UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the Offshore Northern Seas Conference

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the Offshore Northern Seas Conference

    The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 29 August 2022.

    Your Royal Highness, Mr. Prime Minister!

    Dear businessmen present!

    Dear Mr. Elon Musk!

    Dear friends!

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    I am grateful to each and every one of you who is present for the opportunity to talk and for the opportunity to participate in this important discussion.

    I’m sure you are well informed about the situation in Europe, about the risks – I heard you talked about them now – that we all face now in addition to the brutal terrorist war that Russia is waging against our citizens, our state, against our independence. And it is important to know that this is the independence of all other European states. This is a war for independence as such.

    We all see how destabilized the gas market is. We all see how European countries are revising their plans for coal, coal-fired power plants. We can all see that the threat of energy poverty is becoming real for tens of millions of people in Europe, who until recently could afford normal energy consumption. We all see that the price of energy is so high that thousands of businesses have gone into crisis. And this leads to a reduction in jobs and a drop in workers’ incomes. And in winter, energy prices can rise even more…

    We all see that for the first time since 1986, when the Chornobyl tragedy occurred, we have to consider as seriously as possible the scenarios for countering the radiation disaster that Russia is bringing closer with its terror at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. These are all well-known facts. But what do they testify to?

    People often draw completely different conclusions from the same facts – some are right, and some are wrong. In the discussions, the opinion of the majority is determined afterwards – either right or wrong. Sometimes mistakes leave no trace. And sometimes the price of mistakes becomes very high, when erroneous conclusions lead to erroneous political decisions.

    This is what the authors of this large-scale – and completely artificial – crisis that Europe is going through are counting on. They want the Europeans to be scared. To draw wrong conclusions and give up European values in favor of illusory price reductions. Russia is using economic terror, price crisis pressure and poverty to weaken Europe just when its full force is needed to defend against terror in the war that Russia has been waging for more than six months. Full-scale war! And in general, its invasion of Ukraine has already been lasting for 8 years.

    This is what the Russian state, its officials and companies, such as Gazprom, are working for. For creating crises and for crises to turn into disasters. Right now, Russia is burning at least 10 million euros worth of gas near the Finnish border every day. Gas is being burned that should have been supplied to German and other European consumers. Russia cannot stop its production, does not want to supply it to the Europeans, as it is interested in the crisis, and has no other buyers. So it just burns this gas. Just like they burn our people.

    10 million euros on fire every day at the border of Russia is hundreds of millions of euros in additional expenses of the European middle class, ordinary workers, pensioners on energy every day as well. Because of the inflated prices on the market, because of the shortage, because of Russia trying to prevent the replenishment of European gas storages before winter.

    A normal market player would have already supplied the free volume of gas to the market. The terrorist state does everything to ensure that there is as little gas as possible on the market at the highest possible price, which leads to an increase in other prices. And this is all part of the Russian hybrid aggression against all people, against all of us, against all of you, against all of united Europe.

    And take a look at the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Why is Russia doing this? What is the purpose of the radiation blackmail for Russia? The goal is the same, completely cynical, completely deliberate – to intimidate Ukrainians, to intimidate all Europeans. To blackmail and coerce. This pressure is for Russian state propagandists and officials to say that it is allegedly not Russia to blame, that someone else created another crisis and that this someone should be influenced, and that it is allegedly necessary to negotiate with the Kremlin precisely for this reason.

    Just think about it: Russia is the only terrorist in the world who managed to turn a nuclear power plant into a battlefield and who consistently does everything to make Europe watch where the wind may blow the radiation if, God forbid, a disaster occurs.

    Most of the older generation of Norway, I think, well remember that the consequences of the accident at the Chornobyl plant were felt even in central Norway – in the area of Trondheim and in the north of your country. And for all of us, this is a terrible risk. This is a memory of the unacceptable, and for Russia it is just an additional opportunity.

    The fact is that the Russian leadership has a specific bandit’s logic – they create problems, hoping that the victims of these problems will come and try to agree on their solution, and the bandit will get something for it.

    Russia wants Europe to turn a blind eye to the war, and for this purpose it is provoking internal chaos in Europe. Russia wants to take away freedom from us by force of arms, and from you – by these crises that it creates and exacerbates. Russia wants to force you to abandon European values. Here is a correct conclusion from the available facts. And based on this conclusion, a correct policy is needed. The policy of even greater unity, as the Prime Minister has said now, unity in Europe for our common defense. The policy of even greater energy independence of Europe from Russia. The policy of even greater sanctions against Russia.

    It is not normal when there are still no blocking sanctions against Rosatom for radiation blackmail at the Zaporizhzhia NPP, for which specific Rosatom employees at the plant are also responsible. And it is not normal when any Russian citizen can get a visa to European countries to go on vacation or go shopping – we know this very well – even if he is a war criminal or helps the Russian state work against Europe. It is not normal when some European companies are still hesitant whether to leave the Russian market or not. And it is not normal when someone still hopes for cooperation with Russia in the energy sector. There can be no concessions to bandits! Only new sanction strikes against them.

    I want to give an example of Norway – an example of true principles in the defense of Europe. Despite the fact that Norway is not a member of the European Union, you joined the European sanctions against Russia. Defense and other assistance to our country from Norway is vital – we will always be grateful for it. We are glad to hear that your energy companies are increasing the volume of gas supplies to European countries, while Russia is willing to simply burn gas in order not to supply it. And we note Norway’s contribution to the development of renewable energy sources, to carbon capture and storage, to the development of batteries and hydrogen energy. Europe will become truly strong and secure from crises when all European countries become as principled as Norway.

    For its part, Ukraine can already do – and is doing – concrete things to protect our common values and normal life on the continent.

    We are fighting for freedom and for everything that Europe is based on, defending all Europeans in this war. And this is not pathos – this is the truth! We have united Europeans and helped overcome the various contradictions that have been dividing the continent for decades. We have shown what power Europe has when united and what enemies it can overcome.

