Tag: Caroline Spelman

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?

August 30, 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.

August 30, 2022
Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech on Government and Iraq

The speech made by Caroline Spelman in Westminster Hall on 4 June 2003.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for securing this debate. There has been a dearth of debate on Iraq, particularly in the post-conflict period. Since Baghdad fell, we have been short of opportunities to discuss the matter. I believe that we are all glad to welcome the Minister back to the Department for International Development, but I am sure that the frustration of Members is tangible to him. He should be exonerated from the comments and criticisms that I am about to make because he was not in the Department during the period in question, but I have to ask why the contingency planning was so poor.

As the former Secretary of State admitted in an interview on the Politics Show this past weekend,

‘the preparations for post conflict were poor, and we’ve got the chaos and suffering that we’ve got now.’

She went on to say that the advice that she was giving about the need

‘to keep order, to keep basic humanitarian services running’

was, to quote her, ‘all being ignored’.

Those extremely serious allegations need further scrutiny. We cannot expect the Minister in a Westminster Hall debate of an hour and a half to give adequate answers to all the questions that have been asked, but there must be a thorough post mortem on why the contingency planning for the war was so poor.

There is no excuse for the terrible sense of déjà vu that we are experiencing. The lessons from Afghanistan, which was a recent conflict, were not applied. The record in Hansard shows that in November and December last year the Secretary of State was deluged with questions, in which she was asked what contingency plans her Department was making for a possible conflict in Iraq. The record bears me out that a one-word answer of ‘None’ was given. In January, when asked what discussions were taking place with the Governments of surrounding countries about dealing with the impact of the conflict, the answer that came back was, ‘None.’

I do not exonerate the former Secretary of State (Clare Short) from blame. It is unfortunate that she is not here this morning, participating in the debate. While criticising the poor planning, she should also be willing to answer some criticisms about her role in the matter. I feel strongly about such issues. There is a clear need to prioritise quickly. As other hon. Members have said, the key lesson is security, security, security. That should have been learned from Afghanistan and should have come as no surprise. The lack of security hits the vulnerable in Iraq most severely. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said, it is women who suffer the most in the post-conflict scenario. It was recently reported that 13 schoolchildren were abducted from school in central Baghdad. It is not safe to get on with ordinary life. That is the reality of the situation, so we can hardly say that we have fulfilled our role in accordance with the Geneva convention as an occupying force restoring and maintaining law and order. That is a clear failing.

Children are the other vulnerable group. I was appalled to learn that there is no possibility of a child nutrition survey. I saw shepherd boys lying in hospital in Kuwait, who had been injured in the conflict. A 14-year-old weighed only four and a half stone as a result of chronic malnutrition. There is an urgent need to help the most vulnerable, but that cannot be done without security.

I join other hon. Members in chiding the Government on their contingency planning for phase 4. Clearly, it has failed. Phase 4 envisaged taking on board the Iraqi army and police, purging and vetting the Ba’athist elements and recycling them to help keep the peace in their own country. We were told that that did not work out because people removed their uniforms and went home with their automatic weaponry, which aggravated the security situation. Given the lessons learned in Afghanistan, will the Minister explain why there was no back-up plan for phase 4? The advantage about Iraq was that at least there was an army and a police force, and some possibility of recycling them.

What is the thinking about inter-ethnic tension? Kirkuk has become a no-go area for the non-governmental organisations to work in because the returning Kurds are at loggerheads with the Arabs. The problem is spreading to Mosul. The situation is entirely predictable. It could have been envisaged in any contingency plan that was made last year. How does the coalition intend to deal with a situation that is only likely to become worse? I flag that up now to try to prevent a disaster from happening.

After decades of distorted priorities under Saddam Hussein and the impact of sanctions, it is no surprise that the utilities are in such a bad state. It is a good deal worse than a sticking plaster job. The fact that there were no spares for the power stations and water supply plants has produced a chronic situation. It could all have been envisaged in the contingency planning. I have received calls from people who work in the utilities here and who want to help to restore the utilities there. Why were such matters not factored into contingency planning? Why were experts who were willing to help with the problem not lined up in advance? I reiterate that we need a proper post mortem into why the Government’s contingency planning for Iraq was so weak.

What about the relationship with the United Nations? Resolution 1483 gives America and Britain legal cover to occupy and govern Iraq, but it has been said by the leaders of our countries that the UN will have a “vital” role to play. However, so far it seems to be very much the junior partner. The group whose role is most consistently eroded seems to be the Iraqi people. On 2 April, the Prime Minister said:

‘Iraq should not be run either by the coalition or by the UN but should be run by the Iraqis.’

Is that still the case? Yesterday, the Prime Minister’s envoy to Iraq, John Sawers, told The Times that the Iraqis are not ready for democracy and that the coalition would appoint a political committee of 25 to 30 Iraqis. What role do the Government expect the Iraqi people, and women in particular, to play in running their own country?

None of my remarks is intended to denigrate the hard work and accomplishments of our armed forces—we are all proud of what they have achieved in Iraq.

The information that I have received from recently returned aid workers is that the Iraqi people are, contrary to much of what we hear in the media, delighted to be rid of Saddam Hussein and glad to have British forces there trying to restore order amid the anarchy. Of course, they would like the current phase to end, and they would like to see a plan setting out the way forward.

However, that should not detract from the role that our armed forces played in liberating the country from the repression that it suffered for far too long. The coalition’s victory over Saddam was swift and impressive, and our forces did Britain proud in their successful prosecution of the campaign. Our responsibility is to ensure that we do not ruin the peace.

August 24, 2022
Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech to the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Conference

The speech made by Caroline Spelman to the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Conference on 9 June 2003.

I welcome the opportunity to come and address you today on “Domestic Violence – the National Context”. Before I move on to this subject, may I congratulate all of you who are part of the Solihull Multi Agency Domestic Violence Strategy for the work you have done and are doing to fight domestic violence. It is an extremely important and much-needed work and I am sure that there are many survivors of domestic violence grateful to you.

