the world by the world recession. We have become used to record growth. It comes as a shock when we have to mark time. But you cannot wish away the business cycle. You cannot legislate against world conditions. What you have to do is to hang in there, get the basics right, and be ready to be first off the blocks when the world economy begins to move once more.

    That’s what we have done. I’ll tell you what you need for a strong recovery. You need low inflation. You need falling interest rates. You need low taxation. You need stable exchange rates. You need falling levels of debt. You need freedom for managers to manage, and incentives for workers to succeed. That’s what you need. And to get that you need a Tory Government in a Tory Britain.

    And to be strictly fair. Let me tell you what you need to stay in recession. You need higher taxes. You need higher inflation. You need higher interest rates. You need a weaker pound. You need policies that restore power to trade union bosses. You need a vendetta against the successful and the skilled. In other words, you need Labour.

    The message is simple. If you want to start recovery, stop Labour. If you want to stop recovery, start Labour.

    Ladies and gentlemen, all around us the signs of imminent recovery are there. There in the house-building industry. There in the growth of manufacturing exports – in February the highest in history. There in the growth of retail sales. There in the surveys of business opinion by the CBI. There in the fact that 93% of businessmen say Conservative policies are right for recovery. Just one in a hundred looks to Labour for a miracle cure. One in a hundred? We’re still looking for him, and we can’t find him. Perhaps he’s the result of the statisticians rounding up.

    I’ll tell you one thing about Britain today. We can expect a strong recovery. It may already have started. All the country is waiting for now is the confidence that would follow a Conservative victory. And on April 10th the whole world of industry and commerce will do two things. Breathe a sigh of relief that the threat of Socialism is gone – and then begin to invest.

    Don’t Throw It Away

    I warn the people. Don’t fall into Labour’s trap. Don’t sleep walk into Thursday. This is not a by-election. It will determine who forms a government on Friday and who governs our country for five years. Don’t let the short-term problems of recession, which so many other countries are feeling, blind you to the long-term truth. Don’t throw away the policies – the astoundingly successful policies – of the last 13 years in an idle moment. Because once you have let them go, you can’t begin to get them back for another five years.

    Just remember. You don’t cut down a mighty oak at the start of spring because its leaves are yet to show. And you don’t turn from free enterprise to Socialism because the world economy has caught a cold.

    The Achievements of Conservative Britain

    In 13 years of Conservative Britain, free enterprise Britain, proud Britain, we have cut tax by eight pence in the pound; we have controlled inflation, and made the economy grow. As a result, the spending power of the same average family man has risen, even after allowing for inflation, by £68 a week – £3500 a year more for the family budget than under Labour.

    So let’s hear it for the new wealth of Britain and what this Government has created:

    * 1000 more miles of trunk roads and motorways; 750 miles of railway electrified; more than 100 communities transformed by new bypasses;

    * record resources for the Health Service and for pupils in our schools;

    * four million new homeowners;

    * four-and-a-half million young people with personal pensions;

    * six million shareholders in privatised companies;

    * social security and support for pensioners and disabled people is better than at any time in our history.

    We have finer public services than we have ever had – and through the Citizen’s Charter we are going to improve them still further.

    And we also have a sea change in the living standards of the average family. So let’s hear it for a successful, low tax economy.

    Let’s hear it for the fact that the number of homes without central heating has been halved. Six homes in seven now have washing machines. Seven in eight a telephone. Four out five a freezer. Huge new industries in home computers, videos, and compact discs have grown up. The number of cars per head of the population is up by a quarter. The number of holidays taken by British people almost doubled.

    These things didn’t rain down from heaven. They had to be worked for. And they were made possible by that growth in the wealth of the average man which our policies allow. We are creating in this country a new commonwealth – in which wealth and ownership are for all, not for the few. In our time Britons have earned more, owned more, achieved more than at any time in history. So let’s hear it for our wealth creators that make welfare possible.

    Thirteen wasted years? There have never been 13 more productive years in modern British history.

    So Labour call this failure. Failure? It’s a miraculous, historic success. It’s the rebirth of ‘Made in Britain’ as a label of pride. It’s what the people of Britain have worked for. It’s what the people of Britain can expect more of when recovery comes. It’s what a Conservative government will let you keep. It’s what a Labour Government would tax away.

    Ladies and gentlemen, Labour are the masters of blame and shame, doom and gloom. They want us to forget the successes of the Tory years. They want us to close off the prospect of a golden future for us all.

    So just let me remind you of this. In five years of struggle and strife, in five years of cuts in the health service, strikes in the graveyards, scorn in the international arena, Labour managed to raise the living standards of the average family man by just £2 a week. Just £2 a week in five years. And they actually cut the living standards of single people and married women across every level of earnings. Socialism equals conflict equals poverty equals the past. Remember those things on Thursday. Say to yourselves: “Never again”.

    Wealth For All the People

    Ladies and gentlemen, many people come up the hard way – they know what it is to scrimp and to save, they know what it means when you can do more for your family and children. And let me tell you what it does mean – personal pride, personal dignity, personal satisfaction, personal choice – for the person’s own family.

    We’re not divisive and dismissive like Labour. To be a modern Conservative is not to be against some of the people; it is to be for all of the people. If there is one thing that Conservative Government will do, it is to allow more people more money to buy, to own, to save and to leave more for their children and grandchildren. It is right that families want to create a better home and a better life. These are proper instincts, natural instincts, not selfish ones. And we will defend them to the last. For it is from the ambitions and efforts of millions that the wealth of the nation and the resources of our great public services grow.

    What we have shown in the ’80s is that you can have lower tax and more investment. The modern Britain is not an uncaring Britain – and the Labour politicians who make that charge have no understanding of the fellow countrymen they want to control. Uncaring Britain? Where its citizens respond more generously than any other country to international appeals. Uncaring Britain? Who has the finest, best funded charities in the world. Uncaring Britain? Where the Health Service has more doctors and nurses today than ever before, more patients treated, more money spent, shorter waiting lists. That’s not an uncaring Britain. It’s a Britain that cares. And it will see off a Party that scares.

    That is the biggest divide between the Parties in Britain today. Labour fought against wider, family ownership – and they’re against it still. They can take the Socialism out of their manifesto, but they can’t take it out of their souls.

    They have policies that – as we saw last Wednesday – would force down the values of the privatised shares people own. They have tax policies that would force down the value of the homes people own. They have policies that would destroy the value of the pensions people own.

    I have warned the people – and I warn them again. In a Labour Britain I warn you not to be successful. I warn you not to be ambitious. I warn you not to have a second pension. I warn you not to own shares. I warn you not to own a home.