    In addition, Ukraine can become – I believe it will become – one of the guarantors of the energy security of the European continent. Together with Ukraine, you will be able to prevent such price crises ever again.

    We have a unique system of gas storage facilities near the border of the European Union, with a volume of more than 30 billion cubic meters. We are asked about help. That’s how practical it is – use our gas storages already this season. Today, for example, we have a free volume of 15 billion cubic meters. Ukraine needs 3 billion of additional reserves, which we ask you to keep in Ukraine, and another 12 billion cubic meters may be the gas needed in winter for the security of all of Europe. You can help us – and this will be your help both to us and to yourself.

    Ukraine also has significant deposits of natural gas. The leadership of Russia dreamed of stealing this part of our national wealth from us as well. But we will not allow it. We invite all investors, contractors and service companies to join gas production in Ukraine. If you want to help us pragmatically, please use this tool. Obtain licenses, enter into agreements on the distribution of products, carry out exploration and drilling. We would appreciate it. Our gas fields can play the same stabilizing role for Europe as the fields of Norway in particular.

    We are preparing to increase the export of our electricity to the countries of the European Union – despite the war, during the war we ensure this export, and our electricity is much cheaper than what is currently available on the market. We can really help overcome the cost of living crisis in our neighboring EU countries.

    And we invite you to invest in the production of green energy and green hydrogen in Ukraine. Our state is one of the best locations for providing all of Europe with green energy and green hydrogen. We have everything for this – enough land, good wind, good sun, as well as ready-made energy logistics – powerful power transmission lines, gas pipelines that can be used for hydrogen – of course, after appropriate modernization.

    We are not saying for the first time that Europe’s independence from Russia, particularly in energy, is of fundamental importance to all Europeans. And we are not saying for the first time that Europe can do much more together with Ukraine than with Russia.

    We don’t want to look into the past, we don’t want to repeat who didn’t hear us. Ukraine wants us all not to lose the opportunities we have at this historical moment. Only together can we protect Europe. Only by preserving our maximum principles. And only by achieving victory in this war together.

    I thank you for your attention! Thank you!

    Glory to Ukraine!

     

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the UN Security Council

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Speech to the UN Security Council

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

    I am thankful to everyone present for this opportunity, for your support!

    Greetings from independent and free Ukraine! But from Ukraine, which is still forced to fight for its freedom against Russian terror.

    Just now, on my way to deliver this address, I received information about a Russian missile attack on the Dnipropetrovsk region, on the railway station, directly on the cars at the Chaplyne station, four passenger cars are on fire… As of now, at least 15 people have been killed, about 50 have been wounded. Rescuers are working. But, unfortunately, the number of dead may still increase.

    This is how we live every day. This is how Russia prepared for this meeting of the UN Security Council.

    Ladies and Gentlemen!

    Mr. President!

    Mr. Secretary-General!

    Dear members of the UN Security Council – all those who respect and adhere to the UN Charter!

    Today, our state celebrates the main national holiday – Independence Day. And now you all see how many things in the world are dependent precisely on the independence of our state, on whether Ukraine is at peace, whether our people are safe, whether the integrity of our territory and the inviolability of our borders are guaranteed.

    You can take any aspect of the terrible war that Russia has unleashed against us, and in every such aspect there will be the roots of one global crisis or another.

    What exactly is happening now?

    Russia has put the world on the brink of a radiation disaster. It is a fact that the Russian military made the territory of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe – the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant – a combat zone. This is a fact.

    Because of Russia’s armed provocations, because of shelling, because of the deployment of terrorists under the Russian flag on the territory of the plant. Now all of Europe and all neighboring regions are under the threat of radiation pollution. This is a fact.

    Who among you has forgotten what Chornobyl is? The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant consists of six reactors. One reactor exploded in Chornobyl.

    The IAEA mission must take permanent control of the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant as soon as possible, and Russia must unconditionally stop nuclear blackmail and completely leave the plant.

    Russia has put the world on the brink of an unprecedented famine. It is a fact that the Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov has increased the deficit in the already destabilized food market. And this is against the background of the terrible climatic situation in different parts of the planet – you can take the drought in Europe alone, the largest in 500 years.

    Fortunately, we managed to achieve such conditions under which Russia was forced to accept the terms of the international community, and thanks to this, grain exports from three Ukrainian ports were restored. This already relieves part of the tension in the food market, but does not remove the threat completely.

    Only the full recovery of Ukrainian agricultural exports without any obstacles can be a guarantee that tens of millions of people around the world will have something to eat.

    And don’t you resent the fact that even now, in the XXI century, we still have to fight to save tens of millions of people in different countries from artificial famine, precisely artificial famine, which was provoked by one state with its insane aggression? And this is also a fact.

    Ukrainians are outraged. The UN was not created to discuss in the XXI century something that should have long remained in the past.

    But, nevertheless, I am thankful to the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Guterres, and Türkiye, Mr. President, as well as all other conscientious subjects of international relations who are fighting against the food crisis, which only Russia is responsible for.

    And in the coming weeks, we must do everything to expand the existing grain export initiative.

    Let’s take another aspect – energy. It is a fact that Russia is deliberately trying to bring tens of millions of people into energy poverty. Deprive them of normal access to basic goods by deliberately raising energy prices.

    And this is done by a permanent member of the UN Security Council, who still has the privilege of veto! Energy crisis for Europe, threat of large-scale famine, political chaos for African and Asian countries, price crisis for the whole world. Isn’t too much allowed to one state, whose representative is sitting among you?

    And I will mention one more aspect – values.

    Yes, indeed, we should be honest about the fact that values are perceived differently in different parts of the world. They look at it differently. But everywhere in the world, life has value. Peace has value. Economic prosperity has value.

    All states, if they respect themselves and their people, punish murder and do not honor torturers. However, we see that there is a state that not just behaves differently, but that is proud to behave differently. It awards murderers, encourages torturers.

    And this is a threat not only for Ukraine. Thousands of Ukrainians were killed by the Russian invaders. Dozens of our cities were destroyed by Russian artillery. Russia does not adhere to basic conventions regarding prisoners of war. This was also discussed today.