When I was Shadow Spokesman on Health and when I came to be Shadow Minister for Women, I was shocked to discover the extent of domestic violence. Domestic violence is cross-cutting and is not constrained to a particular gender, age, class, ethnicity, region – it can, and does affect people from all circumstances. 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men suffer from domestic violence and domestic violence accounts for a quarter of all violent crime. Figures I found even more shocking were that 2 women and 2 children die every week at the hands of their partner or ex partner as a result of domestic violence. You cannot argue with these statistics for you cannot argue against bodies in a morgue.

You may have heard it said that there are 3 types of victims of domestic violence. The primary victim is the person who has been directly attacked by their partner or ex-partner. The secondary victims are those who may not have been directly attacked but have been indirectly affected, for example, children who may have been in the same house or room when the violence took place. I also recently met with a group of Grandparents who had watched the lives of their grandchildren suffer as a result of the scars from seeing domestic violence. The tertiary victim is the future victim who may enter a relationship with the perpetrator if he is not sufficiently dealt with by the statutory agencies. So, not only is domestic violence cross-cutting, there are also many hidden people affected.

Provision of services nation-wide to help those affected by Domestic Violence is far from adequate. That is why it is so encouraging to see that Solihull is taking a lead with a Multi Agency Domestic Violence Strategy. The provision of refuges in the UK is very scarce. It appalls me that there are more animal sanctuaries in this country than refuges. It is estimated that around 40,000 women are on the move in refuges every week. This ‘caravanning’ around the countryside of vulnerable women and children looking for somewhere to hide and sleep is barely credible in the 21st century.

I am very pleased to be involved with the refuge that is being set up in the Solihull area. With little help from the Government in establishing refuges, it is a difficult process but this must not put us off. I hope that this is the start of further refuges being built in the Solihull area so those affected by domestic violence can find a safe haven away from their abusive partners, before it is too late.

So, what is being done on a national level to fight against domestic violence? At any time now, the Government will announce a Bill on Domestic Violence. I understand the Bill will cover a number of areas. For example, unduly lenient sentencing, establishing where the public interest lies in prosecution of perpetrators of domestic violence, a focus on a multi-agency approach, and child contact orders.

There will be a period of Government consultation and I will also be carrying out consultation with the relevant agencies and actors. May I encourage you to play an active role in the consultation process both with the Government and myself – this is a real chance to influence the legislation as this early stage, before it is ‘put in stone’. We haven’t had any legislation dedicated solely to domestic violence for over 25 years – we must not get it wrong.

I welcome this legislation and we will work closely with the Government on it – this is not an issue to score political points. However, I feel strongly that legislation is not the only answer to the problem of domestic violence. There must be a culture shift in relation to domestic violence. Domestic Violence can no longer be termed ‘just a domestic’.

Imagine domestic violence being seen as unacceptable in the UK; perpetrators wouldn’t be able to ‘get away with it’ and they would receive the lengthy sentences they deserve; victims of domestic violence would hopefully seek help before it was too late; those of us thankfully not primary victims of domestic violence, would be there to support our friends who were victims and have confidence to raise concerns about possible perpetrators; children being able to talk openly to their teachers about their fears. Maybe this seems unrealistic, but I honestly believe we can bring about a substantial culture change.

Let me give you an example of how we have tried to contribute to this. Last Christmas I produced a domestic violence poster. This was the first time the Conservative Party had done something like this. The poster carried the helpline numbers of Women’s Aid and the NSPCC. Over 10,000 posters were put up in GP surgeries, hairdressers, police stations and other places throughout the country where women could discreetly write down the helpline number and seek help.

The model for the poster campaign was the Drink Driving Campaign seen in the early to mid 1990s. Some of you may remember that few eyebrows used to be raised when people went to the pub, drank alcohol and then drove home. However, as the result of an effective, nationwide, advertising campaign over consecutive years, and I must add no specific legislation, there has been a huge culture shift. Now, it is my generation and the one above who may still be tempted to drink and drive. But on the whole, those in their 20s and 30s view it as unacceptable. They would not drive if they had drunk alcohol and they would not get in a car with someone who was over the limit. So, why can’t the same change in opinion occur with domestic violence?

It is crucial that we target all generations but for a culture change to be sustainable, we need to target the younger generations. And may I press it upon you that this need is urgent. There are worrying figures which show that about 20% of young men and 10% of young women think abuse or violence against a partner is acceptable. This trend needs to be urgently reversed.

Another example of trying to bring about a culture change was the recent BBC Hitting Home Initiative. I am sure many of you saw some of the programmes during that week in February. The media is an effective tool of changing public opinion and we must encourage them to do this with domestic violence, as we did with the BBC.

One area I am extremely concerned about is child contact arrangements. I acknowledge this is an extremely contentious area but one that needs to be resolved in the forthcoming legislation. I think that we must address the problem of abusive and violent parents – particularly those convicted of a sexual or violent offence against a child, having unsupervised contact with their children following separation. This may sound shocking but it does occur.

Courts are putting children and their mothers at unnecessary risk. There have been incidents of child contact arrangements being used by an abusive partner to track down his wife and children and then to kill them. A court needs to consider all the relevant evidence, assess the risks and take all reasonable steps to ensure the protection of the child when a violent parent applies for contact or residence.

I am very encouraged about your emphasis on a joined-up approach to the development and delivery of services. Domestic Violence will only be tackled if we work together. It is very important that we make early intervention with victims of domestic violence. A woman is likely to be assaulted by her partner or ex-partner 35 times before reporting to the police. This is unacceptable. A victim of domestic violence may feel unable to go to the police but they may have to receive medical treatment for their injuries. If we can make contact with them at this point, and encourage them to seek help, we may be able to prevent further abuses against them in the future.

A multi-agency approach will only work if all the relevant agencies receive better training. This is particularly needed with the magistracy. Survivors of domestic violence will be more willing to press charges if they feel justice will actually be done. Unfortunately this is not the case at the moment. Perpetrators of domestic violence do not receive the sentences they deserve. I was, however, very encouraged to read in the strategy that Solihull Magistrates Court will be dedicating Wednesday mornings to Domestic Violence Cases. I hope this practice will be extended as time goes on.

