UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech on the EU

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, on The Fashion Retail Academy in London on 29 March 2016.

    Thank you, June [Sarpong, Britain Stronger in Europe Board Member] and Amber [Atherton, founder of My Flash Trash], for that kind introduction.

    It’s a pleasure to be here today and thank you to the Fashion Retail Academy for hosting us.

    Earlier this year I had the pleasure of visiting the academy with Sir Philip Green. Founded and led by giants of fashion and retail, the college is a great example of our vision for employers to play a key role in designing courses that give young people the skills they really need, and those that will help them succeed in the workplace.

    Two weeks ago, I published an education white paper – ‘Educational excellence everywhere’ – setting out our plans for how we would continue the work to reform and improve our schools over the course of this Parliament.

    From improving how teachers are trained, to tackling educational cold spots, to giving all schools the freedoms that come with academy status, our white paper was about making sure that the next generation are receiving the sort of high-quality education they need to succeed in adult life. To make sure they leave school able to compete, not just against their peers in the UK, but from across the world, in what is an increasingly globalised labour market.

    And to do that we have to make sure that young people are able to engage with the world as global citizens, that they know about the world beyond our country’s borders. It’s also about ensuring that we give young people the opportunities that allow them to make the most of their education and the chance to realise their talents.

    I passionately believe that our membership of the European Union supports all of those things.

    It does so by not only making our country more prosperous, but also by offering young people opportunities, right across the continent, opportunities which leaving the EU would certainly put at risk.

    It’s those opportunities and risks for young people that I want to talk about today.

    In doing so, I also want to send out the message to young people, loud and clear, that this is a decision which, whatever way it is ultimately decided, will shape the rest of their lives.

    My message to them is to make sure that they make their voice heard in that debate, and not to have the decision made for them by other people.

    After all, the whole reason that this referendum is taking place is because David Cameron made a commitment to the British people to let them decide.

    So it won’t be a decision taken by politicians in Westminster, it will be a decision taken by every single adult British citizen who chooses to take part, and that must include young adults.

    Because it is young people who arguably have the most at stake.

    Brexit risks a lost generation

    One of the reasons that the Great Recession was so damaging was that it hit young people the hardest. Youth unemployment soared, entry level jobs were cut and graduate opportunities were closed off.

    I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that we risked seeing a lost generation in this country.

    In fact you only have to look at Greece, Spain or Portugal, to see how easily that could have been the case, with scores of young people unable to fulfil their potential and display their talents because of economic turmoil.

    That’s the simple reason why tackling youth employment and making sure young people have the education and skills to get a job has been at the heart of our long term economic plan.

    It’s why we made the difficult decisions which were necessary to rebuild a strong economy, so we could offer the promise of a better future to the next generation.

    Undeniably, there is still work to be done, but the outlook for young people entering adulthood in 2016 is a far cry from where it was in 2010.

    There are now a third of a million fewer 16- to 24-year-olds unemployed with a 25% drop in the rate of young people who are not in education, training or employment and the lowest number of 16-to-18 NEETs on record.

    This year graduate recruiters are expecting 8% more vacancies – a 10-year high.

    It’s thanks to the growing economy that we are making good progress on delivering our pledge of 3 million apprenticeships, with a significant recent rise in the number of 16-to-19 apprentices.

    That doesn’t leave us any room for complacency, but things are significantly brighter for a young person leaving school today than they were 5 years ago.

    A vote to leave the European Union would put all of that progress, and young people’s future prospects at risk.

    CBI analysis has shown that a vote to leave could cost 950,000 jobs, leaving the unemployment rate between 2 and 3% higher; a report from the LSE last week showed that the average household is likely to see a fall in income of between £850 and £1,700 and new research out today from Adzuna shows that firms are already cutting back on advertising jobs because of their fear of a Brexit.

    And we know it’s young people who will face the brunt of the damage a vote to leave would bring.

    Because the Great Recession demonstrated the stark reality that when we experience economic shocks, the likes of which we could suffer if we leave the EU, it’s young people who suffer. As we saw in that recession, the largest increases in the rate of unemployment were among these young people.

    That shouldn’t be a surprise – when the economy struggles and firms stop hiring, it’s those at entry level who they stop recruiting for first.

    Even those jobs that are advertised receive many more applicants from higher skilled, older workers and second earners, meaning young people, looking for their first big break, are crowded out.

    I know of one student who was told his graduate offer was at risk if the UK didn’t stay in Europe, as that firm was considering moving jobs elsewhere. He certainly isn’t alone.

    It’s clear, that if Britain leaves Europe it will be young people who suffer the most, left in limbo while we struggle to find and then negotiate an alternative mode. In doing so we risk that lost generation becoming a reality. And everyone who casts their vote must understand that.

    If parents and grandparents vote to leave, they’ll be voting to gamble with their children and grandchildren’s future.

    At a time when people are rightly concerned about inter-generational fairness, the most unfair decision that the older generation could make would be to take Britain out of Europe and damage the ability of young people to get on in life.

    The opportunities for young people

    But it’s not just the risks of leaving that mean young people should vote for us to remain.

    The opportunities afforded by the ability to work, study and travel in Europe are particularly important and exciting to young people as they plan their adult lives.

    Taking them in turn:

    The EU offers young people the opportunity to work anywhere within its borders.

    So they can start a career as an engineer for Volkswagen in Wolfsburg in Germany, or spend a year as an English language teacher in Nice or as we’re here at the British Fashion Retail Academy, take the opportunity to work in the fashion capitals of Paris, Milan and Barcelona.

    And young people can do this all without the hassle and risk of employment visas and time limits – free to stay for as long as they want and travel back to Britain when they want.

    In fact, estimates suggest that there are more than 1.2 million British citizens taking advantage of freedom of movement and living in Europe – over 180,000 in France, over 250,000 in Ireland and almost 310,000 in Spain. I myself spent time working in Amsterdam and that experience of working abroad was invaluable, giving me new experiences and broadening my horizons.