    The deliberate murder by the Russian occupiers of our prisoners of war in Olenivka became one of the most dreadful pages in the history of Europe. And there is an urgent need for a UN fact-finding mission to Olenivka, whose mandate should be extended to all Ukrainian prisoners of war currently held by Russian forces.

    There is no war crime that the Russian occupiers have not yet committed on the territory of our independent state. But if we do not stop Russia now in Ukraine, if we do not stop it with the victory of Ukraine, all these Russian murderers will inevitably end up in other countries.

    Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America – traces of Russian war criminals are everywhere already, and we must all unite and act as resolutely as possible so that there are no more traces of Russian missiles and cities burned by Russian artillery anywhere else.

    So that there is never again a threat of a radiation disaster, Russia must leave the occupied territory of Ukraine.

    So that there is never a food crisis again, Russia must leave our land and our sea.

    So that no country in the world can ever again disregard the UN Charter and conventions binding on all mankind, without exception for anyone – Russia must be held accountable for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The relevant resolution will be submitted for consideration by the 77th session of the UN General Assembly.

    In order for a sense of justice to return to international relations, we must all confirm and force Russia to recognize that the inviolability of borders and peace are unconditional values for all nations.

    That is why the independence and integrity of our state are of fundamental importance for international relations. Preserving our independence, guaranteeing our security, returning normal economic ties with Ukraine will restore the true power of the UN Charter and save the world from the crises we are all forced to experience now.

    Mr. Secretary-General, Distinguished António Guterres, has the ambitious intention of organizing the Summit of the Future next year. We support this intention. And we emphasize: in order to build the future, it is necessary to leave in the trashbox of history what has always prevented humanity from living in peace, namely aggression and colonial ambitions. That is, what Russia came to Ukraine with.

    And I believe that we will really be able to build the future. It would be very nice and symbolic for such a Summit to take place in Ukraine. As it is on our territory, on the territory of Ukraine, that it is now being decided whether we will have a future at all, whether the world will have a future at all. This is being decided at the Zaporizhzhia NPP, in our seaports, in Donbas and in Crimea.

    Our independence is your security. The security of the entire free world.

    I thank you very much for this opportunity, for understanding my situation, the situation of our country. Thank you! I am grateful to the Chinese Presidency for the opportunity to participate in this meeting in an online format.

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Grant Shapps – 2022 Letter on Transport for London Funding Agreement

    Grant Shapps – 2022 Letter on Transport for London Funding Agreement

    The letter sent by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, to Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 31 August 2022.

    Text of letter (in .pdf format)

  • Kit Malthouse – 2022 Statement on the Cost of Living

    Kit Malthouse – 2022 Statement on the Cost of Living

    The statement made by Kit Malthouse, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 31 August 2022.

    My chief priority has been to make sure that we are prepared for the significant challenges we expect to face this autumn and winter, and I have held regular meetings to make sure departments maintain pace and grip on this essential work now, and in the coming months, as this will be a marathon not a sprint.

    The cost of living, driven in part by higher energy prices, is biting for individuals, families and businesses, and the NHS is already under pressure – and that’s ahead of the flu season. These risks have potentially severe impacts, stacking up on the most vulnerable people in society, and it is vital that we develop robust plans urgently to mitigate their impact and come up with solutions.

    I’ve tasked departments with identifying the key operational decisions that should be taken without delay across priority risks such as health, energy, cost of living, supply chain disruption, labour market shortages, and industrial action, that have the potential to compound together. They will also map out the key moments over the next 18 months where specific groups of society may be significantly impacted, including the clinically vulnerable, socially and economically deprived, the elderly, the young, and the disabled, and produce further options so that decisions can be made quickly once a new administration is in place.

  • Joe Biden – 2022 Statement on the Death of Mikhail Gorbachev

    Joe Biden – 2022 Statement on the Death of Mikhail Gorbachev

    The statement made by Joe Biden, the President of the United States, on 30 August 2022.

    Mikhail Gorbachev was a man of remarkable vision.

    When he came to power, the Cold War had gone on for nearly 40 years and communism for even longer, with devastating consequences. Few high-level Soviet officials had the courage to admit that things needed to change. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I saw him do that and more. As leader of the USSR, he worked with President Reagan to reduce our two countries’ nuclear arsenals, to the relief of people worldwide praying for an end to the nuclear arms race. After decades of brutal political repression, he embraced democratic reforms. He believed in glasnost and perestroika – openness and restructuring – not as mere slogans, but as the path forward for the people of the Soviet Union after so many years of isolation and deprivation.

    These were the acts of a rare leader – one with the imagination to see that a different future was possible and the courage to risk his entire career to achieve it. The result was a safer world and greater freedom for millions of people.

    Even years after leaving office, he was still deeply engaged. When Mr. Gorbachev visited the White House in 2009, he and I spoke for a long time about our countries’ ongoing work to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles. It was easy to see why so many worldwide held him in such high esteem.

    We send our deepest condolences to his family and friends, and to people everywhere who benefited from his belief in a better world.

  • Liz Truss – 2016 Speech to the Food and Drink Industry Dinner [Warning of Dangers of Brexit and Leaving Single Market]

    Liz Truss – 2016 Speech to the Food and Drink Industry Dinner [Warning of Dangers of Brexit and Leaving Single Market]

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 19 May 2016.

    Thank you very much Fiona. It’s a great pleasure to be here at the Food and Drink Federation dinner. You’re a fantastic organisation and this is a fantastic part of our economy. Food and drink is our biggest manufacturing sector. It’s bigger than cars and aerospace put together. We had a celebration at Number 10 last week where we have these fantastic posters up and we had food and drink manufacturers and producers from across the UK. And the Prime Minister gave a speech at the end of the event and he said that he knew that food and drink was our largest manufacturing sector, because I have mentioned this at Cabinet on several occasions.