So, let me bring my remarks to a close. This week, people are suffering at the hands of their partners or ex-partners, some may even die; there are not enough refuge places to deal with the demand; perhaps a child will be forced to have contact with a parent they are terrified of; perhaps a perpetrator will receive a light punishment for the crimes committed.

But it is not all negative; I really believe the tide is turning in relation to domestic violence. The new piece of legislation will bring about some important changes but we have to make sure we get it right – we owe that to all those affected by domestic violence. May I once again congratulate you on all you are doing to fight domestic violence and urge you to continue to give it a high priority. And every day, we can all play a part in the daily fight against domestic violence. By talking about domestic violence, we bring it into the public arena and if we actually do something to fight it, we can bring about the much needed culture change and change the lives for the better of many people affected by domestic violence in this country.

August 24, 2022
Caroline Spelman – 2005 Speech on Traveller Camps

Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman on 21 March 2005.

Last November we began consulting on the best way to deal with illegal traveller camps.

Today we can announce a seven-point plan to deal with both illegal and unauthorised development, to give stronger rights to local residents and to ensure planning controls are fairly enforced for all.

First, as Michael has said we are reviewing the so-called Human Rights Act – if it cannot be improved, we will scrap the Act.

Second, Conservatives will give councils the power to refuse applications for retrospective planning permission. This will stop the cynical manipulation of the planning system by travellers or rogue developers who wilfully ignore the rules.

Third, we will make traveller trespass a criminal offence as they have done in the Republic of Ireland. This will stop local residents having to pay up to evict travellers from their land and give the police a fast track system to evict illegal occupiers.

Fourth Conservatives will give councils new powers to ensure the rapid removal of caravans from illegal sites, and allow the courts to levy larger fines to stop travellers from profiting illegal developments.

Fifth we will extend councils powers of compulsory purchase, where the land is the subject of a continuing breach of a Stop Notice. This will protect local residents from being forced to purchase land from speculators, at vastly inflated sums, just to avoid the threat of illegal encampments.

Sixth, we will provide clearer, more effective guidance for the police. Mr Blair’s Government’s new guidance is a trespassers’ charter, restricting the ability of the police and councils to take action. We will issue revised guidance, undoing John Prescott’s changes, and encouraging police to tackle criminal or anti-social behaviour on traveller sites.

Finally, Conservatives will give local people a greater say on where sites go. We oppose the imposition of arbitrary quotas on councils to provide traveller camps. We will abolish the unelected regional assemblies and regional housing boards which now threaten to silence the voice of local communities.

Our proposals are sensible and practical. They will deal with the problem of illegal traveller camps – a problem which Mr Blair’s Government has created. Yesterday Labour said that action to tackle this issue was “tapping into … bigotry”.

They’re wrong. It’s not bigoted. It’s about fairness. And it’s about standing up for the right values. People want a government that upholds the law – not one that turns a blind eye when the law is flouted.

May 10, 2020
Caroline Spelman – 2019 Speech on Brexit

Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman, the Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 1 April 2019.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was a very good Minister in the coalition Government.

I am very keen that the voice of the world of work should be heard in this debate today. Last week, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), I co-chaired an industrial coalition. A huge range of industries and trade organisations evaluated the options before us, and they are going to inform how I will vote this evening. The British brand has been badly damaged, they said. Brexit has changed international perceptions of our country.

The CBI and the TUC were very clear that they want Parliament to compromise to find a way forward. No deal or a Canada-style relationship with Europe would not, in their view, be workable. They warned us that the trade we do with our near neighbours is very different from how we trade with more distant partners. Trading with Canada, for example, could necessitate the completion of up to 12 pages of customs forms. They estimate that that could cost British business an extra £2.5 billion annually, and that would of course hit small and medium-sized enterprises hardest of all.

There are big problems, businesses said, with mini extensions of article 50, because they cannot properly function on such a short-term planning cycle. Car factories in our constituencies are shut down this month in anticipation of the disruption of Brexit, and the workers have been urged to take their annual leave this month. They cannot suddenly open the factories and shunt the annual leave three weeks later. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders would prefer an 18-month to two-year delay to article 50 just to give business a chance to adjust. It said that we cannot keep marching up to the top of the cliff.

The TUC and the CBI again made clear the threats of a no-deal brisket that would—[Laughter.] I had a go at cooking that yesterday, Mr Speaker. A no-deal Brexit would put thousands of jobs at risk. This is not just about jobs; I remind the House that it is about the thousands of Brits abroad who will not be able to fund their own healthcare in the event of a no deal and are receiving notice of that now. I appeal to the Government for contingency funding to help those vulnerable individuals, but again mini extensions do not help them much either.

I have consistently supported the Prime Minister’s deal. Business says that it is workable and would give clarity. I will continue to support that deal if it comes back for another vote, but without enough support in Parliament we have to consider the other options. I will vote in favour of two options. I will support the proposal for “a” customs union. There is a big difference between “a” and “the”. The withdrawal agreement already provides elements of a customs union and that is something that both main parties supported in different forms at the last election. While the Conservative manifesto stated we would

“no longer be members of the single market or customs union”

we did commit to seeking a

“deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement”.

I will also vote for the proposals setting out common market 2.0, which builds on the EFTA model put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). We helped to set up EFTA: it offers preferential trade with the EU, recourse to an EFTA court for trade disputes and the right to pull the handbrake on migration.

All the options have their critics. However, an agreement on customs with the EU would work for business and help to safeguard jobs—

Mr Fysh

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Dame Caroline Spelman

I am afraid I do not have time to do so.

We must weigh up the pros and cons of all options before us. However, given the large manufacturing footprint in many of our constituencies, the impact on jobs must be a key factor. If jobs are lost—

Mr Fysh

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Dame Caroline Spelman

No, I will not give way.

If jobs were lost so that we could have a more flexible trade policy in the future, I would find that way forward very difficult to support. The critical issue for business is the need for frictionless trade with our principal market.