    The Labour Leader has a word for those who want to do something extra for their families – to provide personal care. He calls it a sin. ‘A sin, a sin, a sin’. Was ever casual word more revealing? A sin, he calls it. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not a sin, not a sin for parents to do more for their children, children more for their parents. It is right for people to do more for those they love. It is the natural instinct of the family. It’s our natural instinct, too.

    A Greater, Better Britain

    There is a choice before you about Britain’s future. Let me tell you about the sort of life I want for every family.

    Inflation heading towards zero; prices steady; taxes coming down again; more money in the pockets of the people; growth well under way, so overtime and extra earnings are back in business; a strong pound which holds its value; the right to a postal ballot whenever union bosses try to call a strike; and never, ever any threat from flying pickets at the factory gate; good state schools, that get the basics right, bringing the best out of each and every child, not controlled by the council, but run by the Head teacher, governors and parents; a modern, expanding health service there behind you, more say for your GP in how the best care should be given, and more successful trust hospitals cutting waiting times and performing more operations than ever before; the chance for everyone to buy their home, falling mortgage rates whenever we can bring them down, strong recovery, meaning a pick-up in house prices, and growth in the value of your privatisation shares; millions more people with second pensions of their own and the chance for every family to pass on to their children the fruits of a lifetime’s work.

    That’s what I want for Britain in the 1990s. That is the choice you should make.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot express to you what I owe to this country and what it has done for me. In the next five years, if you continue to give me your trust as your Prime Minister, I will do all I can to repay that debt. I want to make Britain a greater, better place.

    But if we succeed in that, as I know we will, it is not the government, not the council, not the trade union who will do it. It is you. And you. And you. It is the people of this country, given their chance, given their choice, given their head, who will find the space to grow and the sky to aim for.

    That is the country I want. That is what is at stake on Thursday.

    A country which will lead the world in the respect it carries and the values it spreads. We are that country. Let us stay that country.

    What I want is a country of real opportunity, where every one of our people is free to choose. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Wealth and welfare hand in hand.

    If that’s what you care for, if that’s what you fight for, then go out with me on 9 April – and win for Britain, win for our children, win for freedom, and win for all our futures.

  • John Major – 1992 Speech on the Conservative Vision

    John Major – 1992 Speech on the Conservative Vision

    The speech made by John Major, the then Prime Minister, on 1 April 1992.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Ladies and gentlemen, on Friday 10 April 1992 the work of the next government will begin. It will be a Conservative government or it will be a Labour government. There is no other choice. If you vote Conservative you will get a Conservative government. If you vote Labour you will get a Labour government. If you vote Liberal you will get a Labour Government. That is a message that every elector must understand.

    Over sixteen months ago I started work on building the type of Britain in which I believe. You will decide whether I continue in that work – or whether to allow Labour to pull down all that British people have built since 1979.

    Let me tell you about the Conservative government I want to lead. It is not the intention of the next Conservative government simply to safeguard the achievements of the eighties – astonishing though those achievements have been.

    The aims of the new generation in the Conservative Party – the youngest cabinet this century – are set much, much higher. By the end of this decade, all that Britain has accomplished in the first thirteen years of Conservative rule will be seen in their true perspective – a magnificent beginning, but only that, a beginning, of a great nation’s historic and continuing revival. That is the pledge I give to you this evening. That is the challenge that the next Conservative government will meet and fulfil.

    The ideas we stand for – we fight for – are being adopted right across the world. Think of the political map of Europe – how it looked until quite recently. Great blocks of red interspersed with blue. Look at it now. Where have all the red blocks gone? Gone from Government almost every one. Going. Going. Gone.

    All over the world Socialism is discredited. It is fading in every part of Europe. And in Britain on 9 April we will see the red flag dying here. Let’s get out there and help it on its way.

    The New Britain

    Many people are yet to make up their minds in this Election – the ‘don’t knows’. On Election day you can’t afford to be a “don’t know”. So my message to them is ‘come and join us’. Help us build a better Britain.

    My job as Prime Minister in the 1990s will be to give millions more people a helping hand up the ladder in life – to a home of their own, more savings, more secure and well-paid jobs, a better future. I see clearly the new Britain I want to build: a classless Britain in which everyone has their full share.

    I have spoken of the Open Door Society – a nation in which more and more people can go through the doors of opportunity into a better life. To build up and to keep a piece of Britain for themselves. A Britain where what were once the privileges of the few can be enjoyed by all.

    That’s the kind of country I want to see.

    I see a Britain freed from the scourge of inflation. Where rising prices no longer eat into savings and bring misery to those on fixed incomes. My target is stable prices. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us. Where there is no levelling down, only levelling up. My aim is for parents to have the power to choose what is right for their child. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain in which there is true equality of opportunity for all. Where every boy or girl, whatever their background, can expect an education that brings out their talents to the full. Where there is no levelling down, only levelling up. My aim is for parents to have the power to choose what is right for their child. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where every family has the opportunity to own and to improve their home. Where there is no threat of credit controls, no need to depend on the council. My aim is ownership for every family – ownership for the security it brings. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where every citizen has the freedom to keep the wealth they have built from a lifetime’s work. Where there is no threat of penal taxation and no confiscation of a lifetime’s savings. My aim is for everyone to have the chance to pass on what they have built up in life to their children. That’s what people work for. That’s what people care about. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where our government plays a confident role in the world, standing for what is right. Where we don’t neglect our defences, and never give way on what is right for Britain. My aim is for Britain to be a byword – the byword – for decency, principle and freedom. Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us.

    I see a Britain where government continues to show a true responsibility for others. Where it plays its proper role in supporting those who cannot help themselves. Where we have a modern, expanding Health Service free at the point of use for all. Where we bring more help to our poorest pensioners. Where every citizen is free to walk the streets without fear of crime.

    I see a Britain where the cost of living falls and the standard of living rises. Where we don’t look to the State for answers, but to each other.

    I believe that every person wants to have more say, have more choice, be the master in their own private corner of life. That is what in these last thirteen years we have given the people. I want a Britain in which people have the incentive to work harder and produce more. That is the way – the only way – to create resources for better public services for all.

    Is that the kind of Britain you want? Then come and join us. This is no time to be a ‘don’t know’. This is a time to fight for a positive future for our country.

    Taxation: the great divide

    Ladies and gentlemen, people ask why we contrast Labour’s tax policies so often with our own. It is because here in this single issue is the great divide between the parties. We believe that people express themselves by their choices – and must be allowed to do so. When they decide how much to spend on housing, how much on holidays, or how much on a car, on pensions or insurance, they are living according to their own priorities. They are their own masters. In a free society they must remain their own masters. But Socialism always takes that freedom away.