    So I think the message is getting through to my Cabinet colleagues, but as we say in politics, when people are starting to get bored of a message, it’s just when you need to start repeating it even more. So I’ll be saying it even more and making that case right across our government, but also right across the wider economy, across the media, because food and drink deserves to have an even higher profile than it’s got at the moment. We have some of the world’s best chefs who are all involved in the Great British food campaign whether that’s Ken home or Angela Hartnett.

    We have some of the most innovative companies and we produce more new products every year in food and drink than France and Germany put together and we also have some of the world’s best farmers producing fantastically high yields with the best animal welfare standards in the world as well. Creating a brilliant landscape which we all enjoy, whether it’s the Lake District where I’ve been today, whether it’s the South Downs National Park, and we should be tremendously proud of what we do and that is why we launched the Great British food campaign this year. That’s also where we introduced the great British food unit, which is all about exporting our fantastic food right around the world.

    Now it’s a bit difficult before the 23rd of June, not to mention the EU referendum. I’m sure people in this room would be horrified if I didn’t talk about it. But I do think that the decision on the 23rd of June probably will have a greater impact on the food and drink industry than it would have on any other parts of the economy. That’s because if we look at trade, the food and drink industry exports 60% of all its products to the EU. If we look at particular areas like lamb, 40% of all the lamb that is produced here in the UK goes into the EU, into the EU market that represents 97% of lamb exports. Now why is that? Well, it’s because that we have the single market. And what we know is that countries outside the single market, whether it’s the US where I was recently or whether it’s China, still don’t allow quite a lot to our fantastic British food stuffs into those markets.

    And of course the great British food unit is working to get entry for new products. But that is why that European market is so precious. Because we share the same regulations, we share the same rules over things like food safety, over animal health and welfare, over bottles. And the white whiskey industry and I’ve been doing a bit of a UK tour recently, the whiskey industry will tell you how important it is that because we share those regulations over bottling labelling. They can simply export their products to Paris just as easily as they can sell them in a supermarket in Preston. Now, if we were to leave that EU single market, what that would mean is that those products would face additional costs and getting them into those markets. It would mean in some cases that we could see markets closed and I’ve had a lot of people say to me, ‘well surely the European Union won’t close its markets’. But it’s fairly recently that of course the French closed its markets to UK beef, and we had to fight in the European Court of Justice to get British beef back on French menus because there is a policing mechanism in the European single market to make sure that if a product is complying with those European rules that we’ve all agreed, then we are able to sell it. So that is a very important message.

    And this campaign has been dominated by some quite strong statements, some quite major warnings. But what I think is really important is we get the message across to people and that’s the people in your companies. It’s the people that we all work with, it’s the people in the entire food chain, which employs a massive amount of people across this country, that we get the message across about just how difficult it would become to do business. If we are a country  like Norway, we’d have to fill in 50 boxes every time on a form every time we went to export something. In products like agricultural products, there’s a regime of quotas and tariffs.

    I know how difficult it is getting products into markets like the US and China. DEFRA has just filled in an 1,000 page form which is one part of an eight stage process to get British beef and lamb and we’ve still got to get a resolution passed by Congress to allow that British lamb into the market. So I think we’ve got to be very careful about taking that single market for granted and being outside that single market, and the single market isn’t something that is a sexy, exciting thing to explain. But it is really crucial to the amount of growth we’ve seen in food and drink exports over the past 40 years. It is really crucial to that.

    The second point I want to make is about investment. And I’ve just been over in the US talking to some of our major investors. We’ve got some of our major investors in the UK economy here in this room companies like Nestle or Mondelez putting huge amounts of research, of expertise, of new capital and machinery into our economy, improving the productivity of our food and drink sector which is so vital and I’m delighted that the Food and Drink Federation is focusing on productivity. We know that’s a challenge for the UK economy.

    Now the reason many of those investors want to invest in the UK market is because we have access to 500 million consumers. Yes, the UK is a hotbed of innovation, but we are also a passport into that wider market. Now I’ve spoken to many investors who are saying that they would be concerned if they invested in the UK, whether it’s in R&D, whether it’s in capital to improve our productivity, whether it’s in new production, and I want to see more investment in areas like dairy processing capacity, I think we’ve got massive potential here in the UK. They will be worried about whether or not those investments continue to have access to the single market. And the Out Campaign has been very clear. They said they don’t want to be part of the single market. I think that’s a real worry for investment and I do want to see more capital investment in food and farming.

    And what I would say to you is there are some people in this room who said to me, yes, we are concerned about this, but we don’t want to necessarily take a position. I can understand that as businesses, but I do think it’s in all of our interests to communicate the real impact on the ground. The real impact this would have on jobs on livelihoods, because what we know is less trade would mean fewer and fewer investments. It will mean fewer jobs, and that will feed through to people’s incomes. And that doesn’t just affect you and me in this room, that affects all of us in the overall economy. So even if you’re in a company that doesn’t export, the company that does export will be buying less of your services. And I think that’s the message we really need to get across in the closing weeks of this campaign.

    But I have great faith in the British people. I think the British people are sensible people. They understand fundamentally, that economically Britain will be better off staying in a reformed EU. I’m very grateful for the Food and Drink Federation publicly coming out and saying that, of course the National Farmers Union have also come out and said that. I think getting that message across is really important over the next few weeks.

    But what I want to do is following, I hope an in vote, is to really focus on what we can do next to bring this industry up to the next level, to really make sure this industry, the biggest manufacturing industry in our economy, an industry with huge potential, because we know the demand for food is growing across the world. We know demand for high quality, healthy, innovative food is growing across the world. I think we can do even more.

    So one of the things we’re focusing on is apprenticeships. At the moment I think the average part of the economy has 2.3% of its employees in apprenticeships across food and drink. That’s just 1%, that’s partly because we have a lot of small companies in the sector. But I’m very pleased to say that recently the Department of Business has said the apprenticeship levy can be used to support jobs right through the food chain. So I think there’s a huge opportunity for food manufacturers, for supermarkets and for others involved in the food industry to support apprenticeships in primary production to support apprenticeships in other suppliers as part of that supply chain. And to really make sure we upskill the industry.