Mr Fysh

Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Dame Caroline Spelman

No, I have now said three times that I will not give way.

For the automotive industry, just-in-time manufacturing is critical. Some 1,100 lorries a day pass through Dover. Many firms do not have warehouses to store parts. The lorries are their warehouses. Any logistic disruption at the border is damaging. While I was out canvassing in my constituency, a small business owner explained how 15% of his trade is with the EU, and that is at risk. If he loses that trade, he has to make two of his people redundant.

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that a customs union alone provides 90% of a solution for a frictionless border. People have been understanding on the doorstep, but they expect Parliament to come together now across parties and find a compromise. Our children’s future will depend on the quality of the compromise we achieve, and we must not let them down.

The votes tonight will help to shape phase 2 of the Brexit process when we negotiate that future trading relationship. However, we cannot get to phase 2 without phase 1. That means accepting the treaty, which allows us to leave in an orderly fashion, and I urge more colleagues to do so.

April 2, 2019
Caroline Spelman – 2019 Speech on Brexit

Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman, the Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 29 January 2019.

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who spoke with great wisdom and clarity, as always.

A no-deal Brexit would have not just a huge economic cost, but a huge human cost, and that is what drove me to table amendment (i). The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I are co-authors of this amendment, and we are neighbours. We have seen the lives of our constituents transformed by the renaissance of manufacturing in our region. It now exports more than any other region to the EU, which is its principal market. But Brexit is putting this at risk. As a group of cross-party MPs, we began meeting six months ago to discuss how to help, as we are already losing jobs—not just because of Brexit, but it has made it worse. We co-authored a letter to the Prime Minister calling for a no-deal Brexit to be ruled out, and I thank those who signed it. It attracted 225 signatures from MPs of six parties from all over Britain. The signatories are remainers and leavers, but we agree on one thing—we are against a no-deal Brexit.

Hardly a day goes by without another business calling for no deal to be prevented. Yesterday, it was the supermarkets which fear their shelves will be empty. Before that, it was the security analysts advising us of increased risks and before that, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, Siemens, Ford, and the National Farmers Union and other farming organisations. The list is simply endless. The CBI has described this as a monumental act of self-harm to be avoided at all costs. Crashing out without a deal simply makes our exports instantly less competitive.

The Government say that it is not their policy to leave with no deal, so let us rule it out. The threat of no deal has been used as a stick to get more concessions, but in my view that card has played out. It has not secured the needed changes, as on the backstop, for example. So as a former negotiator, I would flip that card round the other way as a carrot, offering to take no deal off the table in return for concessions that will get the deal over the line.

I want to be clear: I am not blocking Brexit. I am committed to honouring the referendum result. I voted for the withdrawal agreement; I have read all 585 pages. I urge colleagues perhaps to have a fresh look at it. It may not be perfect, but local businesses tell me that it is good enough and works for them.

Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)

In addition to the businesses themselves, does my right hon. Friend welcome the communications from the workers in those businesses, particularly Jaguar Land Rover, who have communicated with Members of Parliament such as myself to tell me their concerns about a no-deal Brexit?

Dame Caroline Spelman

My hon. Friend is quite right. As a fellow west midlander, he will know that many of us had a personal handwritten letter, or an original email, about the impact—the human cost—on our constituents’ lives, which we simply cannot ignore.

I know that others need persuading about the withdrawal agreement. I encourage colleagues to read the document produced by the House of Commons Library, “What if there’s no Brexit deal?” This document could usefully inform six days of debate, because we ought to debate what the House of Commons Library tells us are the really important issues that we need to consider.

Heidi Allen

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Dame Caroline Spelman

I am short of time now, so I ask my hon. Friend to allow me to continue.

As no deal looms, just think of the human cost. Hundreds of young people like the single mums on my council estates got apprenticeships, then well-paid work in manufacturing, and now their jobs are at risk. Voting no to no deal means that we must agree a deal. The longer the uncertainty continues, the harder it gets for business. Stockpiling is costly and inefficient—the cost comes off the bottom line, and in the end that costs jobs. Just-in-time supply chains will be “not-in-time” with any hold-up at the border, and some factories are already stopping production to limit the disruption.

If we agree that no deal is not an option, then it is incumbent on all party leaders to get round the table—and I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition say today that he would. The Malthouse initiative is an example of a new contribution to break the deadlock. But to negotiate any new deal with the EU will take time and cause an inevitable delay, and I am with the Leader of the House in trying to keep delay to a minimum. The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to have read my amendment because he thinks that it calls for a delay. It does not, because time costs money for business.

We know that there is a majority for “no to no deal” in this Parliament because it was voted on as part of the Finance Bill, but the sheer complexity of that put some people off, including me. So this is a simple vote on whether colleagues support no deal or not. As the commentators say, it is not “processy”. I am surprised that, having been defeated on this issue once, the Government might still want to whip against this amendment —but then, these are not normal times in politics.

The public are weary with the Brexit debate. It is not quick and painless, as promised. They want us to come together in the national interest, and we can do that by agreeing that no to no deal means that there has to be a deal. I am not a natural rebel. Indeed, I do not accept that label as someone supporting something that commands a majority in this House. I see that the Speaker’s chaplain is here to remind us all that we need to be respectful. I am a peacemaker, and I urge all parties in the House to come together in an outbreak of pragmatism and to agree a deal. To vote for my amendment commits us all to that quest.

January 30, 2019
Caroline Spelman – 2016 Speech on the Loyal Address

Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman, the Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2016.

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

It is an honour to be asked to propose the Loyal Address, especially in Her Majesty’s 90th year. When I was asked to see the Chief Whip, my first thought was: what have I done? The relief in discovering that it was for a good reason was followed almost immediately by the angst of how to do it well. I looked carefully at how my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) tackled it last year. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us today as he has to attend a funeral. We all now know of his unswerving admiration for Hillary Clinton. We have shared with him the anxieties of the primaries, so I put all colleagues on alert that if they are standing next to him when the news of the presidential election comes through, be prepared to provide moral support whichever way it goes, but especially should Hillary be trumped.

