Tag: Speeches

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.

31/08/2022
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.

31/08/2022
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.

30/08/2022
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.

30/08/2022
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.

30/08/2022
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.

30/08/2022
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.

30/08/2022
Caroline Spelman – 1997 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

The maiden speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, on 19 June 1997.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I thank the House in advance for listening, given the foreshortened length of the debate. The House will appreciate that I pay tribute to my predecessor, Iain Mills, with a note of sadness. He was much respected in Meriden as a good constituency Member. He worked hard for those in need, especially in Chelmsley Wood in the north of the constituency, where he helped to secure a local Benefits Agency office. The sad circumstances of Iain’s death must be a challenge to us all not to let a colleague down and to try harder to help colleagues facing problems or ill health. The House will want to reassure his widow that Iain’s tragedy will strengthen our resolve to care for each other in the years ahead.

I wanted to speak in the debate on agriculture because of the acute pressures on the countryside in my constituency, especially the Meriden gap, a narrow corridor of green belt only six miles wide at its narrowest point between Coventry and Birmingham. As a newcomer to the area, selected only 11 weeks before the general election, I was struck by the fragile character of this rural area. Meriden, as the name implies, lies at the very centre of England and boasts excellent communications. With Birmingham international airport, the west coast main line and the midlands motorway network passing through, one can reach London, Bristol, Manchester, Paris or Amsterdam in an hour and a half—except on a bad day, in which case one would be jolly lucky to get to Wolverhampton in that time.

Meriden has conceded some of its best countryside to the prestigious national exhibition centre, a beneficiary of those good communications. That illustrates the willingness of my constituents to move with the times and be well connected, to welcome the facilities of modern business and transportation. However, that comes at a price. One can still find idyllic green country lanes in the villages of Barston, Berkswell and Hampton in Arden, but rising over the brow of the hill one is soon reminded of the proximity of the cities by the sound of traffic and the glow of lights.

What happens to the Meriden countryside will depend on the future shape of the common agricultural policy. The beef crisis has placed an exceptional strain on small family farms devoted to dairy and beef farming. Uncertainty has probably been the greatest strain. As we have heard that the incidence of BSE has fallen from 1,000 cases a week to 100 and that there is a prospect of eradicating the disease by 2001, a timetable for lifting the ban must now be possible. Meriden’s small farms are small by British standards, but they are far from small in European terms. It is the Meriden-sized farms that may fall through the gap between very small farms, which are supported to prevent the desertification of the countryside as in rural Greece or Portugal, and the large farms typical of the Beauce in the Paris basin, which could probably survive with no support at all. I hope that the Minister agrees that any move towards modulation would be counter-productive to efforts to reform the CAP into a more market-oriented policy. It would disadvantage British farmers and could result in Meriden’s farms going under concrete for ever.

Meriden’s farmers will also struggle to compete if the support system for the CAP is not overhauled before the enlargement of the European Union. Anyone who has visited the vast collectivised farms of eastern Europe will realise the competitive advantage that they would enjoy, with their economies of scale and low wage costs. Unless the CAP is reformed into its separate economic and social aspects, it will collapse under the strain of supporting huge east European farms with unrealistic subsidies. I urge the new Government to fight hard to prevent British farmers from being disadvantaged by CAP reform and to watch out for the national aids that are often used by European countries to offset the impact of reform but distort agricultural markets.

Only a small percentage of my constituents are farmers, but the land that they tend, and the environment that it offers, is what attracts many more people to quit the city and raise their families in a relatively healthy, safe and harmonious environment. Those who choose to live in the leafy suburbs of Knowle and Dorridge have weighed up the benefits of dwelling poised between town and country. All too often, I am shown new developments where once stood bluebell woods and open fields. Residents are right to protest at the loss of the rural amenity for which they originally moved to the area. This is where the values of middle England are nurtured: honesty, fairness and mutual respect. To undermine this fragile framework, in which young people are brought up and the elderly retire with security and pleasure, would be a step backwards from the rural legacy that made England a green and pleasant land.