    I had a recent round-table on International Women’s Day with some fantastic women farmers who were telling me that 75% of all the people they now need to recruit have STEM skills. This is a high skill industry, it’s a technically advanced industry. And what we need to do is get that message across to the wider public so that when people think about food, they don’t just think about the brilliant chefs, the fantastic products, our great protected food names, whether it’s Halen Môn sea salt, or whether it’s Scotch smoked salmon, but they also think about some of the innovation, the technology, the precision farming, the robotics that I saw at the Mr. Kipling factory, putting together those amazing cakes, which I’ve since been selling in Washington DC. We had an event in Washington and we were selling both curry and cakes. It was an interesting combination, but it went down very well with the Americans.

    The final thing I’d like to say is about Brand Britain, because what has become clear to me when I travel the world is how appreciated the British brand is. The Union Jack on the pack really does mean something to people overseas. It stands for quality. It stands for heritage, it stands for safety, and it stands for innovation, and that is a really important message that we need to get across. We’ve been consulting extensively with our lawyers, and we can use the term British to promote our food, whether it’s by the government backed AHDB, which is the farming levy body, whether it’s by our campaigns which we run as a government, and I think what’s happening now is we’re seeing different parts of the food industry, the manufacturers, the farmers, the retailers, the hospitality industry, work much more closely together to get that message across about British food, both here in the UK, and in those overseas markets that have such huge potential.

    It’s fantastic to be here today Fiona, to celebrate your success with you but also to say that I think we’ve got huge potential over this industry. Let’s get through the 23rd of June, on the right side of the argument and then we will be launching our food and farming 25 year plan. We will be having a major food business summit where we talk about how we’re going to get more investment into the food industry. And I think this can really be an exciting springboard for the future. Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    Theresa May – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    The speech made by Theresa May at the Conservative Spring Forum on 23 March 2002.

    I’m delighted to be responding to this session at the Spring Forum – and my goodness haven’t we heard some exciting examples of how Conservatives have been working to improve their local communities – making life better in your areas.

    Over the next few weeks we all have the opportunity in the local government elections to take the message we have heard today out onto the streets and show people that up and down the country it is Conservatives who are listening to their concerns and worries, it is Conservatives that are recognising the problems in their local communities and it is Conservatives who are delivering practical solutions that meet people’s needs.

    The Conservative Party is the party that listens, that cares and that delivers – delivers for all in society, from Bromley to Bradford, from Cambridgeshire to Calderdale.

    Local authorities are responsible for a wide range of services that directly affect people’s everyday quality of life and often it is the most vulnerable in our society who depend on them most.

    Good local government is about improving people’s quality of life – about making life better.

    Just think about the impact a council has on people’s day-to-day life – imagine someone walking out of their front door. Has the uneven pavement been mended? Is the street clean or full of litter? Has the rubbish been properly collected? Do the street lights work?

    Have the potholes in the road been repaired? Has the traffic got worse since the council gave permission for that new development on the outskirts of the town? Why did they bring in that one-way system? And now of course the primary school’s full. Mrs Smith next door is worried because her husband’s still in hospital – they simply can’t get him anywhere in a care home locally because they’re all closing.

    To find answers to these problems – to make life better – councillors need to have the freedom and flexibility to make decisions that suit their local area.

    Today that power has been taken away in so many ways. This Labour Government has increased centralisation, increased bureaucracy and increased the regulations local councils have to cope with.

    Now I accept that previous Conservative governments do not have a blameless record in their approach to local government. But what started as an attempt by central government to protect people from the worst excesses of bad local councils has now, under Labour, been made a means of control, a tool for imposing Westminster’s priorities over local priorities.

    In 1997 just over 4% of a council’s funding was ring-fenced today, it is 15%. And that’s without counting the money that’s spent on the extra bureaucracy and regulations imposed from Whitehall.

    Central government telling councils how to spend your money.

    Today, local authorities are judged against close to 150 performance indicators and must agree up to 66 plans with central government. Such burdens waste money and distort priorities. 66 plans – don’t tell me they’re a tool for better government – it’s just increased bureaucracy and a way of the centre exercising control.

    And when it comes to regulations just look at the impact of the directive on fridges – enormous cost to local authorities and the risk of fridges abandoned in our streets and lanes. Abandoned cars will be next and then other white goods.

    And against this background of red tape and central control Gordon Brown has made council tax a stealth tax .

    Every year since Labour came to power they have promised that there was no need for large increases in council tax and every year council tax has gone up by three times the rate of inflation.

    This year the average increase is 8.3% – more than four times the rate of inflation.

    What’s more the government has slowly increased the amount of council’s funding that has to be paid through council tax – from 23% in 1997 to 27% today.

    People are on average paying nearly £300 more on a Band D property than when Labour came into power.

    Conservative councils are still showing that they can charge less council tax and deliver quality services.

    How many of the top 20 councils charging the highest council tax are Conservative – none.

    Looking at Band D properties, this year across every tier of local government Conservative councils cost less than Labour or LibDem councils.

    In unitary authorities Conservative councils cost £132 a year less than Lib Dem councils.

    In London Conservative councils cost £313 less than Labour councils.

    On average across all types of council Conservative councils cost £135 less than Labour councils and £159 less than Lib Dem councils.

    And which council costs most of all – Tony Blair’s own back-yard yes, Sedgefield where for Band D local people pay almost £1,200 a year.

    Increases well over inflation and shifting the burden to the council taxpayer – yet another stealth tax.

    A stealth tax that hits hardest on some of the most vulnerable in society like the elderly living on fixed incomes.

    More red tape, more paperwork, higher cost, less freedom that’s the impact of Labour on local government.

    The other day Stephen Byers department announced that government would streamline and rationalise the 66 plans they require from councils. Do you believe Stephen Byers – I certainly don’t.

    Remember the three big lies – (the cheque’s in the post, Darling I still love you, and Trust me I’m Stephen Byers).

    What better advert for New Labour could there be?