    Young people also benefit from the fact that people come from the EU to work in the UK as well.

    To take just one example, relevant to my own department, we currently have over 1,000 language assistants from the EU teaching in British schools. That means hundreds of thousands of pupils are having the opportunities to have their study of French, German and Spanish supported by native speakers.

    Which leads me on to the opportunities that the EU offers young people to study in Europe.

    Being in the EU means young people have the chance to study at any of the thousands of European Universities. They have the flexibility to do so for either part of their studies, for a summer language course or for their entire degree.

    In fact in 2013 there were over 20,000 British students studying in the European Union.

    That is no surprise given that language skills and international experience is regularly cited by employers as a key competency they look for in job applications.

    And students from other EU countries who choose to study here generate around £2.27 billion for the UK economy, supporting around 19,000 jobs.

    Then there are the opportunities to travel.

    For many young people travelling around the continent is a rite of passage before they settle down into adult life.

    Whether it’s inter-railing, backpacking or city hopping.

    Being in the EU makes it easier and safer to travel around the countries of Europe.

    Young people traveling in Europe don’t have to worry about a myriad of visas and entry requirements and they don’t have to worry about the cost of falling ill because the European Health Insurance Card means they’ll be treated for free or at a reduced cost no matter which country they are in, with students covered for the duration of their course or foreign assignment.

    And perhaps most importantly for young people traveling on tight budgets, our EU membership makes it much cheaper to travel as well.

    The cost of flights is down by 40% thanks to EU action and the cost of using a mobile phone in Europe down by almost three-quarters, with roaming charges due to be scrapped completely in the next year. Meaning there’s no excuse not to make that call home!

    Britain as a nation

    But I know for many young people, the main reason that they want Britain to remain in a reformed Europe, is about more than simply weighing up the risks of leaving and the benefits of staying.

    The fundamental reason why many young people think it’s important that we stay in the EU is because of what our membership of that block of 28 nations, says about our country and our place in the world.

    They want Britain to be an outward looking country that engages with the world, they want us to choose internationalism over isolation.

    This is the generation of Instagram, Easy Jet and Ebay.

    They don’t want to see a Britain cut off from the world, where not only their opportunities, but our influence as a country, ends at our shores.

    These young people have grown up in a world where international cooperation, economic growth, technological advancements and social media, have seen barriers being torn down across the world.

    They want that to continue, for their lives to become ever more open, not for us to put up walls and go the other way.

    They’ve grown up in a Europe which hasn’t seen war or conflict within its borders in over 70 years, which they know is in no small part a product of multinational cooperation. And they’ve seen first-hand how the EU is able to face down emerging threats, like Russian aggression.

    Young people want to see the UK working internationally to tackle the big problems and issues that they care about because they want to make their world a better place.

    Whether it’s sexual and gender equality, tackling poverty or protecting the environment and tackling climate change, the young people like those I often speak to at Loughborough University in my constituency, want to see the UK leading the fight against these global ills, and they know that our voice and impact are magnified by playing a leading role through the EU as part of a group of 28 nations.

    The EU provides development assistance to 150 countries and is the largest aid donor in the world. We exercise considerable influence to ensure that aid is maximised, and it’s thanks to our lobbying that the vast majority of that aid goes directly to low-income countries.

    As Minister for Women and Equalities, I’ve witnessed first-hand the important work that the EU does, driven by the UK’s leadership, in tackling issues such as FGM, human trafficking and forced marriage, which blight the lives of women across the globe.

    And I’ve seen the impact that EU funding has in supporting projects which make a real difference to women’s lives.

    Projects ranging from giving counselling and support to women accused of witchcraft and excluded from their communities in Burkina Faso, to providing training to 2,000 former female soldiers in Indonesia to help them find new employment.

    And it’s thanks to our influence that the EU development agency has become much more focused on the rights of women and girls, leading to the EU Council declaring in December that gender equality in development is now an EU priority.

    At the same time as we seek to secure global equality for LGBT people, the fact that there is an EU wide commitment to eliminating discriminatory laws and policies against LGBT people makes a profound difference – and in particular the fact that the EU has made ending the death penalty for same-sex relationships a key priority in terms of its diplomatic efforts.

    On these issues, issues which young people don’t just care about, but expect us to be making a difference on, our role in Europe allows us to achieve real change and improve the lives of vulnerable people and groups around the world.

    In short being in the EU allows us to exercise even more clout on the world stage, while at the same time allowing us to keep our distinct national identity.

    That’s what most young people want to see, they are rightly proud of our culture, heritage and everything that makes us British. But they want us to be a nation confident enough to realise that working through international organisations doesn’t mean we have to compromise on any of that.

    So my view is that our membership of the European Union not only offers young people significant opportunities, it also ensures we’re the type of engaged and outward-facing nation that those young people want to live in.

    And as I started this speech by saying, I want young people to make sure their voices are heard in this debate – whichever side of the debate they might be on – otherwise they risk having the decision made by other people, their future decided for them, not by them.

    As political scientist Larry Sabato rightly says: “Elections are decided by the people who turn up.”

    And the evidence from elections and referendums in the past is that young people are the least likely to do that – estimates suggest that 18- to 24-year-olds were almost half as likely to have voted in the 2015 election compared to over 65s.

    So firstly I’d ask young people to make sure they’re registered to vote, and to register by the 18th of April so that they can vote in the local, mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections that are taking place across the country as well, but at the very latest by the week of the 6th of June. It takes no more than 5 minutes and can be done online.

    Secondly, on June 23rd I hope young people make sure they have their say on the future of their country, to make the decision about the type of country they want to spend their adult life living in, by casting their vote.

    Thirdly, to those young people, I want say this – don’t think you have to keep your opinion on the EU debate to yourself. Go out and make the case to others and in particular your older friends and relatives. Make sure they know what the vote means for you.