    And when Governments or councils make those decisions for them, they are preventing people from living by their own values. Every pound left in the pay packet is a token of freedom. It offers choice. Every pound taken out of the pay packet takes away choice. In raising taxes by the record amount that they plan, Labour are not just taking away your income. They are taking away, more than ever before, the chance for ordinary people to live their life as they please. That’s why Socialist policies are so wrong, ultimately so destructive. We must never, never, never let them come back to this country.

    Labour: The Opposition

    I warn you. Look beneath the surface of Labour’s policies. You will see the cold hard truth staring at you. They haven’t changed. They have not changed. They have not changed. Let no-one think for a moment that Socialism has lost its ambition to change people’s lives. They still want people to pay up for the privilege of being told what to do. That is the badge of Socialism.

    Socialism operates like a reverse philosopher’s stone. It can change gold to base metal at a touch. Opportunity and enterprise into regulation and control. That would affect everyone. In a Labour Britain it wouldn’t just be the gold bullion that they were shipping out the country, it would be the golden tapestry of British talent – business, scientific, sporting, cultural. Going. Going. Gone. And we would all be the losers.

    It’s not just their policies for the future that give Labour’s game away. It is what they have done, what they have said. As we struggled to change Britain for the better, they struggled to stop us changing Britain for the better. You can see why they call Labour the Opposition.

    We have lowered income tax for everyone by eight pence in the pound; they opposed it. They voted against every tax cut we have introduced – the one thing on which they’ve always been consistent. And one of the many things on which they have always had the support of the Liberals.

    We gave people the right to buy council houses; they opposed it.

    We sold loss-making State industries to the public and the staff in them. We made them profitable and made millions of people new shareholders; they opposed it.

    We brought trade unions within the law, banned flying pickets and ended the closed shop; they opposed it.

    We helped millions of young people to take out personal pensions of their own; they opposed it.

    We wanted the people to be free, to have choice, to have power. To have the space to live their own lives as they wished – not as the council, the union, or the State wished. And Labour opposed us. They opposed the people’s rights. Not just once. Not by accident. But deliberately. By design. And day after day after day.

    Whatever we proposed, they opposed. It is their only political programme – to tear down all the things that the people of Britain have built. Labour are the masters of opposition. What a pity it would be now to waste all that experience.

    To every owner a warning

    “Ladies and gentlemen, as this Election approaches one point is central to the decision that everyone should take. It is this. We believe in personal ownership in a way that no other party does. We believe that people have the right to own – to enjoy the security and peace of mind it provides for them and their families. No other party shares that philosophy. Do you remember? Labour did everything in their power to stop the people having the right to own. And still do, whenever and wherever they can.

    Let no-one out there who gained in the ’80s ever forget it. Four million new homeowners; four and a half million young people with personal pensions; six million shareholders in the State companies we sold to the people. Many of those must be in this audience tonight.

    I warn each of you. Just stop, listen, and think. Look at your children and ask yourself this. Dare you trust your home, your pension, your savings, your shares – your future – to the very Labour people who fought to stop you having them at all?

    Going. Going. Gone. Is that the future you want? For the freest country in the world? Never.

    Liberals

    Ladies and gentlemen, I hear Paddy’s still round about. Sounds comfortable, doesn’t it? But don’t forget what he stands for. Policies that are close cousins to Labour’s. A special tax on petrol. What would that do to large rural areas of our country? Swingeing cuts in defence – cuts twice as big as Labour propose. What would that do to the defence of this country and our great defence industries? I’ll tell you – no defence. And no industries. And they stand for big tax increases for all – rises in income tax nationally and rises in income tax locally, too. What would that do to recovery and prosperity and jobs? It would destroy them.

    Liberal policy would crucify rural areas. Cut back our defence industries. Impose new taxes. Whatever happened to real Liberal policies. These are Labour policies – left wing policies. And anyone who is thinking of supporting the Liberals should be clear about that. Don’t let the Liberal Party be the Trojan Horse to a Labour Britain.

    Beware Mr Ashdown. He is the doorkeeper to a Labour Britain. I warn you. Don’t look at the man; look through the door. The most famous door in the world is Number 10 Downing Street. Don’t let Mr Ashdown open it for Mr Kinnock.

    Economic Recovery

    A Labour Government would stop in its tracks the one thing for which the people of Britain are waiting – economic recovery. I know that many businesses and families have been feeling the impact of the world recession. There are families in America and in Germany who feel just the same. Your concerns will never be brushed aside by me, they will always be heard.

    But they should not blind us to the underlying changes which have taken place in the British economy over the last decade. There’s a new spirit of enterprise – with management and workforce working as one to take on the competition and win. Quality, design, service are once more at the forefront. British companies are pushing forward the boundaries of innovation. Productivity has risen by leaps and bounds.

    We’ve been keeping strike records for a hundred years. Last year, the number of days lost was the lowest ever. Why? Because we’ve changed industrial relations law and we’ve changed industrial relations attitudes.

    Britain has become a magnet for overseas investment. We have as much investment from Japan as the rest of the Community put together. It’s low tax that did that. Low inflation. They’re what brought investors here. Do you think they would all have come here under a Labour Government? Do you think the confidence the Conservative Government has built up would continue under Labour?

    On top of all this, interest rates have come down. Britain’s rate of inflation is now below Germany’s – the first time that has happened since before men walked on the moon.

    But, after a generation of striving to reach that very goal, within two days, just two days, of our getting there, Labour’s John Smith said he’d be happy to see inflation rise again. He dismisses our target for Britain – stable prices – as an ‘unnecessary virtue’. Those are the words of a shallow ‘chancellor’ – shallow and blind to what matters to every housewife and pensioner in the country.

    Labour talk of recovery. But what Mr Smith is ready to add to inflation would add £2500 million to the costs of industry. And he dares to talk of a billion pound recovery package. Labour’s inflation would destroy profits, destroy companies, destroy jobs.

    What is more it now seems that Labour plan special payoffs to their big union friends. Public sector unions would be given pay increases one per cent above the going rate in private business. Whatever that rate may be? That is a recipe for higher public spending with no improvement in service. For wage spirals and for rising inflation. For the return of trade union muscle to the heart of public policy. In other words the same old Labour policies. It would be a disaster for Britain.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the foundations for recovery are in place. Let business speak for itself. Fifteen times more businessmen would increase investment under the Conservatives than they would under Labour. In fact, under Labour one in four businessmen would cut investment.

    I believe that under a Conservative Government the 1990s will usher in a new era for prosperity and for jobs. The once impossible are within reach:

    – stable prices

    – sustained industrial peace

    – free enterprise given free rein.

    Only one thing could stop it. The Labour Party – pledged to tax; to nationalise; and to give power back to the unions. That would knock recovery on the head – for this year, next year and through the nineties.

    Labour would turn recovery into slump.