30/08/2022
Caroline Spelman – 1997 Speech on Women in Sport

The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 27 June 1997.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on their appointment to the Opposition Front Bench and wish them much success and a run of good form in their time in their new capacity. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks); as a new Member, I very much look forward to witnessing his renowned quickness of wit.

Sport is central to the British way of life. Although we probably have more of a tendency to watch than to participate, just over half the adult population plays some form of sport once a month. We all know that that frequency of playing sport is not likely to benefit our overall condition. It is also a fact that women are less likely to play sport than men.

I approach the debate from the perspective of the fitness that sport can confer. “The Health of the Nation” initiative, set up under the previous Government, set a goal of reducing obesity among women by one third by the year 2005 and by 25 per cent. among men. The third progress report of that initiative, which was published in July last year, showed that no significant step had been achieved towards either of those targets. Another finding of the progress report was also worrying, in that the proportion of children aged 11 to 15 who smoke has risen by 50 per cent. since 1988.

The promotion of sport among young people is vital if the health of the nation is to be improved. The Sports Council currently allocates £4 million per annum to various sporting initiatives involving young people. However, there is patently more success in encouraging sports uptake among young men than among young women.

In 1993, a shoe company undertook some research, which showed that three out of five teenage girls played no sport at all outside school. For young women, the only sporting activities being undertaken twice a week are cycling, walking, keep fit and weight training. Further research shows that 66 per cent. of girls dislike the kind of sport on offer in schools and particularly object to competitive sports where there are winners and losers. It is different for boys: only 38 per cent. said that they disliked sports with a competitive element, which shows a different approach to sport and exercise among men and women.

Another marked contrast is that only 30 per cent. of 14 to 16-year-old girls undertook sport to be with their friends, which compares with 52 per cent. of boys. That shows that the social aspect of sport is less important for women, although that may have something to do with the type of sport on offer.

Sport for young women does not enjoy a good image. In the modern idiom, we would say that it is not cool for a young woman to do sport. I urge the Minister to think of ways to change that. Let us consider media coverage of women’s sport. Of all the television sports coverage in this country, only 6 per cent. is devoted to women’s sport, and the figure for newspaper coverage is only 13 per cent.

To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), it is no good being glib about sponsorship. Commercial sponsors are not interested in sport if there is very little media coverage, which is what women’s sports suffer from. Commercial sponsors are reluctant to back women’s sports because they do not get the television and newspaper coverage that they need.

It is therefore no wonder that even committed teenage sportswomen could name only one famous British sportswoman. I am sure that we could all name her, too—Sally Gunnell—but what about our other athletes such as Kelly Holmes and Tessa Sanderson? In addition, it is really only athletes and tennis stars who have become household names in women’s sports.

Mr. Ashton

Is it not a fact that many young women go in for aerobics and classes or even dance in nightclubs, and that they provide their main forms of exercise? That is why women do not go out on to a muddy football field.

Mrs. Spelman

I am coming to that very point in relation to the national curriculum’s contribution to sport.
The problem is that young women often lack a well-publicised role model. Perhaps the Minister for sport and the Department for Education and Employment could look at ways in which the profiles of successful sportswomen could be raised in education, so that young women have a wider range of role models.

The image of women’s sport is not helped by the way in which it is reported. The back page of The Mirror on 25 June—I am not sure how many hon. Members had the chance to look at it—had what can only be described as an uncompromising photograph of the world-class tennis player Monica Seles in action, with disparaging remarks about her weight gain. Young women need positive role models, not the running down of the sporting achievements of stars.