    In the Irish gay marriage referendum, young people made a real difference to the outcome, not just through their own vote, but by calling their parents and grandparents to tell them why it was so important to vote in favour. And I’d encourage young people here in the UK to do the same – tell your grandparents why you want Britain to remain in the EU and why they should vote to do the same.

    And finally to those of you like me, who even on a generous interpretation, no longer fall into the ‘young person’ category.

    I’d simply ask this – when you cast your vote, remember that you’re making a decision on the future of this country and shaping our country for generations to come.

    I’d ask you to think about the impact of that vote, not just on your lives, but on that of your children and grandchildren.

    I’d ask you to ask yourselves – what the impact of that leap into the dark will mean for them and others in the next generation.

    I want to spend the next few years making sure that we build on the opportunities now available to young people, not trying to repair the damage that a vote to leave would do to them.

    I want us to use our position in a reformed Europe, to demand more for the next generation and I want that generation to grow up in a nation comfortable enough with its own identity to work with others and lead on the international stage.

    That’s why I’ll be voting to remain and why I’d urge all of you to do the same.

    Thank you.

  • Candy Atherton – 1997 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Candy Atherton on 11 June 1997.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a problem that affects hundreds of people in my constituency and throughout Cornwall.

    Before dealing with the problems of long-term care for the elderly in Cornwall, I should like, in my maiden speech, to describe my constituency. It is the penultimate seat before the Atlantic and America, a place of almost indescribable beauty, stretching from Gwithian to Portreath on the north coast, while the Carrick roads and Helford river form its southerly boundaries.

    The north coast is wild and the south coast is bathed in warm air that gives us some of the world’s most famous and breathtaking gardens—Trebah being one which readily comes to mind. We have creeks and coves, windswept cliffs and sun-soaked and glorious beaches, but that beauty, like so much in life, cannot mask the underlying problems that scar the area.

    Unemployment is at 10 per cent. officially, yet, on estates in Redruth and Camborne, it is nearer 90 per cent. among men of working age. The old industries, such as mining, quarrying, fishing and farming, are in decline and what work there is, is often low paid and seasonal, in the tourist industry.

    The last working tin mine in Europe provides a mainstay of employment in the north of the constituency, as do the Falmouth docks in the south, but where thousands were employed years ago, only handfuls of hundreds are today. Many more jobs used to be found in the tin and quarrying industries and still more depended on the mines.

    Today, we have the internationally famous Camborne school of mines that has trained hundreds of people from throughout the world in its many arts. There is widespread dismay in the area because the welcome plan for a university for Cornwall in Penzance includes the proposal to relocate that famous school out of our area.

    Before making this speech, I read my predecessors’ maiden speeches. The last four all referred to problems of unemployment. Sebastian Coe, the former Olympic runner, spoke of the endemic unemployment, as did his predecessors, the broadcaster David Mudd, Dr. Dunwoody and Frank Harold Hayman. Senior Members may remember Harold Hayman, a Labour Member of Parliament who is still spoken of with love and affection by my constituents. “If you do half as well as our Harold,” they tell me, “you won’t be doing half bad.”

    My priority as a Member of Parliament will be to bring new work and opportunities to my constituents. I look forward with relish to the introduction of a national minimum wage which, alongside reform of our benefits system, will enable my constituents to enjoy employment and a living wage.

    I shall be keen to ensure that we have a development agency to tackle the problems facing the fishing and farming communities, improve the quality of our housing and provide new opportunities for our young people through jobs and training. In Cornwall, we are concerned to ensure that the seasonal nature of much of our employment does not result in fewer opportunities for our young people and the long-term unemployed. The number of people enduring long-term unemployment is greater in reality than the figures imply.

    I could entertain the House with the follies of South West Water. We pay the highest water bills in the country for a service that leaves many of our beaches polluted and fails to provide the long-term investment for which Falmouth, in particular, is crying out. However, this debate is about Cornwall Care.

    I believe that all Members from Cornwall must work and speak together on issues of concern to the county. There is much that the new Government must do to remedy the ills of the past 18 years of Conservative rule. I am certain that there will be times when the Liberal Democrats are critical of the new Government; equally, there will be times when I am critical of the actions of Liberal Democrats. That is the nature of all good relationships: we all fall out occasionally. This is one of those times.

    The tragedy that has prompted this debate has led some to dub the charity, “Cornwall Doesn’t Care”, but I leave it to right hon. and hon. Members to decide for themselves. The problem is one that all too many local authorities have had to face. The Conservative Government slanted the figures so that it was financially better for many authorities to transfer their residential homes for the elderly to housing association or charity status.

    Several years ago, Cornwall county council recognised that it was facing a problem with its 18 residential homes for the elderly. Two and a half years ago, a report was produced that suggested that four homes should be closed. Understandably, there was uproar when it was published. People, including the then chair of policy and resources, in whose ward one of the homes was located, do not want their local homes to close.

    The controlling group proposed that a new charity, Cornwall Care, should be created. The county council would retain ownership of the homes but the services would be delivered by Cornwall Care. Last April, the new charity took control of the services and announced that existing staff would have to sign new contracts of employment considerably worsening their terms and conditions.

    Many of us recognised that the figures did not add up and that the new charity would be forced to take action when the staff were transferred into their employment. I met many of the staff, some of whom faced losing more than £300 a month. That was their mortgage, and many told me that they would not be able to survive financially under the new terms.

    For weeks, pressure was put on those caring members of staff to sign the new contracts. They were told that if they failed to sign, they would lose their jobs. I have some knowledge of transfer of undertakings law and I joined many others in publicly warning the charity that it would face industrial tribunals.

    Eventually, 249 staff decided to take their cases to an industrial tribunal. All were dismissed. That was not an easy decision for them to make. Many had worked for the county council for more than 20 years, and I know that their decision caused them great anguish and misery. To a man and a woman—they were mostly women—they said that they loved working with the residents and wanted to continue doing so, but that they could not and would not sign the contracts.