    I am not prepared to see that happen – it’s not going to happen. Britain is on the brink of a breakthrough to a great future. Is the dull, dead hand of Socialism to be allowed to strangle that future? Not if I can help it. And I can. I will. With your help, I will.

    Health

    Ladies and gentlemen, we need a strong economy to sustain our spending on the National Health Service. Earlier this week I said I was taking the gloves off about the National Health Service. And I meant it. It is the national Health Service. It is not Labour’s Health Service. Well, the gloves are staying off. Because I’m not prepared to see our Labour opponents run down the work that this great service performs.

    The National Health Service has been in existence for 44 years. For 30 of those years we have had Conservative Governments. The Health Service has flourished and grown. We have cherished the National Health Service, built it, modernised it. We care for it and for those who it serves. And now we’re reforming it – not privatising it, never privatising it – to make it even more successful. To help it treat even more patients than ever before.

    They’re working, our reforms, really working. We are now treating over a million more inpatient cases and two million outpatient cases a year than we did under Labour. And why? Because we have provided more money than ever before.

    Hip replacements are up by a half. Heart, liver and heart and lung transplants have become a daily occurrence. And why? Because we have provided more money than ever before. More year after year after year than even the rashest Labour opposition ever dared promise.

    I want you all to shout from the rooftops the miracles that our doctors, nurses, and hospitals have achieved.

    And remember. The last Labour Government really did cut the Health Service. Really did cut hospital building. Really did cut nurses’ pay. And pushed the waiting lists up to an all-time high – the most shameful record even in their sorry history. The Conservative Party will take no lectures from them.

    I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, their exploitation of the Health Service shows up the real face of Labour. Cynical. Desperate for power. The ‘anything for office’ syndrome. These are people ready even to exploit and distort the case of one sick child in order to blacken the image of one great service and all who work in it. Nothing matters to Labour except that it should ‘serve their purpose’.

    I give the people of Britain this promise. Any government I lead will make the National Health Service, ever better, ever stronger, ever more able to tackle the huge challenges of modern health care. It’s not our Health Service. It’s your Health Service, yours – the people’s. And we will protect it – and we will build it up.

    Defence

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are three momentous issues which lie at the heart of this election – defence, Europe, and the future of our Kingdom.

    Ten years ago this very day a dictator gave the order for the invasion of the Falklands. That act of aggression was triumphantly reversed by our armed forces. I do not think there is anyone alive who will not recall the emotions they felt as they watched those ships of the Royal Navy set sail for the South Atlantic. It was one of the boldest and most skilful expeditions ever to leave these shores. The victory they won came at heavy cost. We will never forget the courage and the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for their country, there in the South Atlantic. We will never forget. But we can give thanks for what they did. For they fought the fight that it seems must be fought by each generation – the fight for justice, for democracy, for the rights of every individual to think and breathe free.

    But ten years on what do we hear from the Labour Party – a threat from their defence spokesman to review and cut the strength of our Royal Navy. What message does that send to our armed forces?

    And what message did Labour send to those who went out nine years later to join the United Nations action against another dictator’s unprovoked aggression. They wanted to leave those troops sitting there in the desert, waiting for sanctions to drive out Saddam Hussein. Either they would still have been in the desert today or Saddam Hussein would have been sitting in Saudi Arabia.

    That is not how we see our armed forces. They deserve a better and a stronger lead. They were not easy times – for them or for any of us. I had only just become Prime Minister. And emotions stirred in all of us as we thought of the skill and daring of our pilots, and the cool professional resolve of the young men and women of the ground forces, waiting in the desert night for the order to advance.

    It is a great responsibility to lead a nation in time of war. It reinforced my passionate determination to preserve the peace in this dangerous world. But I never doubted that, whatever the challenge, our armed forces would be ready for it. And so they were. They did the job. They sent that barbarous dictator, licking his wounds, back to his lair, humiliated.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the first duty of any Government is to safeguard the defence of the realm. You can be sure that a Conservative Government, this one, the next one, every one will discharge that duty. You can take our word for that. And if you take the word of the Liberals and Labour you will know that they will cut defence, that they will risk our country. Such a course would never be for us.

    We will never take risks with our defence. One thing I learnt from the war with Iraq was the crucial importance of having the right equipment for our troops. We will make sure they get it. That’s why we have ordered the new Challenger tank for the Army; the Merlin helicopter for the Navy; the new air defence missile for the RAF. Our armed forces must remain the best armed the best supported in the world. And I promise they will be.

    The Liberals say that now the cold war is won we can hack back our armed forces to the bone – perhaps they have become too fond of one man armies. They want to cut our defence spending by a half. I tell you that would be utter folly. The story of the Falklands and Kuwait is the story of the sudden dangers that can arise in the modern world. We must stay on our guard, be prepared for the unexpected – and under this Conservative Government our armed forces will do so.

    And one other thing, ladies and gentlemen, for so long as dictators like the wicked man who rules Iraq are plotting to build a nuclear bomb, we will keep our independent nuclear deterrent. I say – and say again – we will order, build, deploy and arm that fourth Trident submarine that our armed forces tell me they need. We will not take any risk with that crucial shield.

    But I tell you who would. Labour would. They don’t say, can’t say, won’t say what their attitude on Trident would be. Because they don’t know.

    First Labour say they will build it. Then they say they won’t build it. They even say they might build it and send it floating round the world devoid of arms. What would they call it? HMS Spineless? HMS Witless? HMS Clueless?

    Ladies and gentlemen, you simply can’t trust Labour when it comes to defence. And since defence is about the most serious issue that any country has to face, you just can’t trust Labour with power.

    Europe

    Ladies and gentlemen, this Party took Britain into Europe. It is where our future lies. I said I wanted us to be at the heart of Europe. And I meant it.

    We need to complete that single market that is so vital for our industry – and we will, when we hold the Presidency of the Community later this year.

    We need to strengthen co-operation between the nation states of Europe where our common interests point us. And we will, when we hold the Presidency of the Community later this year.

    And I believe we need to extend Europe – to create a wider Europe. For the greatest benefit of the Community is not economic. It has made it inconceivable that war in Western Europe could ever again take the world to the edge of ruin. That is why I believe so passionately in widening Europe – until the Community comes to embrace Russia itself. Then we can take to the countries of the East that gift of peace that today we in the West take so much for granted. It may not happen in our political lifetime – but it will happen. And I will do everything I can to help it on its way. And when that new Europe has been built from Britain to the Urals, then we will have built a secure life for the next generation that will be greater than we have ever seen before.

    That’s what I want to see happen in Europe. That is my vision for Europe. But that vision doesn’t mean we have to be uncritical about how Europe now is. When you’re dealing with Europe you need to pitch in there fighting – fighting for Britain as well as for Europe. With a Conservative government Britain will always come before Brussels.