First, may I say to my constituents in Meriden how grateful I am to them for electing me to Parliament? I am always proud to represent them. A lot has changed since my first day here 19 years ago. I was often the only woman in meetings. I was one of very few women around the Cabinet table with school-age children. This could prove awkward, such as at the shadow Cabinet meeting interrupted by the news that one of my sons had fallen off a drainpipe at school.

In 1997, only 18% of MPs were women. This has now risen to a total of almost 30%—not yet parity, but we are heading in the right direction. It has also been a great privilege to help mentor newcomers, and in return I have been especially grateful to Baroness Shephard for her mentoring down the years.

The Chamber now looks more like the electorate at large. [Interruption.] On all sides! Better decisions are made when those who make them are more diverse. For example, when assessing the priorities for public transport, men rate reliability and cost as the most important factors, but women put something else first—their personal safety. Put the two perspectives together and a better outcome is achieved.

I hope that by now the nearly new Members are beginning to make friends in all parties and discover that they can have allies across the Floor. In fact, the work of Parliament is often enhanced by the friendships that transcend party lines. When I was party chairman, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) asked me to organise a debate with him on the subject of dying well, as we each had a parent with a poor experience of that in hospital. The Whips did not bat an eyelid at that. The only objection was to the title: dying was considered far too controversial, and we had to call it end-of-life care.

I also worked with the right hon. Gentleman on the Modern Slavery Bill, as we both served on the Joint Committee of both Houses. If ever there was an outstanding example of a cross-party approach to tackling a terrible injustice, this is it. The Home Secretary deserves the credit for securing a piece of landmark legislation, which is a world first in this area. The legal expertise of Baroness Butler-Sloss forced us all to think very hard how to get this absolutely right, and I felt that it was my red letter day when the noble Lady uttered these magic words to me: “I think the right hon. Lady has a point.”

I have been in a cross-party prayer fellowship all the time I have been here. It consists of two Conservative MPs, two Labour MPs, one Liberal MP and one Democratic Unionist MP. We could not have done that better by using proportional representation if we had tried. We and our families met up in each other’s constituencies, and my children were initially perplexed by the fraternisation until I explained that it was like when your friend supports Aston Villa and you support Coventry: you think he is misguided, but you are still friends.

We will shortly face a big decision about our membership of the EU. Whichever way the vote goes, we will need to ensure good relations with our neighbours. I commend to the House the recent concert by the Parliament Choir in Paris to show our solidarity with the people of France after the terrorist attacks last year. There are often opportunities for soft diplomacy, and we should take them. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and I may not see eye to eye on Europe, but his rich baritone and my alto voice have produced delightful harmony.

I welcome the clear references in the Gracious Speech to the life chances agenda, and I am pleased that this is to be a key theme in the year ahead. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) pioneered this approach, and the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has the life experience and the ability to drive it forward. My constituency has a council estate of nearly 40,000 people, and I have seen how the life chances of my constituents have improved through the regeneration of housing and schools by Solihull Council. When I took a Minister on a visit there recently, two tenants emerged from one of our 37 refurbished tower blocks to express their delight that their energy bills had halved as a result of the new energy-saving features. The Minister turned to me and asked, “How much did you pay them to say that, Caroline?”

Buildings can be regenerated but it is the life chances of the human beings within them that really make the difference, so I am delighted that so many of our young people are getting apprenticeships as engineers, including many young women, in the great tradition of those women who built the Spitfires in the last world war. All of this is made possible by the renaissance of manufacturing and the economic recovery that we have seen.

Parts of my constituency are rural, and despite being at the very centre of England, we have mobile and broadband not spots, so I am glad to hear that a renewed effort is being made to address the digital divide. With my Church Estates Commissioner’s hat on, may I remind the Government of the offer of church spires and towers to help to crack this problem? They may bring us closer to God, but a proper signal can feel like heaven on earth to those who have had none.

Prison reform is well overdue. We know that reoffending can be dramatically cut with the right kind of help. The Justice Secretary and the Education Secretary know how important it is to improve the life chances of school children, as far too many prison inmates are unable to read and write. I am glad that the Justice Secretary is now using his reforming zeal to give prisoners a better chance to turn their lives around. I have witnessed at first hand how this can be achieved. I helped to set up a charity called Welcome to tackle drug and alcohol abuse and to get people free of addiction and into work. We started with just one employee in a community hall; now we employ more than 20 and we do the triage for the NHS in our borough of 200,000 people. Some of the best advocates are our volunteers who have achieved this themselves and are role models for others.

No party has a monopoly on compassion, and Members on both sides of the House have sought to help the vulnerable. On entering politics, it was my personal resolution to speak for those who were unable to speak for themselves. Few people in our country are more vulnerable than a child leaving care. The state has not often proved to be a great parent, and knowing how hard it is to be a parent, we should not be surprised. But I take my hat off in particular to the parents who adopt. We need more parents to come forward to foster and adopt, so I welcome the Government’s intention to speed up adoption—indeed, this was the objective of my private Member’s Bill on the subject—but children can still be left too long in care and the damage can be irreparable. so let us improve the follow-up care and keep it going until a young adult is fully fledged. Eighteen may be the notional age of adulthood, but, in my experience, it takes a good few more years of parental support before young adults’ wings can take life’s turbulence.

New measures are clearly needed to prevent sections of society feeling alienated, but I appeal to the Government not to take a hammer to crack a nut. Good role models and moderate voices are what are needed, and I have high expectations of the new Mayor of London, who is not only an excellent cricketer, as the Lords and Commons cricket team will testify, but uniquely well placed to help. Good luck, Sadiq—no pressure!

Let me return to my opening theme of making friends across the House. Over the years, there have been a good few Members whom I have sought to encourage after they had suffered setbacks in their parliamentary careers. My key piece of advice has been, “Don’t give up! Get stuck back in and fight for the causes you know and care about, and this House will ultimately respect you for it.” May I therefore say a heartfelt thank you for the way the House has helped me rediscover the fulfilment of being an elected Member of this mother of all Parliaments. As long as you have the chance to make a difference, there is no such thing as having had your day. We are elected to change things for the better and to take up the issues that confront us, so seize the day! I commend the motion to the House.