    The case was heard in Truro in the middle of the general election campaign. The former staff won and the result was widely publicised in the national media. Since then, the situation has deteriorated. The charity has announced that it will be forced into liquidation if an appeal is unsuccessful, and I understand that it has recently said that it faced severe financial problems whatever the result of the appeal. That has meant that existing staff are concerned for their futures and that residents—and their families—are worried about where they will live. The staff who won the industrial tribunal feel pressure not to take up their legal entitlement and a general miasma of worry is hanging in the air.

    During the election campaign, I met folk in tears about the situation. I met one woman, who was clutching a letter from Cornwall Care and who was in tears on her doorstep. She implored me to act as soon as I won the election, because she was so worried about her mother, who was a resident in one of the homes in my constituency. That was one reason why I, with many other hon. Members, signed an early-day motion about Cornwall Care last month.

    Meanwhile, the county council, which was embroiled in elections itself during the general election campaign, said that the problem was for Cornwall Care to resolve. My intention in requesting this Adjournment debate was to knock a few heads together at Cornwall Care and the council. The county council, as the owner and purchaser of the service, has a responsibility to resolve the problem. Occasionally, local government gets its priorities wrong and sometimes councillors make the wrong decisions. When Labour local authorities err, as a party and a Government, we have rightly condemned them. It is time for the Liberal Democrats to do the same.

    I have consulted the Liberal Democrats’ general election manifesto, which was entitled “Make the Difference”. It states: Older people in Britain should be able to look forward to a retirement of security, opportunity and dignity. Older people feel that they are fast becoming Britain’s forgotten generation. Many of the residents of Cornwall Care feel that they have been forgotten, that they have no security and that the whole sorry mess is very undignified.

    Many of us believe that the county council knew that Cornwall Care would lose at an industrial tribunal. It is not right for local authorities to transfer a problem to another body rather than face the political flak. The residents and their families and the former and current staff need to be reassured about their futures. The whole sorry mess could, and should, have been avoided. The elderly in Cornwall deserve better and I call on the Liberal Democrats in Parliament, from whom I would like to hear on the issue some day, to demand that their colleagues on Cornwall county council to resolve the problem.

  • Richard Attenborough – 1994 Maiden Speech in the House of Lords

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RichardAttenborough07TIFF.jpg
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RichardAttenborough07TIFF.jpg

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Richard Attenborough in the House of Lords on 22 November 1994. The speech was in reply to the Loyal Address and was the only contribution Lord Attenborough made in the Lords.

    My Lords, it would perhaps have been more appropriate had I been able to deliver these few words during the arts debate last January when my noble friend Lord Menuhin made his impressive maiden speech but, sadly, a bout of ‘flu confined me to my bed. I also wish to apologise to my most kindly sponsors—friends of long standing; the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Walton—for the subsequent delay in making my own maiden speech; a delay occasioned by a lengthy professional commitment in the United States and a tour of South Africa on behalf of the United Nations Children’s Fund.

    Nevertheless, as possibly noble Lords may have surmised, my subject is the arts—the arts in their broadest sense; the arts as an essential element in what we are pleased to call our civilised society. I have it on the best of authority, from a not too distant relative, that we are related to apes, but it is, surely, not only the ability to stand on our hind legs that sets us so singularly apart from the animal kingdom. The crucial difference must lie in what we call soul and creativity. Our distant ancestors, the first true humans, started to communicate through language some 35,000 years ago and, almost contemporaneously, they began to create pictures on the walls of their caves.

    Is it not remarkable that those early hunters, balanced as they were on the very cusp of survival, should need to paint the creatures which surrounded them in their daily lives: that in the bowels of the earth and on bare rock they felt impelled to recreate the colour, form and movement that they witnessed in the forest outside? A cave painting tells us, surely, far more than the simple appearance of a bison or deer. Across untold generations it speaks of the painter, too; of his uniquely personal interpretation. It grants us a window into his mind. President John F. Kennedy once said: Art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstone of our judgement”. From the very earliest of times the arts have been an instinctive essential of our humanity. They are a miraculous sleight of hand which reveal the truth and a glorious passport to greater understanding between the peoples of the world. The arts not only enrich our lives but grant us the opportunity to challenge accepted practices and assumptions. They give us a means of protest against that which we believe to be unjust; a voice to condemn the brute and the bully; a brief to advocate the cause of human dignity and self-respect; a rich and varied language through which we can express our national identity.

    Today, as a nation, we face daunting problems—problems which are obliging us to examine the very fabric of our society. And the role of the arts in healing a nation divided, a nation in which too many lack work, lack self esteem, lack belief and direction, cannot and must not be underestimated.

    This is the first century of mass communication. We have now, as never before, the ability to disseminate the arts in all their forms, cheaply, quickly and qualitatively, to the widest possible audience. But art—any art form—can never rest upon its laurels. It was Winston Churchill who said: Without tradition, art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Without innovation, it is a corpse”. The arts in this country have a long and enviable tradition. Shepherds there are in abundance. But innovation which must, of necessity, entail the possibility of ridicule, even failure, is the life blood of continuing tradition. For the arts to continue to flourish we must underwrite both innovation and, of course, training.

    We have in the United Kingdom some of the finest academies of dance and drama in the entire world. Is it not, then, a supremely tragic irony that many of our most promising students are being denied access to those institutions for lack of a mandatory grant? As a result, hundreds of dedicated and talented young people are now being lost to their chosen professions as dancers, actors and technicians, with their places taken by those who can afford to pay. The loss of their talents, furthermore, is inflicting untold damage on our internationally acclaimed theatre, television and film industries.

    Film, the movies, as noble Lords may be aware, has occupied much of my life. It is now more than 50 years since I entered the industry. In that time I have seen it weather many storms and falter repeatedly from lack of concern on the part of far, far too many arts Ministers. Certainly, now that at last every aspect of our cinema industry is under the sole aegis of the Department of National Heritage, such pitiful inactivity can no longer be excused.