The previous Government launched a number of initiatives to promote sport for young people, one of which was the introduction of two hours of physical education into the national curriculum. I am glad that the Heart of England school at Balsall Common in my constituency has shown how that time can be used creatively, taking account of the attitudes towards sport of young men and women that I mentioned earlier. Girls and boys can choose a sport from a range of options. They have an opportunity to try those sports and then pursue them in more depth. The sports teachers also use that time for modules about anatomy and physiology, so that young people learn about the way in which exercise can keep them in good shape. The school recognises that young people need a positive experience of sport. Forcing teenagers into strange and unmodish sports kit to do a sport that they would never choose can be detrimental. The school has proved that embracing the times with aerobics and dance classes can be fun and beneficial.

I think nostalgically of my time at school, where sporting attainment was held in equal esteem with academic achievement. The dedication of teachers who gave up their Saturdays to promote our school teams left a great impression on me.

I was encouraged to hear the hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggest that we could do more to promote the use of sports facilities out of school hours. Even if that is not supervised by professional teachers, it could be done by ex-professionals. Fathers often put in time at weekends to run sports coaching these days. More often than not, that is for boys’ sports. What can be done to encourage mums to show up on a Saturday and give a good example to young women, by giving up their free time to encourage them in their sport? The teaching profession could also be encouraged to reconsider such a contribution on a Saturday morning. Such dedication from a mentor who gives up their free time to encourage a child to pursue a sport in depth has a wider lesson for life than just the pursuit of a sport. That willingness to make a sacrifice rests with us when we think back to the time when we were encouraged at school.

I am greatly concerned about the future funding of sport if national lottery funds are diverted into mainstream public policy areas such as health and education. The lottery has made a real difference to sport. The Secretary of State said today that the number of national lottery awards to sport has risen to more than 3,000 and that £540 million of lottery money is going to sport. That dwarfs the Government’s £50 million of dedicated core funding for sport in the past year. Small clubs and groups all over the country have benefited from improvements to their sports facilities—the refurbishment of a sports pavilion, the purchase of a new set of goalposts or the installation of a ramp to make facilities accessible to the disabled. Taking away the profit motive from running the lottery may sound “cute”, as the Financial Times said, but the victims will very likely be the good causes the lottery is purportedly set up to serve. It is decision time for the new Labour Government. We need to know where the academy of sport and the national stadium will be. The uncertainty does not serve the industry. How will the Government prevent the dilution of sports funding from the national lottery? When will their election pledge of a youth sports unit be fulfilled? How will they shift a generation of potential couch potatoes into regular exercise and invest for the health of the nation in the next millennium?

30/08/2022
Caroline Spelman – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Shadow Secretary of State for International Development at Conservative Spring Forum in Harrogate on 23 March 2002.

My debut as Shadow Secretary of State for International Development has been nothing short of a baptism of fire. September 11th has thrust this normally cinderella subject into the spotlight. Appointed on September 13th we were straight into an international crisis, a crisis with all the potential for sparking a Third World War.

Thank god many of the gloomy predictions of Labour’s left wing proved spurious. Our leader’s decision to give the Government bi-partisan support throughout the campaign has been entirely vindicated. He came across as a statesman and our party as a responsible, resolute and reliable Opposition. It was both the right thing to do, and the right thing for us.

My opposite number, Clare Short has a reputation for enjoying a good spat. But this time her adversaries were on her own backbenches and she got full support from me. As a result she finds it very hard to be scathing with me and thus often she seems disarmed by my gentle reason. She knows now that the Conservatives are serious about International Development and she cannot levy the charge that we lack heart in this matter.

People say she walks on water because she is often out of step with her own party leadership. She openly challenges many of the Government’s decisions exposing the deep divides that exist in Labour, for which we should be grateful. She may sometimes seem like a thorn in Tony Blair’s side but deep down I suspect it suits him to have her ventilate the dissent within his own party.

Jenny Tonge the Lib/Dem spokesman on International Development does a very good job of shooting herself in the foot. Remember her naïve soundbite when she called for Afghanistan to be ‘bombed with food’, they did, and what happened? Two houses collapsed in the process.

