Tag: Speeches

James Callaghan – 1977 Statement on Meeting with the French President

The statement made by James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 13 December 1977.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the talks I have had yesterday and today with the President of the French Republic, M. Valery Giscard d’Estaing.

The objective of these annual meetings is to develop the habit of regular but informal consultation between British and French Ministers so that this becomes the most natural way of exchanging views on matters of long-term importance to both countries. On this occasion, I was glad to be able to welcome the President to Chequers together with the French Prime Minister, M. Barre, and their colleagues the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Defence. On the British side, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Trade, and the Minister of State for Industry took part in our discussions The talks took place in a friendly atmosphere and revealed a broad similarity of approach to the main issues of the day.

As I reported to the House on 7th December, current questions affecting the European Community were fully discussed at last week’s meeting of the European Council. At Chequers, the President and I discussed the longer-term development of the Community. We found that our views were similar. We discussed the important and pressing question of the Community’s fisheries policy, on which the Commission’s proposals will provide the basis for a further meeting of the Fisheries Council next month.

We resumed our discussions on the world economic situation and were in agreement that it is essential for the OECD and the Community to achieve their growth targets next year if unemployment is not to rise still higher. Our own fight against inflation, which is making good progress, needs the help of more expansionary policies in the strongest economies. We discussed the problems arising from the surpluses accumulated by the OPEC countries and by Japan.

In a thorough review of our bilateral relations, we agreed to establish a Committee for Industrial Co-operation, drawn from senior officials of the two countries, which will identify new areas of industrial co-operation between us. These will include offshore oil technology, technology that is peripheral to the computer industry, the paper industry and the machine tool industry, among others. We welcomed the contacts already established between British Leyland and Renault on possible co-operation between these companies which, while leaving the initiative to them, we support and encourage.

We discussed a proposal for a 2,000 megawatt cross-Channel electricity cable link. We noted that the generating authorities in our two countries are in negotiation towards an agreement and expressed our support for this. We reviewed prospects for co-operation in the supply of defence equipment, and welcomed the significant progress that is being made. We exchanged views on possible new projects in the field of civil aviation. We agreed that quick decisions were needed on the various options which had opened up and that these matters should be decided on the basis of the commercial and market factors involved.

We agreed that there will be annual meetings in future between senior officials of our countries who are concerned with economic management. In a wider framework, we agreed to encourage the Franco-British Council to organise annual meetings, such as we already have with the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries, between leading British and French politicians, industrialists, trade unionists and others to discuss matters of common concern.

We had a very thorough and useful exchange of views on the international situation, devoting particular attention to the prospects for a Middle East settlement and to Africa, on which our thinking was very close. We agreed to deepen consultation between us on African problems.

This latest meeting has confirmed once again the value of these exchanges as a positive and constructive basis on which to build Franco-British friendship.

Mrs. Thatcher

May I put three points to the Prime Minister? First, does the Prime Minister agree that in these days we are not short of Summits, of committees of co-operation or of Summit statements, particularly about the need for extra growth, and that they are all phrased in the same terms? The only thing that we are short of is results from the Summits. It is ironic that this statement on the need for industrial growth comes on a day when industrial production is once again down. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any practical proposals for growth have ever emerged from these Summit meetings?

Secondly, in view of our need fox greater agricultural production, did the Prime Minister discuss with the President the need to devalue the green currencies? Thirdly, did he tell the President that it is his intention to increase his commitment to defence expenditure in accordance with our own commitment to our other allies?

The Prime Minister

It is true, I think, that there are far more international meetings than there ever have been and that sometimes the results are not commensurate with the effort which has been put in. Nevertheless, there are problems here of interdependence which have not been solved and cannot be solved by any one country. I know that I speak for the President of France, as I speak for myself, when I say that this exchange of views is of very great value, and I do not think that the right hon. Lady is doing justice to these exchanges by the approach that she takes.

Certainly the matters of the cross-Channel electricity link, the supply of defence equipment, and the examination of new fields for co-operation in the industrial areas are of value. What happens, as the right hon. Lady may discover one day, is that one can supply a political impetus. When issues are being discussed by officials—no doubt very well—or by industries, it sometimes needs Heads of Government and appropriate Ministers to get together in order to give the real push. That is the value of it, not that any great results come out of any one meeting. I should like to cut down on the number of meetings that I attend in this way, but I do not think that it would be of value to this country if we were to cut off these Summits. Therefore, I do not agree with the right hon. Lady about that.

We did not discuss the question whether we should devalue the green pound. All the green currencies in Europe are capable of adjustment and it is for Governments to decide when they do so. Our Government have not decided not to devalue. It would be a question how we measure the relative importance of the consumer and the return to farmers in this sphere.

We did not discuss our contributions in the area of defence, at least not in financial terms. We discussed possible projects on which we could work together in the sphere both of a possible replacement for some existing helicopters and, indeed, of some other armaments.

Mr. Conlan

Did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of discussing the problems associated with the Concorde landing rights, and did he give the opportunity to the French Government to associate with the British Government to ensure that there will be more co-ordination than there has been in the past to ensure that Concorde can land in a greater number of places than is seemingly possible at the moment?

The Prime Minister

We discussed this briefly, but the problem of the landing rights at Singapore is basically a matter, I think, with which we ourselves have to deal, and I did not invite the French President to assist on that matter. However, there is co-operation whenever we need to work together.

Mr. Cyril Smith

Did the Prime Minister have any discussion on the problems of the British textile industry, particularly in relation to any objections that France or any other Common Market Member may have to an extension of the temporary employment subsidy? If he did have such discussions, what form did they take and can he give us any indication whether the Government will agree to any such extension?

The Prime Minister

We discussed this matter briefly, particularly in relation to the negotiations that the Community has been carrying on. I did not raise with the French President the question of the temporary employment subsidy, nor he with me. Obviously this has to be the subject of an early decision, but I cannot imagine any circumstances in which either it will not continue or there will not be a replacement of it when the present scheme runs out—unless, of course, we have the dire misfortune of the return of a Conservative Government, in which case all these schemes will be washed out and unemployment will rise to 3 million.

Mr. Amery

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President how we could exploit the 12-year lead we have over United States technology in supersonic civil flight?

The Prime Minister

We touched on this matter, but naturally we did not reach any conclusions about it. This is a matter which will come increasingly under discussion. I express only the personal view to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not expect it to be Government policy at this stage. I do not think another Anglo-French project could possibly succeed in view of the resources that would be required; it would have to be on a broader scale. But this is not a matter on which the Government have reached a conclusion.

Mr. Ward

I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the need for an electricity link with France. Will he say whether the French raised the question of a gas pipeline to take advantage of Britain’s lead in this area?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, we did not discuss that, but we discussed the differences that arise in our economies because of the great good fortune that this country has with its massive reserves of coal and the oil discoveries that have been made, as well as, of course, the natural gas. I think that the French Government wish that they were in the same position. They, of course, are having to go nuclear much earlier than we are because of their shortage.