    Sadly, however, from my own particular viewpoint, cinema was scarcely mentioned during the arts debate to which I referred earlier—a fact I register with regret since I believe the vast majority of the British people generally accept that it is the art form of this century. My belief is borne out by recent figures which indicate that United Kingdom cinema attendances for 1994 will reach 120 million; the 10th successive year of steady increase from a base of less than half that figure. In fact, three times more people go to the movies than all those who attend concerts, opera, ballet and theatre put together and we currently spend, as a nation, nearly £2 billion a year on watching feature films, either at home or in the cinema. However, the sad fact is that only some 4 per cent. of that revenue will accrue to films of British origin.

    We, as indigenous film makers, are often accused of special pleading, of extending the perpetual begging bowl. That is not true. The fact is that the making of feature films cannot be compared with any other manufacturing process. Every film made is a prototoype, a one-off original, that must be packaged and marketed in its own distinctive fashion —a procedure that is extremely risky and very expensive.

    Since no one film can ever be guaranteed to make a profit, wise investors will spread their risk over 10 or 20 such prototypes in the knowledge that 50 per cent. will fail, 30 per cent. will break even and 20 per cent. will prove immensely profitable. If we in Britain are ever again to have a film industry worthy of the name, we have to persuade government to create conditions that will allow investors to spread their risk in that way.

    Some, of course, might argue that our film industry is not worth saving, that it should be allowed to go the way of shipbuilding or the manufacture of motor cycles. But I repeat that the making of feature films cannot be compared with any other industrial process, for they represent, as no other art form, as no other business activity, a crucial definition of our cultural identity, both here at home and throughout the world. Movies are the mirror we hold up to ourselves, the reflection of our codes and practices, our goods and services, our skills and inventions, our architecture and landscapes, our comedy and tragedy, our past and present. And they have the ability to grant us, as no other medium can, a worldwide showcase, generating immense returns—both tangible and intangible, visible and invisible—in every conceivable sphere.

    The novelist Julian Barnes wrote a decade ago: Do not imagine that Art is something which is designed to give gentle uplift and self-confidence. Art is not a brassière. At least, not in the English sense. But do not forget that brassière is the French for life-jacket”. Today we have need of that life-jacket as never before. The arts are not a luxury. They are as crucial to our well-being, to our very existence, as eating and breathing.

    A recent survey, undertaken for the National Campaign for The Arts, revealed that 79 per cent. of the population attend arts or cultural events, that the same high percentage believe that the arts help to bring people together in local communities and almost the same number are prepared to state, without equivocation, that the arts enrich their quality of life. In the face of such cogent endorsement, the role of the arts in all our lives—in health care, in social education and rehabilitation, in business, in the community—is, I profoundly believe, one that we underestimate at our peril.

    Some years ago, when I had the privilege of helping to prepare a report concerning the arts and disabled people, I was reminded of Somerset Maugham, who wrote: An art is only great and significant if it is one that all may enjoy”. “Exclusive” is a shameful word in the context of the arts. We have, as a nation, excluded far too many for far too long. Whether consciously or unconsciously, we have assumed that certain of our compatriots, most notably the disabled and the disadvantaged, have little to gain and little to contribute. Nothing could be further from the truth. In common, I am certain, with many Members of this noble House, I am encouraged by mention in the gracious Speech of the Government’s intention to introduce a new Bill to ameliorate the many inequities which confront the disabled. Mindful of the constraints placed upon those making their maiden speech, I will content myself with adding that I trust their present intention will ultimately result in a more productive and seemly outcome than that which befell the Private Member’s Bill earlier this year.

    The arts are not a perquisite of the privileged few; nor are they the playground of the intelligentsia. The arts are for everyone—and failure to include everyone diminishes us all.

  • Justine Greening – 2015 Speech on International Activism for Girls and Women

    justinegreening

    Below is the text of the speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for International Development, at the Southbank Centre in London on 6 March 2015.

    Introduction

    I’m absolutely delighted to be here with you today and speaking at this festival.

    As the UK’s International Development Secretary for the last two and a half years I’ve put empowering girls and women very much at the heart of everything my department does in developing countries.

    We are supporting more girls to go to school. We’re helping more women to vote, to own their own land, to start their own business and to plan their family for the first time.

    And I’ve been determined to take on important issues that in the past I think the development community has backed away from as being too sensitive and too difficult to deal with. In particular child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation.

    Last summer, the UK government and UNICEF hosted the first ever Girl Summit at a school, a fantastic school – Walworth Academy – to rally a global movement to end FGM and child marriage, bringing together governments, activists, NGOs, businesses, young people.

    And bit by bit, alongside the efforts of so many others – many of you in this room – all of this work is giving girls and women a voice, choice and control over their lives and their futures.

    Activists leading the way

    A lot of this couldn’t ever have got going without the amazing activists and campaigners – many of you are here today – and people we’re going to hear from on this panel, who were talking about issues like FGM and child marriage long before anyone else wanted to go near them.

    It’s thanks to the work that you started that gender equality is no longer a niche interest in international development.

    And together we’re now pushing these issues right up the global agenda. Our Charter for Change at the Girl Summit was agreed by more than 490 signatories, including 43 national governments – with more still signing.

    So we’ve come a long way. But if we’re really going to succeed in achieving gender equality, we need our work to lead to fundamental changes in attitudes towards women around the world; and I believe we need everyone to be advocating for this change; girls and women, boys and men.

    Tackling social norms

    Too many millions of girls around the world are still having their potential snuffed out at a very early age; their lives end up being limited and defined from the moment they’re born, just because they’re a girl.

    I think we have to ask the question, why is it this way in the first place? And it’s because in these communities, women normally stay at home, they normally get married very early, they normally wouldn’t vote, they normally don’t run a business.

    And we have to ask the question how these norms, which tip the balance away from women and girls’ rights, get set in the first place and who and what dictates what is normal?

    And I believe that to advance the cause of women’s rights further, and faster, we really need to tackle these social norms, the deeply held beliefs, attitudes and often the traditions that mean girls and women are too often seen as lesser then men.