    That’s what Douglas Hurd and I did at Maastricht – fight for Britain in Europe. They were tough negotiations – but we got the right result for Britain. Just imagine what would have happened if we had a Labour Government. They wouldn’t have spoken for Britain; they would have broken Britain.

    There are just three words in Labour’s vocabulary for Europe – oui, si, and jawohl. Well, let me offer you a fourth absolutely vital word to defend Britain’s interests – no. Can anyone imagine Mr Kinnock saying anything so short?

    Labour has been wrong on all the critical issues of defence and foreign policy in our time. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I warn the people of Britain. Men who have been so wrong so often on so much would find it hard to break the habit of a lifetime.

    Ladies and gentlemen, these great issues of our time call for a clear head and a steady hand. You need consistency. Conviction. Coherence. You need experience. You need judgement. The one thing you don’t need is Labour.

    The Union

    Ladies and gentlemen, I want to turn to one of the greatest threats the United Kingdom has faced for generations. I don’t think the British people have yet woken up to the danger that Labour and Liberal policies present. To create a new tax-raising Parliament in Scotland would cause the very foundations of our constitution to quake. I warn the people; it could lead to the break-up of Britain itself.

    Nothing shows more clearly the irresponsibility of Labour and Liberals alike – and how alike they are. They don’t seem concerned; they don’t seem to care. They would diminish our Westminster Parliament. The end result of their policies would be a disunited Kingdom in a United States of Europe. A United States of Europe? That means a federal Europe. The people of Britain don’t want a disunited Kingdom; and they won’t accept a federal Europe. But I warn the people. If they vote Labour or Liberal that is what they will get.

    They will get a federal Europe taking powers away from Westminster. They will get a tax raising parliament in Scotland taking powers away from Westminster. And they will get federal assemblies throughout England and Wales taking powers away from Westminster. Is that what people want for the Westminster Parliament? To strip it of authority and influence. But that’s what they will get if they vote Liberal or Labour. I warn the people.

    Ladies and gentlemen, thirteen years ago the Labour Leader fought against devolution. If I had to use any label, he said, I would call myself a Unionist. Not the label I would use for him. Now he tells us – and I quote: ‘I think that people can trust my word and attitude, because I’ve always been in favour of devolution.’ Was that a temporary lapse in a record of consistency? I rather think not. This is the European who ‘wanted out’ of Europe just a few years ago. This is the man who talks of defence but campaigned for years to disarm our country in the face of the Soviet threat.

    Ladies and gentlemen, do words mean anything to this man? He’s the chameleon of politics. Consistent only in his inconsistency. Wouldn’t it make a nice change to find an issue on which he hadn’t changed, for a change?

    Conclusion

    Never forget. In spite of a world recession we’re on course for a better life, a more secure life. We’ve learnt what to avoid and what to strive for. We’ve learnt to protect the weak, to encourage the young, to care for the old, and to keep our cities clean and our country safe, safe from attack on our values and our principles from without and within.

    Ladies and gentlemen, there are three great issues at the heart of this Election. Little debated, so far. But fundamental to the very fabric of our lives, about which I warn the people, warn them before it is too late. I speak the defence of our country, our place in Europe, the very survival of the United Kingdom. None of these would be safe in the hands of a Labour Government.

    Labour and Liberals in office would give Scotland and Wales devolution without even a referendum. They have said so. And in Europe whatever Brussels asked for Brussels would get. That, too, is abundantly clear.

    The breaking up of our United Kingdom and abject surrender to the most extreme demands of the European Commission, along with the defence of the realm, these things go to the very heart of our constitution. The future of our country takes precedence over every other consideration, even Party allegiance. On these things Labour is not to be trusted. I warn the people.

    The Conservative case is not nourished by dogma. The Conservative case does not assert theories discarded by most of the civilised world. To be a modern Conservative is not to be against some of the people; it is to be for all the people.

    Our standards and values are Britain’s heritage. It is we who are the traditional builders of national recovery and renewal.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a critical, vital Election. None of us can afford to stay on the sidelines. To be a ‘don’t know’ may well be enough at certain elections. Not this one. What is at stake is the future of Britain. From such a contest no-one can stand aside.

    I urge all Conservatives and those who are broadly in sympathy with us to talk to any who are still uncertain. Remind them what we Conservatives stand for and what we believe in. A country of real opportunity. A country with a head. And a country with a heart. Open their eyes to the threat that our opponents present to their lives. Warn the people. And turn the ‘don’t knows’ into ‘now I know.’

    Tell them to vote for the team with experience. Vote for the team that will help recovery, not kill it. Vote for the team that will unite the country, not divide it. Vote for the team that will keep your family safe, not sorry. Vote for the team you can trust. Tell them those things – and on April 9th they will vote for a Conservative future.

  • Anthony Meyer – 1972 Speech on the Rule of Law

    Anthony Meyer – 1972 Speech on the Rule of Law

    The speech made by Anthony Meyer, the then Conservative MP for Flint West, in the House of Commons on 1 December 1972.

    I beg to move,

    That this House reaffirms its view that strict observance of the law, both by Government and by individuals and organisations within the State, is essential to the maintenance of political freedom, and to the protection of minorities, including dissentient minorities; and repudiates the doctrine that it is in any circumstances justifiable in a free society for any individual or organisation to reject any law.
    I shall not speak today about crime and punishment. I know that this is a matter very close to people’s hearts. They are worried sick about the apparently inexorable rise in the number of violent crimes. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is tackling this problem with courage, imagination and humanity. If things can be made better by a judicious mixture of stiffer penalties and more certain detection and—perhaps rather more to the point—more certain conviction, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will find the right mixture. At any rate, he will not forget that the more we stiffen penalties the harder it is to secure convictions. That is one aspect of the rule of law.

    However, this morning I want to talk about a rather different aspect, namely, the rule of law as the protector not of our lives and property but of our freedom.

    The rule of law is a two-sided coin. We cannot split it down the middle. On one side is the restraint which the law imposes on the exercise of arbitrary or tyrannous power by the Government, and on the other the restraint which the law imposes on individuals, sections or interests within the community.

    I propose to argue that the rule of law in this double sense is one of only two guarantees of our political freedom. The other guarantee, of course, is Parliament. At the risk of shocking some hon. Members, I must say that the rule of law is a more reliable and certain guarantee of our freedom even than a free Parliament—this Parliament or any other.

    A lot of people say that the most valuable gift which Britain gave to the overseas peoples which once she ruled was that of parliamentary democracy. If so, that gift has been frittered away, because in most of black Africa parliamentary democracy in any meaningful sense has disappeared. It is, however, still alive, and in rather more than a purely formal sense, in both South Africa and Rhodesia. Does this prove that those two countries are free? Parliamentary democracy has disappeared, or is apt to disappear, in Zambia, Tanzania, Ghana, Nigeria and, from time to time, Pakistan. Does this prove that they are not free countries?