Mr. Peter Walker

Is the Prime Minister aware that all the areas of industrial collaboration that he identified are areas in which collaboration probably should be on a wider scale than merely an Anglo-French basis? For example, West Germany has a considerable interest. What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking about that?

The Prime Minister

Particularly in relation to defence, we covered this aspect of the matter, and the European Programme Group, which the right hon. Gentleman may know about, is considering possible defence collaboration in the manufacture and development of particular projects on an Anglo-French-German basis. However, these were only bilateral talks between us.

On the other hand, I think that the President of France feels—and, certainly, I feel—that we share a number of problems in various areas. These are becoming increasingly known to us, and, though obviously they are also linked with Germany, perhaps we have a closer link with France. This is particularly true of textiles, for example. It is true also, I think in shipbuilding, where we have problems, in steel, and in the attitude towards the Japanese surplus. All of these are very important issues where I think an Anglo-French initiative can be and should be built—but not to the exclusion of any of our partners.

Mr. Heffer

In discussing the question of our oil and coal reserves, did my right hon. Friend stress the essential unity of the United Kingdom, particularly in view of the fact that the President of France entertained the so-called President of the Quebec Province of Canada and appeared to support independence? In view of the attitude being developed by the Scottish nationalists in relation to Scotland, this could have a significance for this country.

The Prime Minister

I discussed the question of devolution with the President and told him that I thought the best way to preserve the independence and unity of the United Kingdom was for the devolution Bill to go through in the form that, broadly, it is in now—and I believe that this would take a lot of poison out of the propaganda that is being used, in Scotland in particular.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President of France the Philistine and even barbarous policy followed by the French Government towards the culture and language of Brittany, which is now leading to the destruction of an ancient language?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir.

Mr. James Johnson

In view of what the Prime Minister said about M. Giscard d’Estaing and fishing policy, is he aware that in the eyes of our fishing industry the French are a bête noire? Did they discuss the tough and patriotic line taken by the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? If so, did M. Giscard d’Estaing say anything about the 50-mile exclusive limit?

The Prime Minister

I think that it would be true to say that there would not be normal relations with France unless there was some friction between fishermen off the South-West coast and French fishermen, who claim ancient and historic rights to fish there. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary pointed out—and I supported him in this—that because of the need to preserve our fishing stocks there is more identity of interest between the French and ourselves, if we choose to exercise it, than on the surface there might seem to be. We hoped that the French would join us in defending these coastal rights that we have put forward.

Mr. Henderson

Did the Prime Minister find any movement in the French view towards the position that our fishermen have taken, namely that we must have exclusive control over territorial limits if we are to have conservation in the future? Did the French President indicate that when he visits Edinburgh he intends to say “Vive l’Ecosse libre”?

The Prime Minister

I cannot compete in this linguistic exercise. I cannot say that the French President made any alteration in the French approach to this problem. It is an important issue to him because of unemployment among French fishermen and he has his interests to look after. The question is whether we can identify a joint interest here in the preservation of our coastal areas. I think that we can.

Mr. Marten

As a great believer in Franco-United Kingdom co-operation rather than British-French co-operation, may I ask whether the accord which seems to have stemmed from this meeting extended to a joint belief that no extra powers should be given to the directly-elected Assembly, if there is one? Do France and Britain see eye to eye on that point?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that I want to go any further than the phrase that I used—namely that we found that our views were similar.

Mr. Skinner

In view of the Leader of the Opposition’s scathing remarks about this summitry—I am sure that the Prime Minister knows that I am a sceptic about these matters—does my right hon. Friend think that the Leader of the Opposition’s worldwide summitry has tended to establish her as more of an international statesman, taking into account what she has had to say this afternoon and that she has travelled to Australia, Yugoslavia, Italy, China and a score of other places? On the specific matter of direct elections, is the Prime Minister saying that both he and Giscard d’Estaing are agreed on the phrase that he used, namely that to delay for another year does not really matter?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, not on that point. I am sure that the French President would much prefer us to come to a conclusion so that elections could be held in 1978.

As for world travel, it is not for me to comment on anyone else’s travels, by any means of locomotion. But I am bound to say, having read the debate yesterday, that it seems to me that we have a new test to apply to international trade, namely that all trade with Communist countries is bad unless the Leader of the Opposition has visited them.

Mr. Forman

In reviewing the intractable problems of the world economic situation with the French President, was there any meeting of minds between Her Majesty’s Government and the French Government on the vital importance of Britain and France using their influence jointly in gatherings such as GATT and elsewhere to increase the trade potential for our exports to developing countries and also to improve the access for their exports to our countries?

The Prime Minister

That is a very important and interesting question. I cannot say that we spent time on it in the discussions yesterday, but it is certainly a matter that our officials could take up and I shall be glad to bring it to their attention.

Mr. Faulds

Did my right hon. Friend discuss the Middle East with the French President, more particularly in view of the fact that the French Government make a more realistic appraisal of their interests in that part of the world—an example which we might well follow?

The Prime Minister

Yes. We discussed this subject and we each put forward our own views about it. As to whose position is more realistic I would not care to say, except that I am glad to be able to report that I keep in constant contact with the leaders both of the Arab countries and of Israel. I had a telephone conversation yesterday with Mr. Begin—

Mr. James Lamond

Reverse charge?

The Prime Minister

It really would take a Scot to think of that. I am also keeping in close communication with the Arab leaders on these matters and shall continue to do so.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Another long statement is to follow. I shall take two more speakers from each side. Mr. Ian Lloyd.

Mr. Ian Lloyd

Since this important conference concentrated on the question of industrial growth, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he and the President had before them the interesting report by the Economic and Social Committee of the Commission on the subject of industrial growth? Did he or the President refer to the criteria set out in that report, and did the Prime Minister explain to the President why not one of those criteria was satisfied by the Polish shipbuilding deal?

The Prime Minister

The House gave its answer on the last part of that question very forcefully last night. The speeches led me to the conclusion that the Opposition were a little unwise to raise the question.

As for industrial co-operation, we discussed what bilateral approaches could be made between British and French industry, except in the defence sector at which, as I said, we looked in a wider context. Although we had at the back of our minds the document referred to by the hon. Gentleman, we did not discuss that paper in particular.

Mr. Hayman

In view of the grave problems of the civil aircraft industry in France and here, can my right hon. Friend tell the House when the urgent decisions on new projects, to which he has referred, are likely to be made?

The Prime Minister

Both the President and I will ask our respective industries to work hard at this subject and to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible. I know that that answer is not very definite. We had in mind that the industry should be able to evaluate the position by late spring, and that both Governments could then reach a conclusion. I repeat, however, that this issue must be approached on a commercial basis.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson

In an earlier reply the Prime Minister seemed to rule out the possibility of any future versions of Concorde. Will he tell us what discussions he had about the existing Concorde production line and whether there is any prospect of further aircraft being ordered?

The Prime Minister

We did not discuss that matter, but I cannot hold out any hope that there will be any extension of the existing line. There are no orders for further numbers of Concorde.