    Supporting grassroots activism

    So how do we challenge and rewire these social norms?

    At the Girl Summit, Malala talked about people themselves changing and having their own traditions. Traditions don’t have to be set in stone and she was right.

    Very often local activists and community groups are best placed to build the trust and credibility within local communities, and particularly with boys and men, that we need to challenge discrimination and social norms.

    However, it is difficult for local, grassroots organisations to obtain funding. Often small amounts can go an incredibly long way and be transformative.

    And that’s why I’m pleased to be announcing today that my department is investing £8 million in a new initiative, AmplifyChange – a fund, not just supported by the UK but others too, that will primarily support smaller community groups, activists and individuals that work on sexual and reproductive health and rights and related issues, including the causes and consequences of child marriage, FGM and gender-based violence.

    Men and boys

    Importantly, this fund will be for working with boys and men as well as girls and women. I know a lot of our time, our work on gender equality has rightly been spent working with girls and women directly. Some of the most inspiring people I’ve met are the women campaigning for women’s rights in Afghanistan very bravely, or women steadily and tirelessly working to end child marriage in Zambia.

    But I also think that a key area that has been too easily neglected in the past, and the first point I want to make, is engaging with men and boys more.

    So often, it is boys and men setting those social norms; so we need to work with them to change their attitude.

    And I think we need to recognise men and boys can be change makers in gender equality too. Many of them are already championing change themselves.

    We’re seeing growing momentum on this, the HeForShe campaign by UN Women that aims to “bring together one half of humanity in support of the other half of humanity, for the benefit of all” has 200,000 plus signatures and high profile support from President Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

    And at the Girl Summit last year some of the most eloquent contributions came from young men who were at that event talking about their hopes for their sisters, for their mothers, their friends who are female. They were an inspiration.

    And you can meet male role models perhaps where you least expect them. Last year, the MP Bill Cash put a law through parliament that means my department is legally obliged to consider gender equality before we fund a programme or give assistance anywhere in the world. It’s something many other countries are looking at and taking a lead from. It is a unique Bill we should be proud of.

    And in his time as Foreign Secretary, and since, William Hague has worked tirelessly to end sexual violence against women in conflict.

    These are men who are really making a difference for women. But we need to see more men making more of a difference, more men demanding change for and with women if we’re going to be successful.

    Human rights

    My second point is about human rights and values. As Hilary Clinton said at the historic women’s conference in Beijing 20 years ago: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.”

    This should matter to all of us. Because when anyone is at a stage where they relegate another human being to some sort of secondary position to them, to less than them, they’ve crossed an important rubicon. Because once you’ve done that it’s so easy to add others to the list; after ‘being female’ can come having a different religion, having a different sexuality, having a different ethnicity. But the crossing of that rubicon so often starts with girls and women.

    So this cause isn’t just about winning for girls and women, it’s about winning for everyone who faces discrimination around our world.

    Momentum rising

    The final point I want to make is that countries with poor human rights and women’s rights records should realise that in today and tomorrow’s world, the light of transparency and accountability is only going to get brighter and brighter.

    Not just from governments but perhaps and I think more powerfully, from people, millions of people around our world.

    You can go on the web right now and see terrible news stories of women who have been stoned. And we all know about the story of Meriam Ibrahim, forced to give birth in a South Sudanese prison just because she married a Christian.

    Whereas once these stories may have gone under the radar, today we know all about them, we can see them for ourselves in an increasingly transparent, digital media age. It’s as easy as going outside our own front doors and seeing what is happening in our own communities.

    That knowledge gives us the power to press for change. When I say ‘us’, I mean people, I mean voters. I believe that in democracies, as ever, people will vote for governments that reflect their priorities and those priorities will increasingly reflect people’s concerns on the unacceptable state of women’s rights in too many places around the world.

    People will vote for governments that put a priority on progress.

    Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are about values; about dignity, equality, freedom of expression, accountable power. Some people will call them Western values. But that’s wrong. I’ve met people with those same values all over the world, in countries that face the biggest challenges.

    And for those people who’d like to turn back the clock on gender equality, perhaps claiming they are supporting ‘traditional family values’: your so-called values are not values, they are excuses for the status quo, a status quo that cannot be justified and cannot be sustained.

    Those who stand against those values of dignity and equality will find themselves fighting against an increasingly unstoppable wave. Change never happens overnight. Here in the UK, the suffragette movement took 50, 60 years to get women the vote. But I believe the momentum is with the young people and campaigners around the world who are demanding progress.

    They are saying that when it comes to violence against women and girls, on FGM, on child marriage, on forced marriage, on sexual violence in conflict: enough is enough. And they are right.

    We need to lock in the achievements we’ve made. This year, 20 years after Beijing, the world agrees a new set of global development goals for tackling poverty, the UK is determined to put girls and women are at the heart of these goals with a standalone goal and comprehensive set of gender targets mainstreamed throughout the new development framework, including on violence against women and girls, child marriage and FGM.

    It’s essential that everyone here makes their voice heard; men and boys being the force for change along with girls and women. I believe that together, by continuing to put women’s rights here and around the world under the spotlight we can break down the social norms that hold girls and women back, we can build a world where every girl can reach her potential and decide her own future.

    Thank you.

  • Nicky Morgan – 2016 Speech to NASUWT Conference

    nickymorgan

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, to the NASUWT Conference in Birmingham on 26 March 2016.

    Thank you, Kathy [Kathy Wallis, NASUWT National President] for that introduction.

    And thank you for inviting me here today. I know there are those who have expressed surprise – astonishment even – that I would ‘brave’ coming to this conference.

    Well, let me be absolutely clear I will engage with any audience, with anyone who wants to participate in the conversation on how we make England’s education system the best system it possibly can be. That’s why I regularly hold Teacher Direct sessions across the country so that teachers can ask me questions and I can hear their views.