    If we go by the definition of Sir Ivor Jennings—he was no Right-wing imperialist—there can be no doubt. His definition was:

    “The test of a free country is to examine the status of the body that corresponds to His Majesty’s Opposition.”

    On that definition, South Africa is in the clear and Nigeria very definitely is not.

    But Britain bequeathed another gift to her former colonies—the rule of law. This has shown a somewhat tougher will to survive. In only a few of the countries of black Africa—of which Zanzibar and Uganda are the most notorious—is the rule of law entirely extinct. To the extent that the rule of law survives in, say, Kenya, Nigeria or Tanzania—that is, to the extent that judges in those countries are able to exercise any kind of control or restraint on the Executive or on arbitrary actions by the Executive—Kenya, Nigeria or Tanzania can stake some kind of claim to be as free as South Africa or Rhodesia, where the powers of judges to check the Executive still exist but are being eroded.

    It is not surprising that the rule of law should be at least as effective a barrier to tyranny as is a free Parliament. Parliaments are emanations of the popular will, and there are some hon. Members who consider that this Parliament ought to reflect more closely the popular will as manifested by the Daily Express. At times of real crisis, when popular emotions are overwhelming, Parliaments are sometimes very ready to entrust the nation’s liberties to a strong man. It was not so difficult to get the Reichstag to hand over full powers to Hitler; it was not difficult to get the French Assembly to hand over full powers to Petain, and, for that matter, it did not take us very long to decide to suspend the forms of parliamentary democracy in Northern Ireland. I do dispute that decision, but we did not take very long over it. For reasons which are not particularly discreditable, democratic parliamentarians are not infallible defenders of political freedom.

    Lawyers, on the other hand—and this does them no particular credit—have a vested interest in the maintenance of free institutions. Quite simply, they make their money and their reputations out of them. Blocking the actions of government, whether on behalf of some giant corporation or some obstinate individual, can be highly profitable to a lawyer, and it is no less profitable to assist the Government to attain their ends. There are rich pickings all round.

    A dictatorship governing by decree is very much less in need of lawyers. A dictatorship which snaps even the thin cobweb bonds of its own decrees, as in Zanzibar or Uganda, has no need of lawyers at all. All it needs is the infamous “people’s courts” to destroy any individual or organisation which ventures to defy the current orthodoxy. In such a system of “justice” there is no need even of professional judges. The “people’s courts,” which are nothing better than institutionalised lynchings, are a grim reminder that we do not make justice either more perfect or a better guardian of liberty by bringing it more closely into line with the public will. On the contrary, the best hope of enlarging the area of freedom in a society which has lost it lies in the attempts of a shattered legal profession to rebuild its prestige and its fortunes. I have always felt that the best hope of improving things in the Soviet Union is to build on the gradually increasing prestige of the legal profession there—interpreting Soviet law, true, but gradually acclimatising people to the idea that the State must at the very least obey its own laws.

    It would be unwise to project such hopes too far, as the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) has pointed out in his admirable book on Communism and the law. I have argued that the rule of law, in the sense that the actions of the Executive must be subject to check by the judiciary, is at least as important a guarantee of political freedom as is the existence of parliamentary institutions, and that dictatorships have found it easier to destroy parliaments than to destroy the law.

    It was this aspect of the rule of law which concerned the two foremost writers on the subject, A. W. Dicey and Sir Ivor Jennings. Although they wrote from diametrically opposite political viewpoints they were both almost entirely concerned with the control which law ought to exert over Government. In neither writer do we find much awareness of the other side of the coin, namely the obligation of groups or individuals within the State to submit to the law. Yet throughout the free world the problem is not so much of Governments which are too strong but—and this is astonishing in an age of high technology and mass propaganda—that Governments are too weak to defend the general interest against the particular interest. In some ways the need today is to reverse the events leading to Magna Carta. Some of the barons have grown more powerful than the king.

    As the Home Secretary said in his magnificent speech to the Conservative Party conference:

    “The law and its proper enforcement are not the enemies of freedom; they are the very conditions of its existence.”

    In the free world freedom is threatened today not by the arbitrary exercise of State powers but by the actions of certain minority groups. Some of them—hi-jackers, bomb-throwers, and urban guerrillas—are out to destroy the law and to impose on us all some kind of unnamed and insane dictatorship.

    At the opposite extreme are those normally law-abiding citizens—trade union leaders who refuse to accept the Industrial Relations Act and respectable local government leaders who refuse to operate the Housing Finance Act. As a Welsh Member I may be permitted to put into this same gallery of high-minded, wrong-headed lawbreakers the young hotheads of the Welsh Language Society who give such headaches to the Marylebone magistrates.

    Between the wholly detestable terrorists and the respectable non-conformists—the trade unions, the local government leaders and the Welsh Language Society—there is the larger, rather more equivocal group of extremist militants who do not set out to destroy the law on principle but who will readily break the law, and break it repeatedly, rather than abate their claims. Let us be in no doubt about the dangers that these people represent, however inherently justifiable their claims may be.

    It is because this brand of law-breaking—this readiness to break the law rather than abate one’s claims—has become the norm in Northern Ireland that the province has become almost ungovernable. If the tendency is allowed to spread in the rest of Britain—if moderate opinion comes to acquiesce in continued defiance of the law by militants—then the whole of Britain will become ungovernable. No one has perceived this more clearly or expressed it more sharply than Mr. Victor Feather who recently said:

    “Violence and disorder is the certain road to self-destruction. It is that which brings disaster, and if it is not checked, leads to dictatorship.”

    The terrorists and the bomb-throwers are not the most dangerous threat to our future. We are not so craven that we can be frightened into acquiescing in their rejection of the law. The worst that they can do is to call into being a counter-terrorism more substantial than their own. The extremist militants, on the other hand, pushing their claims to the cliff-edge of legality and beyond, represent a much more formidable threat. The greatest danger of all comes from those pillars of rectitude and of the Establishment, who, as the leaders of great trade unions or powerful local authorities, so intensely dislike a particular Act that they will openly defy it and call on others to do so. Only these people could make defiance of the law respectable, normal, unremarkable.

    The Leader of the Opposition has now publicly set his face against this sort of development. Perhaps he will now go further and urge trade unions and local authorities actively to co-operate with the law. We would be wise to do so. Strict support of the rule of law—indeed, active co-operation with the law—is even more important to the party opposite than it is to my own. It is they rather than we who believe in making men good by Act of Parliament, or making society perfect by Act of Parliament. It is they rather than we who believe in the declaratory value of Acts of Parliament such as the Race Relations Act.