Mr. John Garrett

Did my right hon. Friend discuss with the French President the superior rate of economic growth in France, which has obtained for some years past, and the extent to which that has been due to interventionist national planning and public ownership of the financial institutions? Did my right hon. Friend feel that we had anything to learn from the French experience?

The Prime Minister

I think that both of us have something to learn from each other. But in the eyes of the major parties in France there is clearly not the same ideological objection to public enterprise as exists in the mind of the Conservative Party here. Therefore, the French have been able to approach the issue on a less dogmatic basis than seems possible here. There is certainly a great deal of intervention by the French Government in their industry, as is well known.

The French will not have such fast economic growth next year as they would like. We hope that our rate of growth will be much faster as a result of the fact that we have now overcome inflation. Indeed, our rate of growth next year might even approach that of the French.

07/08/2022
James Callaghan – 1977 Speech on Pay of Nationalised Industry Board Members

The speech made by James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 15 December 1977.

The Government have given careful consideration to the difficult question of the pay of nationalised industry board chairmen and members.

The recommendations of the Review Body on Top Salaries for salary levels at 1st January 1975, on which the Government deferred a decision in the wider national interest, were for increases of the order of 30 per cent. on average, and considerably more for some individuals. Substantial absolute sums were involved. Inevitably, therefore, the salaries of this group are at present significantly out of line with their counterparts elsewhere.

But, in deciding how far they can go, the Government must have regard to the measures which are still being taken in the national interest to control inflation and which continue to demand very considerable restraint from all sections of the community. The Government therefore have to consider not only what scope there is within the current pay guidelines, but also how the absolute sums involved relate to what the community as a whole is being asked to bear.

The Government have concluded that at the present time a general increase of 5 per cent. with effect from 1st January 1978 is the most that can be allowed but that up to 10 per cent. should be paid to the less-well-paid members of the group tapered so as to ensure that the lower percentage applies at salaries above £13,000 a year.

The Government recognise that this will still leave nationalised industry board members significantly out of line with their counterparts elsewhere. They will wish to look again at the way forward when the Review Body on Top Salaries makes its recommendations for April 1978.

07/08/2022
James Callaghan – 1977 Parliamentary Answer on the House of Lords

The Parliamentary Answer given by James Callaghan, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 27 January 1977.

[Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made in his consideration of the position of the House of Lords.]

The Prime Minister

The Government are continuing to keep the position of the House of Lords under review.

Mr. Roberts

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of the House of Lords in anything like its existing form is a necessary advance towards democracy? Does he accept that this matter must be tackled by the next Labour Government if not by this one?

The Prime Minister

I certainly agree that the House of Lords is not the epitome of the democratic system, but I think that we had better undertake one constitutional change at a time.

Mr. David Steel

Does the Prime Minister recall that one of his predecessors said that the reform of the House of Lords would brook no delay? As that was Mr. Asquith in 1910, does he agree that there has been quite a lot of brooking since then? As long as the House of Lords goes unreformed, will the Prime Minister give it some constructive work to do and get it started on the Bill for European elections?

The Prime Minister

I am happy to give their Lordships some constructive work to do. It might turn their idle hands from the mischief they have done to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The Liberal Party has had many opportunities since the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman to tackle this particular problem. If he can promise me the full support of his party on this matter without wavering or quavering, I might be tempted to look in his direction.

Mr. Michael Stewart

In the course of the Government’s review of this subject will the Prime Minister study a valuable Fabian pamphlet on it written some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy?

The Prime Minister

I always study the writings of my right hon. Friend with the greatest care.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

Is it the policy of the Government to go for a one-chamber system of government, or is it merely the policy of the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister

Yesterday morning the National Executive decided that it should go on record as being in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. I cannot see why anybody should defend it in its present form. But, as I have said, a number of issues have to be settled and a number of hurdles have to be jumped before that legislation actually appears.

Mr. Kinnock

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could more profitably advance democracy by spending this year abolishing the House of Lords and reforming the House of Commons than multiplying bureaucracy in the form of devolution?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend was not a Member of this House when I had some experience of this matter. I should want a full guarantee of his total support and that of a great many others before I embarked on it again.

07/08/2022
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (06/08/2022) – 164 days

The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 6 August 2022.

Dear Ukrainians, I wish you health!

I will brief you on the past week.

First of all, I want to thank all our soldiers, who are extremely bravely – and in the hottest points of the frontline, with simply superhuman efforts – holding back the enemy.

The Russian army will not change its tactics. The occupiers know that they will lose to the Ukrainians in direct struggle, they are inferior in skill, and that is why the enemy is counting on artillery and indiscriminate shelling.

They try to destroy everything in front of them and enter the ruins. And I am grateful to everyone who, even in such conditions, still is containing the occupiers in Donbas, in Kharkiv region, in the Mykolaiv direction – wherever the confrontation is the most acute.

During this week, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and our intelligence have achieved powerful results in destroying the logistics of the Russian army, the rear bases of the occupiers. And every strike on the enemy’s ammunition depots, on their command posts, on accumulations of Russian equipment saves the lives of all of us, the lives of Ukrainian military and civilians.

Of course, I thank the partners – everyone who supplies Ukraine with the necessary weapons. In particular, another package of support from the United States was approved this week, which also includes ammunition for the HIMARS systems. Thank you very much. All of them are used as accurately and beneficially as possible for the overall strategy of our defense. We are doing everything to get yet more effective and modern weapons.

It was possible to restore the sea export of Ukrainian agricultural products. Our ports on the Black Sea are operating again. And although it is still too early to give general assessments of the process, we can still say that it is positive both for our state and for all our partners.

However, the key security risk has not yet been removed. The threat of Russian provocations and terrorist attacks remains. Everyone should be aware of this.

But if the partners fulfill their part of the commitment and guarantee the security of the supply, it will really solve the global food crisis.

And we must not forget that the restoration of our sea exports was made possible primarily thanks to our soldiers – all those who defend Odesa and secured the liberation of Snake Island. These are simply heroes.

During the week, opportunities for Ukraine in the African direction were significantly expanded. There were new contacts with state leaders and communication with journalists. I will continue this work next week – another series of negotiations is planned.

Unfortunately, we have a significant worsening of the situation around the Zaporizhzhia NPP. Russian terrorists became the first in the world to use a nuclear plant for terror. The biggest in Europe! We will draw the world’s attention to this and insist on new sanctions against Russia for creating such a global threat.

And despite the fact that the Russian shelling of the nuclear plant is one of the most dangerous crimes against Ukrainians and all Europeans, against the right to life of every person, for some reason there is no report or even a simple notification from Amnesty International about it. A very eloquent silence, which once again indicates the manipulative selectivity of this organization.

This week there are new sanction steps from Canada and the United States. Switzerland made an important decision regarding support for the seventh EU sanctions package. The general tendency to strengthen sanctions remains unchanged and will continue increasing the price for this terror, terror against our people, for the terrorist state.