May 19, 2016
Caroline Spelman – 2012 Speech at Climate Change Risk Assessment Launch

Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at the Climate Change Risk Assessment Launch on 30 January 2012.

Yesterday the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum began in Davos.

The theme this year is transformation; and the need for new conceptual models to understand and respond to the great changes we are witnessing.

Reshaping our global economy is a vital task. Leaders from government, business and civil society must work together to create – and realise – a vision for a strong, green global economy for the 21st century.

Action on climate change is integral to a robust and resilient economy.

And the climate change challenge is two-fold.

We must decouple economic growth from carbon, reducing our own emissions, and lobbying for international cooperation on this most urgent of issues.

But, because carbon stays in the atmosphere for decades, we are already locked in to some climate change. So we must also prepare our economy for big changes to our weather patterns.

We are already experiencing an increase in extreme weather events: and the knock-on economic effects.

– The 2007 floods cost the UK economy billions.

– The 2010 drought led to the doubling of global wheat prices. Meanwhile floods in Australia sent the price of coal and steel soaring.

– Last winter’s freeze-up cost London alone £600 million a day.

– This year, floods in Thailand led to a worldwide shortage of IT and car components.

The UK leads the world in climate science, and Government will ensure it continues to do so. Defra is protecting its funding of the Met Office Hadley Centre, because we know exactly how vital this work is.

No amount of science can predict the future. But what it does allow us to do is map the possibilities, assess the risks and take the actions needed, to ensure our future resilience and well-being.

Thanks to science, we know about rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, rising sea levels rise and so on – but so far we haven’t worked out what these changes mean for the economy, for society and for nature.

The Climate Change Risk Assessment takes this next step.

This analysis is the first of its kind. Its methods are groundbreaking. Again the UK is leading the way with this risk-based approach. I want to congratulate the consortium led by HR Wallingford on this monumental achievement. I also want to thank Lord Krebs and the Adaptation Sub-Committee, Professor Martin Parry and his international review panel, and Professor Sir John Beddington and his Chief Scientific Advisers across Government, and the many peer reviewers who gave their expert advice along the way.

Sir John and his Foresight team have been working on a parallel international project that is helping us understand how changing weather patterns across the world will affect us here in the UK. Published last July, their report identifies the key threats, from impacts on trade routes and infrastructure to global diseases and international migration. It provides a useful accompaniment to today’s Risk Assessment.

Annually we invest £30 to £50 billion on infrastructure: road, rail, energy, and water hardware, much of which will be here for many decades. To get the best return from this investment – to minimise the costs of maintenance, refurbishment, and replacement – we need to factor the need for long-term climate resilience into the decisions we’re making now. We’re particularly grateful to the Royal Academy of Engineering for helping us think through the infrastructure issues.

The CCRA shows us the range of challenges we face.

– Threats to infrastructure, and to supply chains.

– Threats to wildlife. Although some species could benefit, many more would struggle.

– The risk of flooding is likely to become greater.

– At the same time water could become scarce.

– The UK’s farmers could be tackling water scarcity while managing the higher risk of animal diseases, as well as new weeds and pests.

– Warmer winters may reduce cold-related deaths – but hotter summers would increase health risks.

– Hotter weather would also increase the risk of wildfires.The report also analyses the opportunities presented by climate change itself, and by the need to adapt. Taking up these opportunities is part of the challenge.

The Risk Assessment sets out the challenges – but not the solutions. It also doesn’t factor in changes in policy, plans, and behaviour – our ability to adapt.

This is important to remember. The analysis provides a baseline against which to assess the climate resilience of our plans and actions; so we can judge what more needs to be done.

Work to build climate change resilience is happening across government. My department’s activities include our Natural Environment White Paper and our National Ecosystems Assessment, both published last summer, which look at how climate change will affect species, habitats and eco-systems.

Our Water White Paper, published in December, sets out our vision for a climate-resilient water industry, for secure water supplies and healthy lakes and rivers throughout the century.

As the department for food and agriculture we are working to help farmers adapt to climate change. We have also published guidelines on forests and climate change. And we are lobbying internationally for climate change agriculture to be part of the climate change treaty.

This work is not for government alone. All sectors will be affected. All sectors need to act.

The Risk Assessment is the start of a conversation: a nationwide, sector-wide conversation about ensuring our climate resilience, our economic stability and our health and well-being, in the short and the long term.

This conversation is vital to the co-creation of the National Adaptation Programme for 2013. I want you be part of it. Please visit our National Adaptation Programme web pages to collaborate in this crucial work.

Because, with cross-sector engagement, with foresight, with planning, and with commitment, we can mitigate climate threats, as well as taking advantage of the opportunities – and ensure that our economy is resilient.

It’s inspiring to see what is already happening.

Climate resilient infrastructure is vital. We are keeping abreast of what infrastructure companies are doing, through the reports they are providing under the Adaptation Reporting Power.

But it’s not just about infrastructure. All businesses, from local retailers to big corporations, need to be climate resilient.

The Climate Resilience Toolkit we have developed with the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants is an excellent tool for quickly and simply assessing how your business could be affected by climate change. We’re now working with the Environment Agency to create further ways of helping businesses, local authorities and other organisations adapt in practical ways.

Businesses should seize the opportunities: how to provide climate resilience to their customers, and how climate change might spark the need for new products and services.

Forward-thinking companies are already coming up with the solutions both innovative and simple, from Swiss Re’s weather hedge for drought-prone areas in India, to Hallmark Blinds’ design for a window cover that deflects heat while letting the light in.

Different areas in the UK face different risks. So most adaptation actions need to happen locally. Local government has a vital role to play.

Many local authorities are meeting this challenge, in partnership with public and private sector organisations.

Big cities are especially vulnerable to heat waves. The City of London has mapped places across the metropolis where residents and workers could escape the heat.