    So I say to those very few members of the Labour Party who have been encouraging trade unions or local authorities to defy the law, “Do you not realise that, by naturalising the idea that we can obey the law or not as we choose, you are thereby frustrating your own long-term ends? Are you not going to need the full apparatus of the law if ever, which God forbid, your turn comes to impose upon us all your highly uncongenial remedies?”

    I could address the same argument to the muddle-headed idealists of the Welsh Language Society. A quarter of the population of Wales speak Welsh. The number is showing a tendency to increase, because education authorities throughout Wales faithfully interpret the requirements of the Welsh Language Act to increase the amount of Welsh teaching in schools.

    Now we have the report of the Bowen Committee on bilingual road signs. The three-quarters of non-Welsh-speaking Welshmen will be required to accept bilingual road signs to satisfy the perfectly legitimate desire of the quarter of Welsh-speaking Welshmen. This whole exercise depends for its success entirely on the acceptance by that three-quarters of a legal requirement which benefits them not at all. But if the Welsh Language Society extremists had succeeded in their efforts to bring the law into disrepute they would have destroyed their best hope of achieving the end they seek.

    I have argued that the rule of law is so essential to the maintenance of our liberties—both in the sense of restraining the arbitrary use of power by the Executive and in the sense of enabling the Executive to defend the public interest and public freedom against the anarchic or tyrannous pressures of determined minorities—that it should be upheld at all costs, and that hon. Members on both sides should never allow themselves to connive at deliberate breaches of the law.

    Of course, this does not mean that the Government have but to pass laws and apply them and we have all but to obey The rule of law, however essential to the maintenance of our liberties, will in fact be in danger if the laws themselves are absolutely intolerable to a majority or to a very large, coherent and determined minority. The Government must at all times have regard not to the popularity but to the acceptability of their laws, if only because if they do not, the courts, particularly courts with juries, will not apply the law.

    But, be that as it may, once the rule of law begins to crumble, the end not just of Parliamentary democracy but of freedom itself is very near. That is why it is so important that the House should today remove any possible doubt as to where it stands on this issue by accepting my motion.

  • Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Statement on the UK-South Korea Trade Agreement

    Kemi Badenoch – 2022 Statement on the UK-South Korea Trade Agreement

    The statement made by Kemi Badenoch, the Secretary of State for International Trade, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    Today the Department for International Trade has launched a public call for input on a future free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and South Korea. The call for input can be accessed via the following link— https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/trade-with-south-korea-call-for-input.

    The UK is committed to building on our strong, existing trade and investment relationship with South Korea. South Korea is our 20th largest trade partner with bilateral trade worth £14.3 billion in 2021.

    The UK’s current trade relationship with South Korea is based on the EU-South Korea trade agreement, which was negotiated by the European Commission in 2011 and, after a further negotiation, formed the basis of the UK-Korea trade agreement on 1 January 2021. We now have the opportunity to update the agreement, ensuring it is a modern and fit-for-purpose arrangement that meets the specific needs of the UK. This will include important areas such as digital trade, enhanced climate provisions and further support for small and medium-sized businesses.

    South Korea was the world’s 10th largest economy in terms of GDP in 2021, with a population of almost 52 million people. An updated agreement could provide the UK with the opportunity to increase the value of UK exports to South Korea, which were worth £8.1 billion in 2021. With updated modern provisions the UK can seek to expand our key exports in digital, business and financial services, contributing to domestic growth at a time of global economic hardship.

    Opening discussions towards a modern deal will assist both nations to take an ambitious, progressive, and sustainable step towards shared growth and job creation. As two countries with a strong record of co-operation, resting on shared democratic values, a bespoke trade agreement will provide a foundation for further growth in our trading relationship.

    The Government have been clear that when we are negotiating trade deals, the NHS will not be on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. The services the NHS provides will not be on the table. We will not agree measures which undermine the Government’s ability to deliver on our manifesto commitments to the NHS.

    As we committed to in our manifesto, in all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.

    The call for input will run for eight weeks and invite businesses, public sector bodies, individuals, and other interested stakeholders to set out their priorities for a closer trading relationship with South Korea.

    The information that the Government receive through this exercise will be crucial in shaping our approach to negotiations and our priorities and objectives, ensuring that our final approach is informed by stakeholder needs and the demands of the British economy.

    Next steps

    The UK and South Korean Governments share a desire to develop closer ties and we have jointly agreed to aim to launch negotiations as soon as possible next year, after we have fully reflected on the results of the call for input and developed a negotiating mandate. Prior to launching negotiations, the UK Government will publish their approach to negotiations. This will include a response to the call for input and our strategic objectives, as well as an economic scoping assessment. We will continue to keep Parliament, the devolved Administrations, UK citizens and businesses updated, as we make progress towards seizing the opportunities presented by a new, modern trade agreement with South Korea.

  • Neil O’Brien – 2022 Statement on Delaying Advertising Restrictions on Food

    Neil O’Brien – 2022 Statement on Delaying Advertising Restrictions on Food

    The statement made by Neil O’Brien, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    The Government are delaying the implementation of the introduction of further advertising restrictions on TV and online for less healthy food and drink products until 1 October 2025.

    Due to a delay to Royal Assent of the Health and Care Act 2022, and recognition that industry needs more time to prepare for the restrictions, in May 2022, Government announced a year delay to the implementation of these restrictions to 1 January 2024.

    However feedback from industry and the regulators is now clear that there is insufficient time to prepare for implementation on the previously announced date of 1 January 2024.

    This is because ahead of implementation there are a number of steps that need to be taken including: a Government consultation on draft regulations that are required to set out the details of the advertising restrictions, such as the definition of product categories in scope of the advertising restrictions and the definition of the exemptions for small and medium enterprises, audio only content and services connected to regulated radio; the subsequent making of such regulations; a consultation from the statutory regulator (Ofcom) on the designation of a frontline regulator; the possible designation of a frontline regulator by Ofcom; and publication of guidance to support business compliance with advertising restrictions, following consultation on such guidance from the frontline regulator.

    Through discussions with key stakeholders it is clear that this process cannot be delivered by January 2024.

    We have listened carefully to the concerns raised by advertisers, broadcasters and regulators about the importance of having sufficient time with these documents to fully prepare and restructure their advertising. We also recognise that businesses need time to reformulate their products. This is why we have decided to delay implementation of this policy until 1 October 2025.

    Parliament included a power in the Health and Care Act to delay implementation of the advertising restrictions if necessary. We will be utilising this power to amend the date of implementation for the advertising restrictions by secondary legislation, which we are laying today.

    To illustrate our commitment to this policy, we are also launching a consultation on the definitions included in secondary legislation, to provide detail to that included in the Health and Care Act. This consultation will run for 16 weeks, until 31 March 2023.