    You can’t trust him on transport, you can’t trust him on local government and you can’t trust him on planning.

    Just look at what he is promising to do.

    He’s going to grade councils as high performing, coasting, striving or poor performing, but they will be judged not by whether they are doing what people want, but by whether they are doing what the government wants.

    He’s going to introduce a new tier of regional politicians. That means he’s going to abolish county councils and have to restructure district councils at an estimated cost of £2bn – how many care home places could that fund.

    He’s heaping yet more regulation and bureaucracy on parish and town councils including a code of conduct that means parish councillors, the unpaid volunteer backbone of our rural communities, have to declare not just their interests, but the interests of their relations, including would you believe it their nephew’s partner.

    Little wonder parish councillors are threatening to resign across the country.

    And on planning he’s going to bring in a new system that will increase bureaucracy for business, reduce the voice of local communities and bring in a betterment tax that will particularly hit small local firms.

    In the annals of incompetent government Stephen Byers is a serial offender.

    From the Post Office to PPP on the Tube, from increased rights for trade unions to reduced rights for local communities on planning, from Rover to Railtrack, Byers bungles cost us all dear.

    But this Government’s interference and centralisation doesn’t just increase the paperwork in the town hall. It erodes local democracy so fewer people vote and it damages the effective delivery of public services and the ability of local councillors to respond to the needs of their local community.

    The Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions is what I call the quality of life department because with transport and local government together it is responsible for the things that so often make the difference between having a good or a bad day.

    And across the country it is Conservative councils who are making the difference in their areas.

    Just think about the problems we all face in our day to day lives.

    What is number one concern for many people today – crime or the fear of crime.

    Kent and Westminster have recognised this and delivered for local people.

    Kent County Council has introduced rural community wardens in partnership with Kent police. Westminster Council has launched a city guardian initiative to reduce crime, anti-social behaviour and breaches of public safety; and their CCTV van, staffed by trained council officers, has played a significant role in reducing levels of crime in parts of the Borough.

    Conservative councils delivering for local people.

    But fear of crime is also about the environment in which people live and work. Graffiti ridden streets increase the fear of crime and petty vandalism is often a first step in criminality. We believe that cleaning up our streets is an essential part of the war against crime.

    West Oxfordshire District Council has introduced an Environmental Hit Squad to crack down on fly tipping and fly posting. Tandridge District Council brought in a successful graffiti clean up initiative, with a £500 reward for information on perpetrators. Wandsworth Council doubled the number of litter bins on local streets all of which are emptied at least once a day and has a team of uniformed investigators who patrol the Borough enforcing laws on litter, fly-tipping and dog fouling.

    Conservative Councils delivering for local people.

    People get fed up being held up in traffic jams on the way to work – we all know how much better the roads are in the school holidays so getting school transport right matters. That’s why Runnymede Borough Council has introduced yellow school buses and Surrey County Council is soon to launch its Pegasus project for school transport for primary schools.

    Conservative Councils delivering for local people.

    People want their children to have the best start in life with a good education. Calderdale Council recognised this and has one of the most improved set of academic results at 16 years across the whole country.

    East Sussex saw the need for a new university locally – it’s just been given the go-ahead and the first students will start in Hastings University in autumn 2003.

    Conservative Councils delivering for local people.

    People also want to see deprived areas in their towns and cities being regenerated – so the quality of life of people who live there can be improved. In Bradford the council’s decision to establish a ground breaking Urban Regeneration Company was described as “the single best piece of news the district has had for many long years”. The Council is pushing forward re-development such as the Broadway shopping complex and the plans to transform the Odsal stadium site with a new stadium, leisure and retail development, cleaning up a former landfill site and creating hundreds of new jobs. What a pity Stephen Byers has called the Odsal application in for an inquiry.

    A Conservative-led council delivering for local people.

    And people worry about those whose lives need re-building. Kent County Council has launched its Dependency Reduction Programme – which aims to support and help people trapped in dependency to lift themselves back into independence, employment and a better quality of life.

    A Conservative council delivering for local people.

    These are examples of how Conservative councils listen to their local communities, care about the quality of life for local people and deliver to make life better.

    But if that is what Conservatives in local government can achieve despite the imposition and burdens from the centre think what more good we could be doing for our local communities if councils had their freedom.

    If local democracy is to mean anything then the power to say whether or not a council is doing well should rest with the voters in the ballot box. In stark contrast to Labour’s principle of ‘earned autonomy’ – we believe that all councils should be given freedom.

    Of course it is right that there should be powers to intervene where a local authority is clearly failing in its duty, but this should be the exception and we should always presume freedom rather than regulation.

    It is now almost five years since Labour were elected. Five years since their warm words of decentralisation – how they would ‘give back responsibility to local communities’, ‘take the shackles off local government’ and create ‘powerful new roles for all councillors’. Five years on, not only has this not happened, but in many cases, the reverse has been the case –and Stephen Byers Local Government White Paper promises more of the same.

    Strong local government unburdened by impositions from the centre is essential to the quality of life and to re-building local democracy. Local authorities need to be able to recognise and respond to local needs, exercising community leadership and championing local interests.

    This is our model of local government. A model built on our key principles as a party of freedom, choice and independence.

    Unlike Labour we do not believe that Whitehall knows best. We believe in minimal state interference. We want to give people the opportunity to live their lives free from unnecessary and burdensome interference from the state. We want to see government taken down to the level where people can best exercise decision-making and choice.

    So the Conservative Party is launching a policy review in local government that will re-define radically the relationship between central and local government.

    We will roll back the intervention from the centre, remove regulations and restrictions on local government autonomy, reduce the amount of ring-fenced funding, cut the burdens imposed by central government, and revive local involvement in decision making.

    We will be the party that gives power back to local councillors to make a real difference for their local communities.

    Conservatives governing for the whole nation – the prosperous and the poor, the north and the south, the rural village, the suburban town and the urban inner city.

    Together Conservatives will deliver community government making life better for all.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    Bernard Jenkin – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    The speech made by Bernard Jenkin, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on 23 March 2002.