I want to thank everyone who develops our UNITED24 public charity platform, and all the ambassadors of this platform – Andriy Shevchenko, Elina Svitolinia, Liev Schreiber, the band Imagine Dragons, Demna. This week we summed up the three-month results of work the UNITED24 platform. More than UAH 6 billion were raised in contributions for reconstruction, equipment for hospitals, for the purchase of ambulances – dozens of ambulances were purchased. There is already the first helicopter bought using the funds raised by UNITED24. It will be used to rescue the wounded. It was possible to attract help from more than a hundred countries.

One of the most important areas for August and September is the implementation of our Fast Recovery Plan. What needs to be done in the territory liberated from the enemy to give people conditions for a normal life and to prepare for the autumn and winter season. In total, 1,060 settlements have already been liberated, and the absolute majority of them require significant restoration work, demining, and the construction of social facilities. And I thank all our partners who joined the relevant work.

In particular, this week the delegation of Estonia visited the districts of Zhytomyr region, which the country is helping with recovery. Estonia was the first within the Fast Recovery Plan to choose objects for financing.

We work with diplomats and companies in all other areas that need support and restoration.

We believe in our defenders! We help the defense!

Let’s remain united and do everything for the victory of Ukraine! It will be!

Eternal glory to our soldiers!

Glory to Ukraine!

07/08/2022
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (05/08/2022) – 163 days

The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 5 August 2022.

Dear Ukrainians!

Three vessels with grain for export left our ports today – from Odesa and Chornomorsk. Almost 60,000 tonnes of corn are on board, which are expected by consumers in Turkey, the UK, and Ireland.

The first new vessel since February 24 is heading to the port of Chornomorsk for loading.

The main thing now is the constant increase in exports. Every adequate world player is interested in this. The more our grain will be on the global market, the smaller will be the harvest of political chaos in countries, primarily in Africa and Asia, but not only there. We must remember that this year the demand for imported food in Europe is much higher than expected. European harvests are smaller because of the heat. But the Ukrainian harvest of grain and oilseeds will most likely meet the forecasts – more than 65 million tonnes are expected. Therefore, if the partners do their part of the obligations under the Grain Initiative, the security part, and do not allow new Russian provocations in relation to our exports, then the food crisis, which has been so threatening to the world, can be overcome.

But the situation on the energy market, and especially for European consumers, continues to be very dangerous due to Russia’s cynical and worked out well gas blackmail. Instead of supplying gas to the territory of Europe in accordance with the contracts, Russia even simply burns it – and this is happening more than one week. Why does it do this? So that prices in Europe rise even more, so that ordinary Europeans suffer even more and so that it will be even more difficult for everyone on the continent to prepare for winter. This is a manifestation of Russia’s deliberate anti-European policy, anti-human policy and the effect of the old mistakes of Europeans who did not want to see that Gazprom, Russian gas pipelines bypassing Ukraine are the same weapons for Russia as tanks and artillery, and each of us, each in Europe is a target for them.

And we all have to defend ourselves now. Together to prepare for the new heating season. Together to respond to any provocations of Russia in the energy sector. Together to develop sanctions in response to Russian blackmail and terror.

Today, the occupiers created another extremely risky situation for everyone in Europe – they fired at the Zaporizhzhia NPP, twice in one day. This is the largest nuclear power plant on our continent. And any shelling of this facility is an open, brazen crime, an act of terror. Russia should bear responsibility for the very fact of creating a threat to the nuclear power plant. And this is not only another argument in favor of recognizing Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. This is an argument in favor of applying tough sanctions against the entire Russian nuclear industry – from Rosatom to all related companies and individuals. This is purely a matter of safety. The one who creates nuclear threats to other nations is definitely not capable of using nuclear technologies safely.

Today I held a meeting devoted to the sanctions policy, confiscation of Russian assets. As government officials reported, assets worth UAH 28 billion have already been forcibly seized in Ukraine. This work continues. More than 900 facilities belonging to the Russian state are proposed to be confiscated. And if we evaluate the property package not only of the terrorist state, but also of its residents, then this are 36,000 items for seizure. All this will be sent to compensate for the damages that Russia causes through war and terror.

I also heard the results of the work of the group on the development and implementation of the international compensation mechanism and confiscation of Russian assets abroad. All our partners are actively working on this – in Europe, in the United States. Work on bills that will expand the possibilities for the confiscation of Russian assets for Ukraine is underway.

And Donbas burned out by Russian strikes, the abuse of the occupiers over Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, the shelling of Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk region, Sumy region, Chernihiv region, Kyiv region, Zhytomyr region, Odesa region and other regions of Ukraine are what Russia will surely pay for: both politically and financially, and with its own future, which Russia is losing with every strike on our territory.

I spoke today with the President of Malawi. It is another African state, the ninth country, which Ukraine is in contact with for the first time at the highest level in the entire history of our independence. I assured Mr. President that Ukraine will make every effort so that every country interested in our agricultural products can meet its consumption needs. We also discussed other issues of stability and our cooperation in international organizations.

I also signed a decree awarding our soldiers. A total of 192 combatants were given state awards, 18 of them, unfortunately, posthumously.

Eternal gratitude to all who is fighting for our great state!

Thank you, great people of Ukraine!

Glory to Ukraine!

07/08/2022
Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (04/08/2022) – 162 days

The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 4 August 2022.

Ukrainians!

Today, Russian terrorists once again fired at Toretsk, Donetsk region, hitting public transport stop. Eight people died, three children are among those injured. Residential buildings were damaged by projectile fragments and the blast wave – those are ordinary high-rise buildings. St. Panteleimon Church was also damaged, the priest was wounded.

It was a deliberate strike by the occupiers, another act of terror – cynical and calculated. They knew where they were hitting, and they obviously wanted people to get hurt.

However, we do not see clear and timely reports from some international organizations regarding this and thousands of other crimes committed by Russian terrorists. We saw today a completely different report from Amnesty International, which unfortunately tries to amnesty the terrorist state and shift the responsibility from the aggressor to the victim.

There cannot be – even hypothetically – any condition under which any Russian attack on Ukraine becomes justified. Aggression against our state is unprovoked, invasive and openly terroristic. And if someone makes a report in which the victim and the aggressor are allegedly the same in something, if some data about the victim is analyzed and what the aggressor was doing at that time is ignored, this cannot be tolerated.

Almost 200 religious buildings alone – temples and prayer houses of various denominations – were damaged or destroyed by Russian strikes. Almost 900 medical facilities. Over 2,200 educational institutions. Dozens of universities, hundreds of schools and kindergartens. The occupiers repeatedly deliberately fired artillery and mortars at people queuing for water, at evacuation buses, and repeatedly at public transport stops. The Russian army did not even refrain from striking at the memorials to the victims of the Holocaust, at the cemeteries… At the camp with prisoners of war in Olenivka. And there are no reports about it for some reason. This is immoral selectivity.

Anyone who amnesties Russia and who artificially creates such an informational context that some attacks by terrorists are supposedly justified or supposedly understandable, cannot but realize that it helps the terrorists. And if you provide manipulative reports, then you share the responsibility for the death of people with them.