If you want further evidence of Liberal Dem naivety just look at their stance on Zimbabwe. In April 2000, Jenny Tonge was chastising Conservatives for being nasty to poor Mr Mugabe. She helpfully reminded us all that Mugabe was a democratically elected leader. Some democracy. Some leader. Surprise surprise all Dr Tongue’s press releases about Zimbabwe have had to be taken off the Lib/Dem website.

Nearer to home she issued a press release describing her visit to a Children’s Hospice. Apparently she was impressed by the children’s courage- only problem, the hospice hasn’t yet been built- Nice one Jenny!

One wonders if the Lib /Dems are capable of organising a jumble sale let alone the country.

International Development is an area ripe for new ideas. Clare Short and I may not go in for fisticuffs over the ballot box but there are real differences in our approach to Third World problems. Just last week while Clare Short was calling for aid to be withheld from Tanzania. I argued that she was targeting the wrong part of the problem. By withholding aid, the only people she was harming were the people of Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world.

I want our approach to the problems of the Developing World to be practical. I want to encourage independence not dependency. Give people the tools they need to lift themselves out of poverty. This means revamping debt relief and freeing world markets to make it easier for poor countries to export their produce .Giving people a decent education because from education flows health, wealth and a real future. Currently every minute a woman dies while pregnant or giving birth in the Developing World, 7,000 people die of AIDs every day in Africa, 200 million Africans live on less than a dollar a day, a quarter of children in Afghanistan die before the age of five. This tragic litany can make people feel it’s all hopeless but who is it running a local charity shop, raising funds, and collecting for charities, more often than not it will be a Conservative. We know an individual can make a difference. International Development is where the Conservatives, traditionally generous donors, can show their heart and mean it.

I am no exception. When I went out to the Afghan border before Christmas it was not just to gawp at the problems there but to try and make a difference. I discovered that a local charity which treats the victims of landmines had just lost their only evacuation vehicle. I mentally resolved to raise the money to replace it. I am delighted to say that with the help of a local agency, Islamic Relief, I have already raised over £50,000 and no doubt some of you have been donors to this Appeal – for which I say a big thank you. If nothing else this shows that Conservatives care and that we put it into action. Rhetoric is all very good, but it doesn’t save lives. Conservatives are above all practical – and we can be justifiably proud of th

I would venture that this small gesture has more real impact than the sight of Tony Blair bestriding the continent of Africa like some Western Medicine Man ‘healing the scars’ of that continent. Apart from the rather grandiose idea what actually did he achieve? Particularly as he studiously avoided the one area of Africa that was in the spotlight and relevant to this country at the time, namely Zimbabwe.

Can anybody give me one example of where Tony Blair’s newly discovered passion for Africa has made one jot of difference to the lives of people on that continent? That’s all I’m asking for – one example? No, I didn’t think so. In international development, like so many other areas of government, the emphasis is on style at the expense of delivery. Well, you can’t spin global poverty. Africans don’t want Tony to feel their pain – they want actions, not rhetoric.

International development is about helping the most vulnerable. We want to make others’ lives better..

And I’ll tell you who they are not . The poorest people in the world are NOT Labour Party donors. If Lakshmi Mittal can afford to give £125,000 to the Labour Party, and £400,000 to a campaign to introduce Tariffs in America, he is not deserving of UK aid. Clare Short’s department has now provided Mr Mittal with three loans totalling £153 million. You should not be able to buy international development.

I want to show that we care about international development we care because we have learnt from experience the cost of turning your back on a problem: in 1938 Neville Chamberlain famously described Czechoslovakia as ‘the far away country of which we know little’. Conservatives must never be satisfied with knowing little. Conservatives are above all practical and clear-headed – and this must infuse our policy on international development. We’re not about grand gestures or media grandstanding. Above all we are practical and realistic.

The Conservative Party has achieved great things in the past – in Britain and the world. Now more than ever we have to show that we can achieve great things in the future.

30/08/2022