    Recently I attended the Annual Dinner of the Armed Forces Parliamentary scheme – a scheme, which aims give MPs first hand experience of the armed forces. They put us in battle fatigues and take us out on exercise.

    The Prime Minister graced the dinner with his imperial presence. Surprised to see me, he asked: ‘What are you doing here?’

    I said, “Prime Minister, I want to learn about the armed forces. Soon I’ll know more than your Secretary of State.”

    The Prime Minister put me down with a quip. ‘That’s not difficult!’

    Think about that! That is a measure of the Prime Minister’s real confidence in the man responsible for the lives of our servicemen.

    Under this Government, Britain is now committed to a series of open-ended deployments, putting further pressure on our already stretched armed forces. Mr Blair has been dotting them around the globe wherever it makes him feel good. We should not devalue the gold standard of our armed forces in this way.

    Labour wants our Armed Forces to be a ‘force for good’, yet they have little understanding of what it takes to maintain the quality and readiness of the best armed forces in the world.

    We should be making sure our commitments are matched by our capabilities – it is government’s responsibility to square that circle. You only get what you pay for. Over-committing our forces not only tries the patience of the armed services and their families. It erodes their essential fighting capability.

    And look what they are doing to the front line. Britain’s defences are paying an increasingly intolerable price.

    Incredibly, since British troops were first deployed to Afghanistan, Labour has announced a whole series of cuts.

    · An entire Tornado air defence squadron – axed. The very same squadron put on standby after 11th September to defend the skies over London.

    · The Royal Navy’s ENTIRE force of Sea Harriers– axed. These are same Harriers played a key part in winning back the Falklands. Until a few days ago, they were due to remain in service until 2015. This leaves the Navy with no airborne air defence.

    · The axe is falling on Royal Navy ships.

    HMS Fearless – withdrawn a year early:
    HMS Sheffield – mothballed:
    HMS Monmouth – stuck in dock because there is no money for her maintenance programme.

    The army is 7,500 men short – but there is a new Labour solution to that; simply reduce the target size of the Army, so we need fewer men to meet that target – and that’s what they have done!

    This week, the government announced that Britain is to send 1,700 Royal Marine Commandos to Afghanistan to fight in the war against terrorism. Let there be no doubt that we support the principle of this deployment. This is a very grave responsibility: our forces are the best – they deserve better leadership than this Labour Government.

    Just look what Labour tried to do. They tried to make the announcement of the largest single deployment for combat operations since the Gulf War as though it was just routine.

    Considering that this is arguably the most dangerous mission that our forces have taken on for 20 years, it is unbelievable that the Government should fail to offer Parliament the right to debate it fully.

    That was not just a snub to Parliament, or even just a snub to the people Parliament represents. As Michael Portillo said during the debate:
    ‘when our soldiers are being put into such extreme danger, it is a grave discourtesy to them to suggest that the sacrifice that they offer the nation is not worth three hours of debate in Government time’ (Hansard 20 March 2002 Col 352)

    4-5 Commando Royal Marines are undoubtedly some of the finest troops that anyone will find on this earth. They are trained in mountain warfare. They are ideally fitted to this task. And they know they must defeat our enemies—those who threaten our own people in our own country and the peoples of our friends and allies.

    But it is not disloyal or unpatriotic for Parliament to require explanation. That is Parliament’s job – but we had to drag Defence Ministers to the House of Commons to answer concerns expressed from all sides of the House. And the Prime Minister was too busy fighting his own backbenchers about foxhunting, to turn up to a debate about committing to troops to action.

    This episode says everything about Mr Blair’s real sense of priorities.

    Iain Duncan Smith set his clear priority for defence last week. His paper, called A Race Against Time, explains how ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are proliferating, and destabilising western security. He sets out why and how Britain must confront the growing missile threat. Few politicians in Europe understand the link between 11th September and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. This is why Britain should support the missile defence systems President Bush is offering Europe.

    Instead of helping to galvanise other Governments in Europe to face up to the new threats and instabilities of the post cold war world, the Government’s post 11th September consultation paper on defence does not even mention the word ‘missile’! Labour continues to run scared from its CND MPs and activists.

    This weekend Mr Hoon is in Spain at a meeting of EU defence ministers. What is his priority? He’s gone back to the EU’s defence agenda. Labour promised there was no such thing as a Euro Army. But this week the Spanish defence minister actually said:

    ‘We have formed, we are forming that European Army.’

    Having championed the EU Defence Policy, they have lost control of the agenda. Too late will they realise that this EU Army is already dividing Europe from America. The Euro Army is a dagger pointing at the heart of NATO.

    This debate, and the other debates we are hearing this weekend, underline that Labour is no longer fit for government. But we Conservatives have no automatic right to govern. We have to earn that right. Moreover, it is not our right, but our duty to ensure that we are not just ready for government at the next election, but that the British people really feel they have choice about where to put their vote.

    We are the Party of choice. Together we must offer that choice.

  • Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on the Compulsory Acquisition of Land

    Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on the Compulsory Acquisition of Land

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 1 April 1998.

    I am pleased to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). His point about RDAs’ ability to blight gives me great cause for concern. It reminds us one of the key elements at the heart of the Bill: the centralising powers that lie within it. That ability to blight is, effectively, the means by which the Secretary of State can cast a shadow over a constituency such as mine, which consists largely of green-belt land at the narrowest point between Coventry and Birmingham, the so-called Meriden gap.

    My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) mentioned the Secretary of State’s ruling that green-belt land in the west midlands could be used for an industrial purpose. That caused local people concern at many levels. Industrial development on green-belt farm land was opposed by the local council and by the local Member of Parliament. When the public inquiry decided that it should not be used for that purpose, that decision was overturned. That area is close to my constituency. Hon. Members can understand why that case has caused great concern in relation to the sort of power that might be given to RDAs. In fact, it has resulted in a loss of confidence in the planning process.