Every day we expand the possibilities of our foreign policy – formal and informal. I spoke today with representatives of the African media – from Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya and Ghana. African countries can be affected very seriously by the destabilization of world markets and global relations provoked by Russia, in particular due to the food crisis. At the same time, in Africa there is a shortage of true information about the Russian war against our country and a surplus of Russian propaganda. We’ll do everything to change this balance.

Negotiations with the President of Guinea-Bissau took place for the first time in the history of our bilateral relations. I noted that Ukraine is ready to be a guarantor of food security for African countries. We discussed the support for our state in international organizations.

Tomorrow there will be new negotiations with a leader of an African country, and in general, only recently we started proper communication with eight leaders of African states.

Every day and in various ways, I remind some leaders of the European Union that Ukrainian pensioners, our displaced persons, our teachers and other people who depend on budget payments cannot be held hostage to their indecision or bureaucracy. 8 billion euros for Ukraine are currently suspended. And such an artificial delay of macro-financial assistance to our state is either a crime or a mistake, and it is difficult to say which is worse in such conditions of a full-scale war.

I don’t want to name the European country that is slowing it down now. Let’s believe that this is still a mistake and that it will be corrected.

I held a meeting of the Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief today. Minister of Defense of Ukraine Oleksiy Reznikov reported on the current provision of troops with equipment and ammunition. Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhny, Head of the Security Service Malyuk, Minister of Internal Affairs Monastyrskyi also delivered reports. We analyzed the situation in the most acute areas of the frontline, in particular in the Donetsk region. Particular attention was paid to the state of implementation of the previous decisions of the Staff, all of them must be implemented by 100%.

I signed another decree on awarding our warriors. 192 combatants were awarded state awards, six of them posthumously. In total, more than 25,500 of our defenders have already been awarded for bravery and effectiveness in battles since February 24. More than 4 thousand – posthumously.

Eternal memory to all who died for Ukraine!

Eternal gratitude to everyone who fights against Russian terrorists!

Glory to Ukraine!

07/08/2022
Nigel Huddleston – 2022 Speech at the International Working Group on Women and Sport Handover

The speech made by Nigel Huddleston, the Minister for Sport, Tourism, Heritage and Civil Society, at New Zealand House, Edgbaston Golf Club on 4 August 2022.

Thank you to New Zealand for your generous hospitality.

I am genuinely delighted to be able to attend today’s event which starts the official handover of the International Working Group on Women and Sport from New Zealand to the UK.

It is great that the event could be happening at the very same time as Birmingham 2022, which – and this is worth repeating – has the largest female sport programme in the history of the Commonwealth Games and will be the first time a major multi-sport event will feature more women’s than men’s medal events and I think that is fantastic.

I am absolutely committed to supporting women’s sport at every opportunity – pushing for greater participation, employment, commercial opportunities and visibility in the media. The fantastic success of the Lionesses this weekend shows just how far we have come.

The UK has a strong track record and strong history of empowering women and girls through sport. There is a long way to go but we have much to be proud of in this area.

The media profile of women’s sport is continuing to rise and recent research shows that two-thirds of UK sport fans currently follow some form of women’s sport, and half have attended an event featuring women’s athletes.

Our domestic initiatives, like This Girl Can, are inspiring millions of women and girls to get physically active. Something that is particularly important as we recover from the pandemic.

We have also seen the growth in audiences for women’s sport.

Recent research published by Women’s Sport Trust shows that domestic women’s sport attracted a record British broadcast audience of nearly 33 million in 2021, the main drivers being The Hundred and the FA Women’s Super League.

And the leadership role of certain media outlets is very important, including the BBC, which made the strategic decision to make sure that many of those matches were on BBC One, peak time. It worked. It showed that there is a mass audience for women’s sport. And that is pivotal. If the eyeballs are there, then the money and commercial opportunities start flowing. Instead of just doing that because it is the right thing to do, we will have increasing competition to hold these events and make sure these events are on TV because they are commercially viable and commercially lucrative.

And a record crowd of more than 87,000 attended this year’s UEFA Women’s Euros final – the highest attended match at either a men’s or women’s European Championship. I was lucky enough to attend some of the matches including the final and I can honestly say that there was a superb atmosphere. The spectators were evenly balanced and importantly, more than 100,000 children were spectators in those matches. I know the whole nation will have been inspired by the Lionesses.

There have also been record sponsorship deals struck with women’s sports leagues, such as Barclays’ sponsorship of the Women’s Super League, the premier women’s football league in England.

And the UK is due to host a number of high profile women’s sports events this year, including the Rugby League World Cup and the Billie Jean King Cup. Plus Birmingham 2022 of course which is going on at this moment in time.

We are working tirelessly to make the most of these events in showcasing women’s sport, and encouraging more women and girls to get active as a result. But we recognise that we need to go further.

The IWG is a great opportunity to build on this success and not only share the fantastic work we are doing but to learn from other countries too.

The UK Secretariat’s vision for a ‘just and sustainable post-pandemic world where women and girls play a full and equitable role’ is something that I feel passionately about.

It is vital that we continue to strive for greater equality and opportunity in sport.

We have been working with our women’s sport working group in the UK, which many of you have attended, to look at some of the challenges and opportunities that exist and I am really keen that we continue to make progress as a result of these discussions.

I would also like to commend the work of the current hosts New Zealand in sharing, promoting and supporting stories of inspiring change from around the world.

Their development of the world’s first IWG Insight Hub as a home for the world’s best research, insight, case studies, news and interactive programmes such as training and seminars has also been ground breaking.

I believe the IWG can be a catalyst for women’s sport as we recover from the impact of the pandemic.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the role you have all played in securing the IWG secretariat for the UK.

It’s absolutely essential that we work collectively to share the messages behind the bid of inclusivity, equity and collaboration.

I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that women’s sport continues to thrive not just in the UK but on the international stage.

06/08/2022
David Cameron – 2006 Speech at the Business in the Community Annual Conference

The speech made by David Cameron, the then Leader of the Opposition, at the Business in the Community annual conference held on 9 May 2006.

I’m delighted to be able to join you this morning.

I feel very much at home with Business in the Community.

The cause that you champion – corporate responsibility – was always very much part of my personal values when I worked in business.

And now that I’m in politics, it’s a central part of my political values.

I believe passionately that we’re all in this together – government, business, the voluntary sector, families and individuals.

We have a shared responsibility for our shared future.

And if you read my Party’s new statement of aims and values, Built to Last, you’ll see that shared responsibility is one of the two core values that define the modern Conservative Party we’re building.

The second of our core values is trusting people.

Today I want to explain how those two values – trusting people and sharing responsibility – relate to business in general, and specifically the work you all do as members of Business in the Community.

I’ll start by setting out our attitude to corporate responsibility.

In a few years time, I hope that Britain will have a Conservative Government.

So you need to know where you stand.

How would a future Conservative Government approach corporate responsibility?

What kind of policy direction should you expect?

I take the view that sharing responsibility is a positive thing.