    That’s my job as Education Secretary. It’s about listening to teachers, parents, anyone who has a role in our educations system and – based on those judgements – making decisions about what is best for young people. Unsurprisingly that’s what I want to talk about today.

    Shared goals

    I know there are things on which we disagree. And I will address some of them today but first I’d like to talk about those areas on which I think we do agree and about the significant progress we are making together.

    I hope we agree that the education system can and should be a motor to drive social justice, helping to build a fairer society, where people are rewarded on the basis of their talents and the efforts they put in.

    I hope we also agree that it can and should extend opportunity and serve to improve the life chances of every single young person in this country – no matter where they are, what their background is, or who their parents are.

    I know we agree that we should strengthen the teaching profession by supporting it to become vibrantly diverse.

    And we agree that the system should do all that while still valuing the amazing workforce we are so fortunate to have in this country.

    None of us can – or should want to – deny that the education system is in much better shape than it was 5 years ago.

    The evidence speaks for itself – compared with 2012 we now have 120,000 more 6-year-olds on track to become confident readers; we have 29,000 more 11-year-olds entering secondary school able to read, write and add up properly; and compared with 2010 we have 1.4 million more children in ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ schools.

    And without you and your phenomenal efforts on behalf of the young people you care so passionately about, none of that would have been possible so let me say – thank you.

    Focusing on what matters

    We all know that the decisions made in government can make it easier or harder for you to do your job. And I’m not afraid to hold my hands up and say that sometimes we get it wrong. One area that governments of all stripes haven’t done enough to tackle is teacher workload.

    As I said in my very first speech as Education Secretary to my party’s conference:

    I don’t want my child to be taught by someone too tired, too stressed and too anxious to do the job well.

    I don’t want any child to have to settle for that.

    That’s why I launched the workload challenge, which received over 44,000 responses from the teaching profession on how we could cut down on their workload.

    Off the back of that challenge we outlined a set of principles and a new workload protocol to ensure we gave schools and teachers a longer lead time before making significant changes to the curriculum, accountability or assessment and Ofsted committed to doing the same.

    Ofsted have also issued a myth buster on inspections and we cut more than 21,000 pages of guidance to streamline the process.

    Today, I am going further and publishing the results of the 3 workload review groups on marking, planning and data collection .

    These groups were led by 3 outstanding female head teachers Lauren Costello, Kathryn Greenhalgh and Dawn Copping. The groups included representation from classroom teachers and union representatives – they are a great example of the profession taking charge of their own development. Thank you to all involved.

    All 3 issues: marking, planning and data collection are important – no vital – to pupil outcomes. But too often they have become an end in of themselves detached from pupils. Green ink is added to school books because teachers think that’s what Ofsted wants to see, lesson plans are reinvented every year because school leaders think that’s what they should ask for and schools find themselves collecting ever more data, and even more frustratingly, sometimes the same data in different formats for different people.

    The panels have come up with some clear recommendations for government, which I am now studying and looking at how to take forward. But importantly they also have clear recommendations for the profession as well – because as I’m sure you know, tackling workload requires much more than change from government, but culture change on the ground as well.

    This isn’t the end of the process. We’re continuing to make decisions that will make your lives easier and clear the way for you to focus on teaching.

    The proposals for Ofsted reform outlined in the white paper are designed to make sure you are not beholden to certain styles or methods of teaching. Removing the quality of teaching judgement means there will be less scrutiny on methods, and instead a focus on outcomes and pupil achievement.

    Protecting Teachers

    At the same time, I want to be absolutely clear, that no teacher should ever have to work in fear of violence or harassment, either in school, outside of school, or online.

    Like the rest of the country, I was horrified last year to read of the case of Vincent Uzomah, the teacher attacked in his own school.

    And I was appalled to read in January about the case of teaching assistant Lesley-Ann Noel, knocked unconscious by a parent for doing her job.

    And I was disgusted when I read some of NASUWT’s research which shows the extent to which teachers are being trolled and abused on social media platforms. What is even more shocking is that this abuse doesn’t just come from pupils it can come from their parents as well.

    It is unacceptable that this should happen to teachers.

    Teachers are the pinnacle of the community, they are charged with the greatest of responsibilities, moulding the next generation, and that means we owe it to you to treat you with the greatest of respect.

    Yes, I absolutely want parents to be involved in their children’s education and if they’re unhappy I want them to be able to demand more of schools. But if their actions spill over into abuse or violence, they should expect to be dealt with severely. Because there is never an excuse to threaten, harass or attack a teacher.

    Your research suggests that these incidents are on the rise, and so I have asked my officials to start work on what more can be done to ensure we protect teachers, particularly online, and they will be using your research and engaging closely with the NASUWT and the police on how to do that.

    Our reforms

    Academisation

    Let me turn to the wider reforms in the white paper, because every single one of those reforms are about what we can do to create better environments for teaching and for teachers.

    And yes, I’m talking about every school becoming an academy.

    I know NASUWT has voiced concerns about the academies programme right from the outset but let’s be clear that this is about creating a system that is school-led; one that puts trust in you – the professionals inside the system, giving you the freedom from government to do your jobs as you see fit, based on the evidence of what you know works.

    It isn’t for me, or officials in Whitehall, or Ofsted to decide how best to teach or run schools – it’s for you: the teachers who know better than anyone what works in the classroom and what your pupils need.

    Alongside all of the other reforms outlined in the white paper the autonomy that academy status brings is ultimately about giving you the opportunity to step up and make the decisions that will shape the future of schools.

    Considering a lot of the press coverage of our Educational Excellence Everywhere white paper you could be forgiven for thinking that full academisation is the only thing it says.

    But schools becoming academies is only one chapter of a much bigger story told in the white paper about how we create the infrastructure that allows a self-improving school-led system to flourish: what role government should play in that system, when we should offer you support and when we should get out of the way.

    Because as we make clear in the white paper, autonomy is not the same as abdication, for that school-led system to succeed we need to make sure you have access to the best training, the broadest support and a fair share of resources that will allow you to do your jobs to the best of your abilities.