    I shall illustrate that. Currently, there are two planning applications for the building of motorway service areas alongside the M42 in my constituency. Having seen what happened in the Peddimore case, my constituents are concerned that, although the application has gone to and been rejected by the council, the Minister might simply overturn the decision, which was supported by the local community. That has resulted in perhaps a premature presentation of petitions on the part of my constituents to the Minister. The Government have only themselves to blame for that loss of confidence in the planning process.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this is about not the planning process in general, but the compulsory acquisition of land. She should direct her remarks specifically to that.

    Mrs. Spelman

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was illustrating merely that that decision has given rise only to concern in relation to RDAs’ power of compulsory purchase of green-belt sites.

    There is a risk that blight will result from a conflict between the planning authority—the local authority—and the right of compulsory purchase of a future RDA. I should like to illustrate where I believe the tension may arise.

    There are several installations and developments of regional significance to the west midlands. There is the airport, Birmingham International railway station and the national exhibition centre. Indeed, they are of national significance. All have gently expanded over time as a result of agreements between the various planning authorities.

    My concern arises from the fact that a regional development agency may rule that one of those strategically important sites should be expanded and find itself at loggerheads with the local community and local planning authority. The RDA may indeed make use of a compulsory purchase order and fail to get planning permission from the local authority.

    If the compulsory purchase order remains at the disposal of the RDA, we shall see only an increasing number of conflicts between the RDA and the authority that has the power to grant permission, which may result in land compulsorily acquired resting idle. There are already many examples of that in my constituency, where it is difficult to obtain planning approval in a green-belt area. If the clause is not amended, I envisage only increasing conflicts. It would seem logical for the reference to compulsory purchase orders to be deleted.

    Mr. Lansley

    Does my hon. Friend agree that blight under these circumstances can also apply the other way round? If a body does not have planning powers, it might none the less seek planning permission in relation to a specific site or collection of sites. That might in effect blight that area because of the knowledge that, at some subsequent point, in pursuance of that planning application on land that it does not own, the body may seek a compulsory purchase order from the Secretary of State, so devaluing the prospects for that particular ownership of land.

    Mrs. Spelman

    I thank my hon. Friend for that illuminating point. It serves me well as it relates to my next point. Blight is currently tightly defined. In a constituency such as mine, much of which is blighted by the transport network that runs through it—the many motorways and the installations to which I referred earlier—when constituents seek redress for the way in which their property is affected and find themselves just the wrong side of the blight line, they are in an unenviable position. My concern is that that will be only aggravated by the potential conflict between an RDA that has the power to acquire land or that may threaten to acquire land, and its inability to get the matching planning powers from the local authority. It seems more logical to remove the provision than to leave the tension inherent in the Bill.

  • Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on Road Tolling

    Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on Road Tolling

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1998.

    I was aware that a range of charges was being considered and I would be interested to know whether there are plans for other such schemes. If there are, I should like to make a plea on behalf of the retailers in the heart of the city of Birmingham who are concerned about the prospect of road pricing as they feel that it might deter retail customers.

    Perhaps it would be useful to consider toll-free times and zones. There is no doubt that the heaviest congestion on the west midlands motorway network occurs around commuter times. Shoppers can arrange to travel to the city centre during off-peak times. I should be most concerned for the overall economy of the region if shoppers were deterred from supporting retailers in the city centre because they were penalised by the road-pricing system.

    Where road-pricing systems operate on the continent, particularly in France, the local communities benefit from toll-free zones. The peage system on French motorways that pass close by major cities is often suspended at certain times. Local people have to put up with so much pollution, noise, nuisance and congestion that it would be hard for them to bear most of the burden of the cost.

    I invite the Minister to tell us about some of the studies that the Government might be carrying out in relation to best practice elsewhere in Europe. The city of Zurich in Switzerland has managed to stabilise traffic growth, so it would be interesting to take a lesson from that major European city. I should also draw the Minister’s attention to the success of the Umweltkarte in Freiberg in south Germany that has limited the access of heavy goods vehicles to city centres by introducing a scheme to encourage synchronised deliveries. Instead of several lorries travelling to the city centre each day, one lorry distributes to a variety of outlets. If that is too complicated, it is often possible to have a depot outside the city from which short-distance distribution facilities are arranged. That reduces the number of large heavy goods vehicles and their attendant pollution in city centres.

    I should like to commend what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said about pollution. Although the subject is outside the remit of the Minister’s Department, let me draw her attention to the health aspects relating to the composition of vehicle fuel.

    We should re-examine the effects of pollution on health and the development of cleaner fuel. In that respect, British legislation has mirrored that in the United States. The removal of lead from petrol under the previous Conservative Government was a major success and represents an important contribution to the nation’s health, but vehicle fuel still contains components that are detrimental to health. In the United States, progress has been made in the reformulation of gasoline—particularly the removal of benzene, which scientists tell us is just as carcinogenic as lead. Perhaps there is a case for taking another look at the health aspects of fuel composition as part of the general objective of the Bill.

    The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) advocated the use of bicycles. I recall from my days in that city that the greatest danger to health was being run over by one. She drew attention to the pollution in Parker street in Cambridge city centre. I recollect that that is also largely due to the variety of fuel used by the public transport fleet—notably buses—as diesel fuel has a high level of particulates. Perhaps as one of the more general objectives of the Bill and our efforts to improve the nation’s health, we should look again at the composition of fuel.

    Finally, to return my point about land use in relation to transport, let me make a strong plea for the on-going study on the allocation of additional homes to different parts of Britain. Last Friday, I visited a wire rope manufacturer, Webster and Horsall, at Hay Mills in Birmingham. When the company was looking for more staff, it advertised for recruits who could walk to work. The factory’s shift pattern and the availability of public transport meant that people coming from Chelmsley Wood in my constituency had to take at least two buses, and spent at least an hour and a half getting to work. That led to reduced reliability and many staff resorted to bringing their cars to work.

    As part of the Government’s strategy to provide new homes, I urge them to consider urban regeneration, not just for the sake of the urban economy but to benefit the country overall by relieving congestion on our arterial and commuter roads.