It’s not about annoying box ticking.

And it certainly isn’t about nannying.

When it comes to the role of politicians and government, it never ceases to amaze me that some people simply cannot grasp the distinction between exhortation and regulation.

I understand the difference and it would inform my actions in government.

Modern Conservative attitude to Corporate Social Responsibility

So let’s start with the big picture.

For too long, the Conservative Party has allowed itself to be painted into a corner.

Our instinctive and healthy suspicion of excessive government intervention in business affairs has too easily been turned into a false caricature.

For some, we have become associated with the view that the only social responsibility of business is to make as much money for shareholders as possible.

Of course we in the Conservative Party understand that profits are the lifeblood of capitalism, the greatest wealth-creating system known to man.

Of course we recognise that profitable companies, large and small, are vital both for our economic prosperity and for our quality of life.

Companies provide jobs, wealth and opportunity, constantly improving the goods and services that make people’s lives easier and happier.

Business also generates much of the tax revenue that pays for public services.

So I have always passionately believed in the dynamism of the free market and its power to do good.

But, equally, I’ve never believed that we can leave everything to market forces.

I’m not prepared to turn a blind eye if the system sometimes leaves casualties in its wake.

Unless shortcomings are addressed, the entire system risks falling into disrepute.
If a supermarket opens a convenience store on the high street and uses its financial muscle to drive down prices until small shops are forced out of business – and then immediately puts prices up again – we need to complain.

Or if employers are making it harder, not easier, for people to combine fulfilling work with their family life, we should speak out.

And if the cultural impact of business activity has a negative effect on our society’s values, we need to complain.

These are the kinds of things I mean when I say that I’m prepared to stand up to big business.

But I will also always stand up for businesses.

Because I know that we need successful, profitable, enterprising businesses to create wealth for individuals and the community alike.

And I believe that it’s more than possible, indeed it’s essential, for these businesses to operate ethically and treat their employees, customers, suppliers and local communities fairly.

This has always been the Conservative tradition.

It was Tom King, a minister in Mrs Thatcher’s government, who convened the Sunningdale Anglo-American business conference in 1980 which led to the establishment of Business in the Community 25 years ago.

It was Michael Heseltine who saw the potential for business to play a leading role in urban regeneration in response to inner city riots.

And today we understand that corporate responsibility practice has developed enormously over the years…

…now encompassing not just what companies do with the profits they make, but how they make those profits in the first place.

Reclaiming corporate social responsibility from the left

So I want to reclaim corporate responsibility for the political centre-right.

If we leave this agenda to the left, we will end up with left-wing responses that are bad for business and bad for society.

It’s the sort of thing Ronald Reagan had in mind when he lampooned the attitude of over-zealous state interventionists…

“If it moves, tax it. If it still moves, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it.”

You can add to that list…

…”ban it”…

…”control it”…

…”develop a cross-cutting strategy for it”…

….and “set up multi-stakeholder workstreams to facilitate dialogue about it.”

I suppose I should be careful here, we’ve probably got stuff like that going on in our Policy Groups…

But for me, the right approach to corporate responsibility was captured some years ago by one of the real heroes of the corporate responsibility movement in this country, Alan Knight.

When he was leading B&Q’s pioneering work in this area, he described corporate responsibility in the most straightforward possible way, as being a “good neighbour.”
We all know what a good neighbour is in our personal lives.

Someone who behaves with respect for others.

Not leaving litter and rubbish in the street; not playing loud music in the middle of the night.

And as well as avoiding behaviour which causes harm and annoyance, a good neighbour will occasionally go out of their way to do something friendly.

Offering to babysit one night. Or let workmen into your house if you’re out one day.

It’s exactly the same for business – whether you’re a small business like a pub or a newsagent, or a huge global business like Microsoft or Tesco.

It’s only reasonable to expect that you behave responsibly.

The difference with big businesses comes in the range of areas where they have responsibilities.

A company like Tesco has countless ‘neighbours.’

The communities where its stores are based. The customers who shop there. The farmers and other businesses that supply the products it sells. The people who work in its stores and offices.

And for a company as big as Tesco, you could say that all of us are its neighbours, since Tesco affects all our lives – by helping to shape our culture, habits and lifestyles, or through the environmental impact of its carbon emissions.

So to those – and there a few of them around – who still see corporate responsibility as socialism by the back-door…

…I say that it’s nothing more sinister than the good manners we look for in our personal lives.

Our approach – deregulation in exchange for more responsibility

I know there are also still some corporate responsibility sceptics in the boardroom.

To them I say this.

The real world alternative to corporate responsibility is not some buccaneering, profit-maximising utopia.

It is the dead hand of state regulation and enforcement.

No society has ever allowed businesses to operate without consideration of wider social impacts.

History is littered with examples of hubristic enterprises being brought up short by legislative interference.

Increasingly – thanks to the efforts of Business in the Community and similar organisations around the world – it is understood that corporate responsibility makes good business sense.

And the more that companies voluntarily adopt responsible business practices, the more compelling the case for a lighter touch on regulatory inspection and enforcement.

Of course businesses understand the sense of some regulations – but it is the over-officious and bureaucratic way they are applied that often rankles and frustrates.

This is not a party political speech but it’s worth noting that in recent years, as regulatory burdens have gone up, the UK has fallen down the international league tables of competitiveness.

We need an alternative to the proliferation of laws, rules and regulations…

…of statutory authorities and inspectors.

So I want the Conservative Party to develop its own distinctive approach to corporate responsibility.

An approach that is consistent with our passion to help make Britain’s economy more competitive.

And an approach that is true to our core values – trusting people and sharing responsibility.

I want to explore the potential for a new understanding between business and Government.

With this new understanding, businesses that have publicly signed up to a commitment to responsible business practices would enjoy a lighter touch regulatory enforcement regime.

The same rules would apply to them as to all businesses – but the presumption is that they are in conformity unless proven otherwise.

Responsibility should be more about what business can do – and less about what business must do.

It should be about innovation rather than regulation; opportunities rather than obligations.

Specific issues – our working group

I want the Conservative Party to lead the debate over what those opportunities could be in the years ahead.

And I’m delighted to announce today the formation of our Working Group on corporate responsibility, comprising distinguished experts in the field, including Business in the Community’s very own David Grayson.

The aim of the Group is to help us move beyond the stale battle between those campaigning for a stronger regulatory regime, applying to all companies…

…and those who instinctively resist any regulatory encroachment.

The point is this: corporate responsibility is not a fixed entity, but varies company by company.

Regulation, on the other hand, tends towards requiring the same thing of everyone.

The companies that have become leaders in corporate responsibility have manifestly not done so as the result of a regulatory regime.

What considerations have incentivised these companies?

How can these incentives be built upon to provide a similar spur to others?

Business can lead change

Companies can lead change, not just within the business community but in broader society.

Who better than a TV company to run programmes on homelessness that can open hearts and change minds?

Who better than Coca Cola, a firm with a better distribution network in sub-Saharan Africa than any aid agency, to get materials out to needy populations?