In east London, Barking and Dagenham council have reduced flood risk by creating a wetland – at the same time providing habitats for people to enjoy and wildlife to thrive.

Dorset County Council has worked with the Met Office to assess climate change impacts on the county’s roads and pathways over the next 40 years. The council will now use the assessment to make sure the county’s highways are resilient.

There are many other initiatives; and we need to spread best practice, helping more local adaptation action.

The most deprived and vulnerable individuals and communities face the highest risks of hardship from climate change.

We are currently working with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations to help charities and voluntary groups understand how climate change could affect the people they work with. We also have strong links with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is researching the social justice implications of climate change.

Wildlife conservation organisations are working on how to help species adapt to climate change, through land management and conservation work. The National Trust’s work to manage rising sea levels and other climate impacts on its properties is another example of civil society’s role.

It was Benjamin Franklin who said nothing in this world is certain, but death and taxes. We are used to dealing with uncertainty: and we’re good at it. We are constantly making risk-based decisions, from how we invest money to whether to carry an umbrella.

The more information we have, the easier and the better our decisions are.

We are a Government that understands the vital role of science. Science that gives a clear picture of the evidence where it exists, and science that describes the extent of the uncertainty where it doesn’t. This is why we protected the science budget in the spending review, and why we made more science investments in the autumn statement.

Today’s document is part of that science, and part of that mission. Please use the science, and work with us, to ensure prosperity and well-being, for ourselves and for future generations.

January 25, 2016
Caroline Spelman – 2011 Speech at the Oxford Farming Conference

Below is the text of the speech made by the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, to the 2011 Oxford Farming Conference.

I’ve been really looking forward to the Oxford Farming Conference. It’s my first as Secretary of State and allows me to set out my stall as we approach a new year in the agricultural calendar and the start of serious negotiations.

I’m a lucky lady because years ago as a commodity secretary of the NFU I would look to this event to set the framework for the industry to operate in. And now I’m here helping to set it.

As the Coalition we now have a credible negotiating mandate and the right to be a positive participant in Europe – a participant that will be looking to get the best deal for farmers, taxpayers, consumers and the environment alike.

It helps to speak other’s languages of course. But more than the words it’s the fact the UK is a real player at the negotiating table that we are more likely to achieve our aims.

Aims which include the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy.

We need to address the tendency to protectionism in other Member States which undercuts producers in developing countries, because this is morally wrong. Favouring protectionism over liberalisation will actually hold back European farmers in the long run.

To continue as we are threatens to prevent the transition we need towards a market that can sustain EU agriculture in the future. And there has to be change, because the new member states will demand a fairer allocation – with which I have considerable sympathy. There won’t be a deal, frankly, without this.

We now need to make the new CAP fundamentally different. Its strategic approach must change; as well as its detail. It must be re-positioned so that we can tackle the new challenges of achieving global food security and tackling and adapting to a changing climate.

The Commission recently published its plans for CAP reform. Although they set out the challenges for the sector they did little to create a dynamic strategy that would usefully contribute to President Barroso’s 2020 vision. So, while I welcome their proposals for further moves towards market orientation and international competitiveness I believe we can be more ambitious.

We can be more positive. More confident. Now is the time to make very significant progress towards reducing our reliance on direct payments – it’s certainly something the farmers I know want to see happen. Rising global demand for food and rising food prices make it possible to reduce subsidies and plan for their abolition.

Furthermore we should encourage innovation in the industry. Provide help with environmental measures and combating climate change. Our taxpayers have every right to expect other public goods for the subsidies they pay. I’m wary of the proposal to ‘green’ Pillar 1. What is proposed is nothing like as ambitious as British farmers have shown themselves to be. That’s why we want to see Pillar 2 taking a greater share of limited resources.

We are prepared to work hard to achieve this vision. As a coalition we have a positive relationship with the EU, with fellow Members States and with all EU institutions. We are forming alliances with those who share our vision of a competitive industry, who share our desire to see it deliver on public goods and who want to see a level playing field in the CAP. This is the only way we can achieve our goals.

We can do it. We’ve already seen it work. It may not be what you expected me as a Secretary of State to say, but it’s true. Recent negotiations on whaling, on forestry and at the December Fisheries Council all succeeded because we built partnerships.

The relationships we build will pay off. At the end of last year – in Nagoya – we saw an international agreement on a new global framework for protecting biodiversity.

In the year of its Presidency of the G20, France has boldly and wisely proposed a meeting of Agriculture Ministers to improve the functioning of world markets.

A timely decision as the global demand for food rises. As international food markets open up and the risk increases of a wrong-headed, protectionism. In some cases this has already happened – we just have to cast our minds back to late summer and the ban on Russian and Ukrainian grain exports.

I would therefore like to work with France to seek an end to export bans – one of the most restrictive practices found in the world market.

This challenge is the clear focus of the Foresight Report which will be published at the end of this month.

Of course our vision for the future and the goals we set ourselves must be tempered by the current fiscal climate.

There’s a need for a reality check. It’s astonishing that the Commission’s initial views on the CAP barely acknowledge the hard times currently facing Europe.

It’s hard for us here too.

We’ve been in office for just over 6 months. It’s been a challenging time. But, as the PM said, Britain can become one of the international success stories of the new decade. But first we must deal with the economic problems we inherited. Our overriding goal has been to set in motion measures to tackle those problems. This began with an emergency budget swiftly followed by the comprehensive spending review.

But this hasn’t stopped us spending in excess of £2 billion of taxpayers money in pursuit of our objectives. Of greening the economy. Of enhancing the environment and biodiversity.

Of supporting the British food and farming industry and helping it develop.

That is a theme that runs right through our business plan. Particularly the role the food sector plays in our economy. And the contribution made by farmers in managing the land.

Over the coming years we need to increase the competitiveness of the whole UK food chain, to help secure an environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food.

Underlying all of this is the power shift from the centre towards local organisations – putting local people back in charge – a classic example of what we mean by Big Society.

This shift will change the way the department works. We want to see a greater degree of trust and collaboration when developing and delivering policy. This will allow you as an industry to shape your own destiny.