    This consultation will not be inviting opinions on the policy or looking to deviate from anything announced in the consultation response in June 2021—it will be to confirm the clarity of the definitions used and that the text in the secondary legislation is fit for purpose.

    Addressing obesity remains a priority for the Government. Having a fit and healthy population is essential for a thriving economy and we remain committed to helping people live healthier lives.

    New regulations on out of home calorie labelling for food sold in large businesses including restaurants, cafes and takeaways came into force in April 2022 and restrictions on the promotion by location of products high in fat, salt or sugar came into force in October 2022.

  • Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2022 Speech on Sanctions Designations

    Anne-Marie Trevelyan – 2022 Speech on Sanctions Designations

    The speech made by Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    On 9 December, to mark International Anti-Corruption Day and Human Rights Day on 10 December, the UK announced a package of 30 sanctions under our global human rights, global anti-corruption and geographic sanctions regimes. Travel bans and/or asset freezes have been imposed on designated individuals and entities.

    Covering targets from 11 countries, the package demonstrates the UK’s continued determination to take action to tackle corruption and to hold to account perpetrators of human rights abuses and violations.

    Under the Global Anti-Corruption Regulations 2021, sanctions can be imposed for involvement in serious corruption, which covers bribery and misappropriation of property. The sanctions announced today include designations of individuals and entities involved in serious corruption in the western Balkans and Moldova.

    Under the Global Human Rights Regulations 2020, sanctions can be imposed for involvement in serious violations and abuses of certain human rights: the right to life, the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. The sanctions announced today include designations addressing serious violations and abuses of human rights in Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia and Uganda.

    The UK’s geographic sanctions regimes are also a powerful tool for targeting perpetrators of, and those involved in, human rights abuses and violations that involve specific countries.

    Designations announced today under our Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan and Iran regimes aim to send a strong signal about respect for human rights and the UK’s preparedness to take action. Designations under our Russia sanctions regime target those who have destabilised or threatened the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

    The UK is also using all the levers at our disposal to prevent conflict-related sexual violence and to ensure that perpetrators are held to account. This is why today some of these designations specifically address the abhorrent crimes of sexual violence.

    The full list of designations is as follows:

    Western Balkans

    Slobodan Tesic: Serbia/Bosnia, dealer of arms and munitions in the Balkans

    Milan Radojcic: Kosovo, Vice President of Serb List (SL)

    Zvonko Veselinovic: Kosovo, businessman and leader of an organised crime group

    Moldova

    Vladimir Plahotniuc: businessman and former chairman of the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM)

    Han Shor: businessman and Member of Parliament and chairman of the Sor Party Nicaragua

    Yohaira Hernandez Chirino: Deputy Mayor of Matagalpa

    Sadrach Zelodon Rocha: Mayor of Matagalpa Pakistan

    Mian Abdul Haq: cleric of Barchundi Sharif shrine

    Russia

    Colonel Ramil Rakhmatulovic Ibatullin: Commander of the 90th Guards Tank Division

    Valentin Aleksandrovich Oparin: Major of Justice and an investigator of the 534 Military Investigation Department of the Armed Forces of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation

    Artur Rinatovich Shambazov: former senior detective in the main department for the protection of national statehood of the Ukrainian security service (SBU) in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea

    Andrey Vyacheslavovich Tishenin: former senior detective in Ukrainian security service and former officer in Russian federal security service in Crimea

    Oleg Vladmirovich Tkachenko: former head of the Department for Public Prosecutors for the Rostov region

    Uganda

    Kale Kayihura: former Inspector General of the Ugandan Police Force

    Mali

    Katiba Macina: jihadist armed group in Mali led by Amadou Kouffa and founding member of the AQ-aligned JNIM terror group

    Myanmar

    33rd Light Infantry Division of Myanmar Army: part of the Myanmar armed forces under the command of Brigadier-General Aung Aung

    99 Light Infantry of Myanmar Army: part of the Myanmar armed forces under the leadership of Brigadier-General Than Oo

    Office of the Chief of Military and Security Affairs (OCMSA)

    South Sudan

    Gordon Koang Biel: County Commissioner for Koch, Unity State

    Gatluak Nyang Hoth: County Commissioner for Mayendit, Unity State

    Iran

    Iman Afshari: Presiding Judge of Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court

    Ali Alghasimehr: Public Prosecutor of the Revolutionary Court of Shiraz and Chief Justice of Fars province

    Mohamed-Reza Amouzad: Presiding Judge of Branch 28 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court

    Allah Karam Azizi: Head of Rajaei Shahr prison

    Hassan Babaei: member of the Iranian Judiciary in Tehran province

    Ali Cheharmahali: former Director of Greater Tehran Penitentiary and former Director of Evin prison

    Mousa Gazanfarabad: former Head of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran

    Seyed Ali Mazloum: Presiding Judge of Branch 29 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court

    Mustafa Mohebi: former Director of the Prisons Organisation in Tehran

    Gholamreza Ziyayi: former Director of Evin prison and Director of Raja’i Shahr prison

  • Julia Lopez – 2022 Speech on App Security

    Julia Lopez – 2022 Speech on App Security

    The speech made by Julia Lopez, the Minister of State at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have published two documents titled “Code of Practice for App Store Operators and App Developers” and “Call for Views Response on App Security and Privacy Interventions”. This follows on from a call for views held between 4 May and 29 June 2022 where we sought feedback on our proposed interventions to protect users’ security and privacy from malicious and poorly developed apps.

    We are publishing a world-first voluntary code of practice that sets minimum security and privacy requirements for app store operators and app developers. Given that people’s lives are dependent on apps to use services, such as online banking, health and entertainment services, this code is essential as malicious and poorly designed apps continue to be accessible to users on app stores which can result in the loss of personal data, money and access to devices. This work will help deliver an objective within the national cyber strategy to reduce the cyber risk at source by ensuring that app stores—and app developers—follow better levels of cyber security.

    This code will improve the security and privacy practices of both developers and operators and therefore ensure that apps are more suitably built. The code, and the eight principles within it, have been informed by feedback from operators, developers and security experts following the call for views, and received support from a vast majority of respondents. It has been thoroughly tested to ensure it strikes an appropriate balance in protecting users whilst also not overly burdening operators and developers. Furthermore, the code will ensure that more information about an app’s data practices is conveyed to users so they can make informed decisions when deciding whether to download an app.

    Given the global nature of cyber security issues and digital markets, we plan to prioritise creating international alignment on the code’s security and privacy requirements. We will do this by engaging with international counterparts to promote the need for the requirements, particularly in the context of future competition regulation, and explore the viability of creating an international standard based on the code.

    I will place a copy of both the “Code of Practice for App Store Operators and App Developers” and “Call for Views Response on App Security and Privacy Interventions” in the Libraries of both Houses.