Who better than Boots, an organisation that probably gets more ill people through its doors than even the NHS, to offer health education?

They certainly helped me.

This is the way forward.

Exhortation not regulation

As I have said, when it comes to getting business to behave responsibly, my bias is for exhortation not regulation.

I am instinctively hostile to a state that seeks to impose rules and controls on business, save in circumstances where there is a clear and proven need for it.

Compulsion should be a last resort, not a first impulse.

But nor am I attracted to a value-neutral approach in which those in government and politics are loftily indifferent to ethically suspect business practice, regarding it as an essentially private matter.

As well as being morally wrong, it is also foolish in practical terms.

For if we choose to remain silent in the face of bad behaviour then we leave the field clear to those whose agenda is profoundly anti-capitalist.

To such people every sin is proof of the inherent evil of commerce and provides a justification for their agenda of ruinous over-regulation.

So when I see businesses behaving irresponsibly I’m going to speak out.

And there’s one case I want to address now.
Premature commercialisation and sexualisation

Like many parents I talk to, I’m concerned by the impact on children of the increasingly aggressive interface of commercialisation and sexualisation.

I have no desire to wrap kids in cotton wool.

Growing up is about finding out what goes on in the real world

But the protection of childhood innocence against premature sexualisation is something worth fighting for.

Sometimes I think that our society treats adults as children, and children as adults.

I remember a couple of years ago BHS had to withdraw a range of underwear for kids after some mums objected to the fact that padded bras and sexy knickers for the under tens were on sale.

BHS’s initial reaction was to claim that the underwear was “harmless fun.”

That sums up why parents are often reluctant to complain even when they feel uneasy.

No one wants to be seen as uptight or over protective.

‘Relax – it’s only a bit of fun.’

But actually, it’s not just a bit of fun – it’s harmful and creepy.

The marketing and advertising agencies even have a term for it: KGOY – Kids Growing Older Younger.

It may be good for business, but it’s not good for families and it’s not good for society, and we should say so.

Business has the power to do so much good in society.

A good society is one in which we care for our neighbours and have pride in our communities.

A good society is one where we have time to stop and chat.

A good society is one where work and home life exist in harmony.

When I say that we’re all in this together, I mean that we have a shared responsibility for our shared future…

…and that we’ll never enjoy truly meaningful lives if we cut ourselves off from each other.

The solution to social problems like crime, drug abuse and poverty is not to insulate ourselves from their consequences.

It is to fight them together.

We should never subcontract to the government the job of making our country a better place to live.

There is such a thing as society – it’s just not the same thing as the state.

You are part of society.

You have the power, the creativity and the enterprise to help tackle some of the most pressing social challenges we face.

You’re already doing so much.

I want to do all I can to help you do more…

…and to benefit commercially from doing so.

05/08/2022
George Osborne – 2006 Speech to the Credit Today Conference

The speech made by George Osborne, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 12 May 2006.

“I am delighted to be here at the Credit Today conference, and to follow such an impressive array of speakers who have covered such broad subjects.

I have been impressed by the focus of the credit industry on controlling risks and striking the balance between competition and responsible lending.

That is what I want to talk about today.

The story of the credit industry has a rich history, and is closely intertwined with the development of the modern economy that we live in.

The first recorded loan transactions known to man date from Mesopotamian agreements etched in stone, paying interest in silver.

And the Romans entered into contracts based on contingent liabilities.

In early modern times, first in Holland and later in London in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, credit began to finance an expansion of world trade that heralded the beginning of the industrial revolution.

To pay for the ships and crew that undertook global trade, the entrepreneurs of the day needed to borrow. Until this first expansion of credit, only kings had the gold to pay for ships. But as debt finance grew, so did the merchants who brought spices from the east, and cotton from the west, and returned with cloth.

By the end of the seventeenth century, the Government too saw the advantage of credit, and in 1694 King William III set up the Bank of England to borrow from his people. That innovation is often credited with underpinning victory in King William’s war against France three years later.

Since then the industry has expanded, and London has grown into the largest international financial centre in the world. Over a million people now work in the UK financial services sector, and in London, nearly one in ten is employed in finance. Financial products of all kinds, including credit, are one of our key exports.

In recent years we have seen another expansion of credit, both private and public. Since the mid 1990s, the level of personal debt has risen in double digits each year, while inflation has remained low. And the level of private sector borrowing, on and off the balance sheet, has rocketed.

Borrowing by households has risen to almost £1.2 trillion. That’s £40,000 for every family in Britain. A fifth of that debt is unsecured, borrowed on credit cards, personal loans, and overdrafts.

This great expansion in credit brings both challenges and opportunities.

Free access to credit allows people and families to plan their budgets. Gone are the days when we had to wait in turn for access to a mortgage, when the building society would tell us when we were considered responsible enough to buy our first home. With freer access to credit, young people can apply for mortgages when they choose.

Unsecured credit helps us to manage our finances, to smooth over tricky times, and to plan when we spend. Access to credit allows us to move money over our lifetime, to spend when we need it, and earn it back later. So when we discuss the challenges that are posed by debt, we must not lose sight of the huge benefits that access to credit can bring.

As in many markets, liberalised credit markets have boosted our freedom and boosted our economy.

But as well as these great advantages, the expansion of credit has brought challenges. The Conservatives have been very aware of these challenges in recent years.

There are two challenges I particularly want to talk about today. First, for some, especially vulnerable, families, too much debt can cause misery and great financial hardship. And second, high levels of debt, both public and private, make the economy more vulnerable to certain types of shock, and may put macroeconomic stability at risk.

For families, and for the wider economy, more debt means more vulnerability.

Most of us use our credit cards every week, and many pay off our balances at the end of each month, and we can manage our mortgage payments. But that isn’t the case for everyone.

Just this week, the governor of the Bank of England described the rise in debt and bankruptcies as a ‘social problem that is materialising’. He is right. We are in danger of becoming credit card Britain.

Last year, three million people had problems paying off debt. Another twelve million have kept up payments only after a struggle. 1.1 million people contacted the Citizen’s Advice Bureaux with debt-related enquiries – up 47% over the past five years. So debt is a significant problem for a small but important minority. For many of those struggling with debt problems are also the most vulnerable – often living from benefits or in badly paid jobs.

The Financial Services Authority has spoken of a ‘financial crisis’ for 18 to 40 year olds. Average debt for 18 to 24 year olds has doubled to £15,000 since 1999. And Alliance and Leicester has found that those in their 20s pay as much on average in interest as those in their 30s and 40s, despite usually not yet having a mortgage.

This is not a problem that is going away. As we as a nation get richer, problems with debt are getting worse. Bankruptcies have doubled in the past year. That may partly be due to a change in the law in England and Wales. But even in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where the regime has not been changed, bankruptcies have risen. Last year alone, 120,000 people were declared bankrupt – three times more than in 1997.

Even despite the benefits of more freely available credit, we cannot ignore those whose lives are made a misery by debt.