I think this last point is of paramount importance. I see my job as helping you to become more profitable, innovative and competitive. By creating the right conditions for the industry to raise productivity, to be entrepreneurial, to continue to develop strong connections with your markets and customers and establish robust links throughout the food chain. I’m really keen to do my bit but it will require you as an industry to step up and seize these opportunities. Sustainable intensification is an example, where fewer agricultural inputs results in less cost to you and the environment. A win-win situation all round.

The whole industry must strive to be as good as its best operators and in turn the best need to keep raising the bar.

This is crucial – as a nation we’ve never been so interested in where food comes from, how it’s produced and animal welfare. As a result corporate values can easily be damaged by food scare stories. Public opinion and the media can bring great pressure to bear. Those in the industry who are good at their business understand this and are more responsive to the market’s changing demands as a result.

We want farming to enjoy a better image. We want more young people to enter the industry. We need to convince them that it offers good prospects. That’s why the work of the Agri-Skills Forum is so important, putting in place the infrastructure for lifelong learning through continuous professional development.

We want everyone to see the potential in UK farming. It’s an industry that – with the food sector – enjoys an £85 billion income. It has succeeded in growing even through recession. People are always going to need food. It has the potential to become a dynamic and progressive industry with an image to match. Where professionalism and high skills are ably demonstrated. Where farmers are enterprising business people looking to make the most of their experience, always looking for new business opportunities.

I was impressed by Lincolnshire farmers innovation during the recent freeze and their efforts to slow the thawing of cauliflowers to avoid the waste of last year.

For the industry to innovate like this we need to allow it to operate in an environment where there is a greater degree of trust.

This approach marks a departure from the old way of doing business. The paternal approach of Government telling industry what to do and industry complying.

We want a system which recognises most people try to do the right thing.

So what we now need is a greater degree of collaboration. We’ve already seen this at work through the new voluntary food labelling code. The Task Force for Farming Regulation is another example.

A clear priority for this Government, and one that must underpin the Commission’s approach will be to reduce the unnecessary red tape for farmers. We want to be in the vanguard in Europe in pursuing this further. Our aim is to develop an industry fit for an exciting future. A future which is innovative, competitive and profitable. We will not achieve that by burdening farmers with more regulations.

Through the Task Force we want to see how and where, we can reduce the cost of compliance. We hope the group will be able to offer advice on how to reduce the regulatory burden and identify examples of gold-plating and overly complex implementation.

We know they’ve asked for your input and that they are looking at a number of areas of concern. Particularly around arrangements for livestock movement and identification, for cross compliance and nitrate vulnerable zones, as well as inspections – an issue that affects a lot of you. Currently, you might be visited by an official agency inspector, by the local authority and by a private sector assurance auditor, all looking at the same thing for different reasons. We look forward to the Task Force’s recommendations for a simpler, risk-based way of doing things.

We’re looking to the Task Force to make clear strategic recommendations on how we use regulations. They’ll report back in April.

Elsewhere we’re looking at how responsibility for dealing with animal disease can be shared with animal keepers which will demand trust on both sides. We know sharing responsibility makes for better decisions, Bluetongue being a case in point.

Our overriding goal here is to reduce the universal risk and costs of disease to industry, government and the wider economy, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness of investment in disease prevention and management.

The recommendations from the independent Advisory Group were released just before Christmas. We’re busy looking at what was said and will respond in due course.

The issue of trust plays out in initiatives set up by the department. Particularly the Campaign for the Farmed Environment. Here we believe it gives the industry the opportunity to show everyone that the farming community is best placed to deliver the required environmental outcomes from their land. We know farmers are the stewards of the countryside this is your opportunity to show that. We have put our money where our mouth is by backing both environmental schemes. Increasing the higher level by 80%.

The key tool we use to enable farmers to deliver on our strategic priorities for natural resource protection.

While walking the fields on John Plumb’s Warwickshire farm I saw for myself how he sows a mixture of seeds on the headlands to attract pollinators and farmland birds.

Currently we’re working with Natural England and others to make all strands of Environmental Stewardship more effective and better targeted. The aim here is to ensure that the scheme is more focused on results.

All of this will ensure that agri-environment outcomes delivered to date are protected and maintain our commitment to making Environmental Stewardship available to all farmers.

This work dovetails neatly with the ideals and goals behind the publication of our White Paper on the Natural Environment.

A document that looks to make the natural environment’s real value count. The first of its kind for twenty years.

The white paper gives us an unmissable opportunity to make a real difference and ensure the health of our natural environment and our economy go hand in hand.

The farming community has a role to play here. You are the custodians of the countryside. You conserve and promote a vibrant natural environment. We’re now looking to build on this and get the balance right between the public’s demands for affordable and plentiful food while meeting their demands for a healthy natural environment.

This generation should be the one that reverses the loss of species. A generation which secures a healthy natural world for the future and one which properly values and protects the benefits that nature gives us.

I enjoyed a preview of the research on the value and viability of UK Farming prepared for this conference. I hope that what I have said today has demonstrated the collaborative approach it calls for. The importance of farming to the UK economy is recognised by the priority we have given it in Defra’s business plan, providing the kind of leadership you call for.

This should help to address the concern in the research community that the UK government understands agriculture less well than our competitors. With all four ministers at Defra having agricultural credentials we defended Government research in the spending review.

The priority we give to farming and the food industry will also help to improve the image and profile of the sector.

Today I’ve tried to lay out my ambitions, goals and vision for the food and farming community of this country. I believe the whole industry has a lot to contribute to a healthy economy, environment and society. As Secretary of State I fully intend to maintain this dialogue and help create a competitive and sustainable industry that is successful because it gives customers what they want.

An industry that embraces risk and manages risk. An industry that wants to deliver public environmental goods. That takes greater responsibility for animal health and welfare standards. And an industry that underpins the quality of rural life.

All of which further develops the levels of trust needed for us to move forward. What I can do is provide the framework for you to succeed. You are the entrepreneurs. You make it happen.

Thank you.

December 3, 2015