Like the case of a lady who built up £58,000 of unsecured debt despite telling her creditors that her only source of income was from benefits. Or the pensioner who attempted suicide after she acquired 25 personal loans and credit cards totalling £135,000 of debt over a decade. A man from Yorkshire whose only income was disability benefits accrued £40,000 in unsecured debt from several lenders. When he first applied for a card he had expressed doubts to the lender about his creditworthiness, but the lender advised him to ‘be creative’.

We need to consider imaginative solutions to these interconnected and difficult problems.

For policymakers who believe in markets, this leaves a difficult challenge.

I instinctively believe in the power of business to generate wealth and opportunity, as well as the tax revenues that fund our public services and infrastructure.

Like you I want a strong and healthy credit industry. And like you I want that industry to be responsible.

That is what David Cameron said earlier this week when he talked about corporate responsibility.

Every time a business behaves irresponsibly, it makes it that much harder to persuade people that business is a force for good. If the political response to corporate responsibility becomes the preserve of the left, then the response is over-regulation and yet more burdens.

That applies in the domestic debt market too. Irresponsible lending to those unable to cope is bad for people, and it’s bad for business too. In the short term, it’s bad for the bottom line as irresponsible lending is less likely to be paid back. And in the long term, it harms the good name of business and encourages those who don’t believe in or understand business at all to interfere and impose new regulation.

So what can we do?

Last year the Griffith report, commissioned by the Conservatives and produced by Brian Griffith of Goldman Sachs, reported on possible solutions to the challenges we face. I am glad to say that some of those recommendations have been taken up. I might suggest four areas that we must consider in more detail.

We must, for instance, continue the FSA’s work in financial literacy, so that all families understand the consequences of taking on debt. Well informed customers are better placed to borrow responsibly – and better financial literacy will lead in turn to even less need for regulation. Some people, for instance, believe that a higher APR is a good reason to choose a credit card. According to a survey by Norwich Union, over three quarters of people find finance complicated and around half said that complexity has put them off addressing their financial needs.

As well as boosting financial literacy to improve the responsibility of customers, we must ensure that credit advertising and credit scoring are responsible. It is a knee-jerk reaction of an interfering Government that responds to this challenge with yet more regulation. But it is in the credit industry’s own interest to advertise responsibly.

And we can support measures for helping families out of debt. I want to pay special tribute to the work of the Citizen’s Advice Bureaux and others in helping so many people who find themselves in difficult financial situations. Their services should be properly funded, because if they are not then it is the state that will have to pick up the bill.

These are all step we should take. But many of the most difficult cases, like these, occur when people accumulate debt from many different lenders.

While any one loan may be affordable, taken together, loans from many different lenders can tip a family over the edge. So responsible credit scoring should take into account not just defaults, but the financial stress of any applicant.

But that sort of responsibility is difficult without adequate procedures for data sharing. The existing data protection legislation causes difficulties, even among lenders who want to share.

So we should consider extending data sharing among lenders, particularly of unsecured debt, so that lenders know their clients’ full financial picture before agreeing more loans. I recognise the work that the industry and the Treasury Select Committee have done in pushing forward this agenda.

It seems to me that data sharing doesn’t just help lenders to assess the reliability of a client. But, properly introduced, it would help to protect vulnerable clients from resorting to many different lenders, often to pay interest on other debt.

In the past there was no need to share data. Credit was effectively rationed, through queuing. And the number of lenders was small. In 1971, there was just one credit card – the Barclaycard. Now, there are over 1,300 types of credit card, and over 70 million cards in issuance – that’s more than one for every man, woman and child in the country.

So policy must adapt to changing circumstances.

I acknowledge that there are concerns about data sharing. We would not want data sharing to become an unnecessary regulatory burden. But data sharing can improve the competitiveness of the credit market. Only with more accurate information about risk can lenders price risk more accurately.

And data sharing benefits highly credit-worthy customers too, as lenders know who the low-risk customers are too.

So I applaud the strides have already been made by some banks to share data with customers’ consent through credit rating agencies.

We must strike the right balance, appropriate for the challenges that we now face.

We can see that excess debt increases vulnerabilities at the personal level. And it causes vulnerabilities at the national level too.

Over the past nine years, the ratio of debt to annual national income has doubled.

Four fifths of the outstanding debt has been secured against housing, and has in part financed the rapid increase in house prices.

As the debt and house values have risen in tandem, so the average homeowner’s balance sheet has not been damaged. But the mismatch between a fixed-price debt and a variable priced asset heightens exposure to a fall in house prices. With larger debts relative to income, the impact on consumption and therefore on the wider economy of a fall in house prices would be bigger.

The remaining fifth of households’ debt, lent on credit card, personal loans, and overdrafts, usually funds consumption. Growth in the economy is at risk if it is mainly fuelled by consumption – both by individuals and by the Government – that is funded by debt.

An economy built on borrowed money is eventually living on borrowed time.

And on top of all the mortgages, credit cards, and bank loans, there is one man who has borrowed more than us all. The Chancellor has borrowed a further £100 billion on our behalf. He plans to borrow another £150 billion over the next three years. And that is before you add in the billions borrowed and hidden off the balance sheet.

These twin deficits – in the public and private sectors – combined with a current account deficit of almost 4% of GDP, means that overall, Britain is borrowing from overseas to spend, and our imports are out of balance with our exports. In other words, we have a trade deficit, which over the first three months of this year was the largest on record.

These imbalances in our economy may not reverse soon.

Economists play a game of trying to predict when the structural imbalances will unwind with as much enthusiasm as politicians playing the game of when Tony Blair will depart. At least in our game there’s an end in sight.

What the economists do agree on is that imbalances caused by profligate Government borrowing and high private borrowing makes our economy more vulnerable to instability, like a sharp exchange rate movement, or a fall in asset prices.

So just as private lending should be responsible, Government must be responsible too. We must strengthen the fiscal rules, and instead of fixing the rules to fit our spending, we must fix our spending to fit the rules. We must be transparent about Government borrowing – we must share data too. In January we proposed a ‘triple lock’ on stability to do just that.

The modern Conservative approach to debt is part of our broad economic strategy.

To re-build the competitiveness of our economy, by entrenching stability, and encouraging growth.

By taking long term decisions;

by facing up to the challenges of the new global economy;

and by trusting people, and sharing responsibility.

We want to build an economic strategy that can make Britain the most competitive place in the world to do business, where Government doesn’t just get in the way, with rising living standards for all.

We are at the start of a journey, as we build the ideas, and vision, and policies that will help Britain meet the challenges of the twenty first century.

And I would like to ask for your help in travelling on that journey too. We want to work with you, listen to you, both directly and through our policy groups on economic competitiveness and social justice, and I look forward to participating in this debate and learning from it in the months and years to come.

05/08/2022
Lisa Nandy – 2022 Letter to Greg Clark after Rishi Sunak Admitted to Diverting Money from Deprived Areas

The letter sent by Lisa Nandy, Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to Greg Clark, the Secretary of State, on 6 August 2022 following the comments made by Rishi Sunak.

05/08/2022