    Initial teacher training

    So let me start with training.

    In the white paper we outline how we want to strengthen initial teacher training (ITT).

    What we want to see is more rigorous ITT content with a greater focus on evidence based practice and subject knowledge.

    So we have set up an independent working group chaired by Stephen Munday, a school leader with a proven track record, to develop a new ITT core content framework.

    To guarantee quality we will create new quality criteria for providers and allocate training places on the basis of those criteria.

    And so that the best providers can plan ahead with a greater degree of certainty we will explore ways to allocate training places for several years so we can move away from the short-term allocations system of the past.

    Schools know what schools need so we are clear that the ITT system should be increasingly school-led if it is to genuinely prepare trainee teachers for the careers ahead of them and ensure that the education system is able to recruit great teachers in every part of the country. Particularly where they are needed most.

    There is evidence, from the recently published ‘Good Teacher Guide’, that the move to a school-led system has been positive, with high-quality training available and a high conversion rate of trainees.

    Qualified teacher status

    Beyond ITT the white paper outlines how we intend to replace qualified teacher status (QTS) with a much stronger, more meaningful accreditation.

    Our plan is to hand control of that accreditation to great schools and heads – creating a more robust system; that commands the confidence of parents and school teachers.

    This reform to teacher accreditation will, I am sure, raise the status of teaching; allowing it to mature as a profession, gain control of its own destiny and take its rightful place alongside other great professions like law and medicine.

    Continuing professional development

    Like all professionals teachers need continuing professional development (CPD) which allows them to grow in their roles and adapt to meet the new challenges their jobs present them all the time.

    We know that schools find it difficult to identify meaningful CPD opportunities which represent good value for money. I’m sure many of you have experiences of unproductive INSET days you could share with me.

    So the white paper is clear that we will do more to support the provision of high-quality CPD by creating a new ‘Standard for Teachers’ Professional Development’.

    We don’t want to author the standard ourselves. I’m sure the idea of CPD designed by the Department for Education fills you with dread, so we have set up an independent group of experts comprising classroom teachers, school leaders and academics to do it.

    The standard they are developing, based on a robust assessment of the evidence, will represent a new benchmark for teachers’ professional development.

    College of Teaching

    And our white paper commits us to supporting the establishment of an independent College of Teaching.

    The new College of Teaching will be a professional body like those in other high status professions like law and medicine. It will be a voluntary membership organisation, independent of government, run by teachers for teachers.

    The College will lead the profession in taking responsibility for its own improvement, supporting its members’ development and – much like the medical colleges – promoting the use of evidence to improve professional practice.

    It will be the embodiment of the school-led system we envisage for England.

    National funding formula

    Finally, the white paper outlines our plan for a new national funding formula for schools. We want to put an end to the antiquated system of school funding which saw so many young people miss out on resources because of an unfair postcode lottery.

    So we are delivering on our commitment to put in a place a fairer formula for schools, and for allocating high needs funding to LAs for both special needs and alternative provision. We believe that this is central to achieving educational excellence everywhere.

    Because it must be right that the same child, with the same costs and same characteristics attracts the same funding. That is just basic fairness.

    The formula itself will contain a significant weighting of disadvantage funding, but on top of that, we are also committed to the pupil premium so that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds can get the extra resources they need and we want schools to use evidence to advance its effectiveness.

    Thanks to the additional funding that the government announced last week our aim is to move 90% of schools due to gain onto this new formula by the end of this Parliament, so that schools aren’t kept waiting for the funding they deserve.

    Fundamentally our white paper is there to outline our vision about how we improve the education system in this country.

    And while I welcome challenge, I welcome debate, feedback and discussion, and I’ve already received lots of it on the white paper, I want to be clear there will be no pulling back from that vision, there is no reverse gear when it comes to our education reforms. Because we were elected with a mandate to drive up standards, and with your help that’s exactly what we want to do.

    Representatives of the profession

    As I said earlier, we have a shared goal: creating a system that helps all young people to succeed and at the same time values excellent teachers.

    Whatever my disagreements on issues of policy with Chris [Keates – NASUWT General Secretary] and Patrick [Roach – NASUWT Deputy General Secretary] I know that when they step up on behalf of their members they are doing it because they believe they can get a better deal for you – their members. That’s their job and I respect that.

    And I hope that you can respect, that my job as Education Secretary is to make sure we get the best deal for young people.

    But despite the job NASUWT and other unions do in representing teachers’ interests, I worry that sometimes the rhetoric risks straying into territory where it actually damages the reputation of the profession.

    Let me take a case in point.

    I visited the NASUWT website recently and found that of the last 20 press releases NASUWT has issued only 3 said anything positive.

    Wouldn’t it be helpful if more of your press releases were actually positive about the teaching profession?

    Because If I were a young person making decisions about my future career, and I saw some of the language coming out of NASUWT as well as some of the other unions, would I want to become a teacher? If I read about a profession standing on the precipice of crisis would I consider a life in teaching?

    No I wouldn’t and it’s no surprise that TES research this week found that a third of teachers think that talk of a recruitment crisis was more likely to make them leave the profession. And ultimately those who talk of a crisis are being misleading. It doesn’t tell the whole story. Like the fact that 70% of vacancies advertised via TES are filled within 4 weeks of advertising.

    Yes, recruitment is a challenge and we in government are stepping up, listening to school leaders, putting in place bursaries and schemes to encourage applicants for the subjects they tell us they find it difficult to recruit for.

    I know NASUWT want to help – more so than other unions – and they already do good work boosting the teaching profession through the conferences and CPD sessions they run so why then talk it down so much?

    Now I need NASUWT to do their bit. In an economy that is growing, with more graduate opportunities than ever before, why aren’t the teaching unions to do everything they can to help? Why aren’t they using the tools available to them to build up teachers, promote the profession and tell the story of what a rewarding job teaching really is?

    That would be stepping up. Choosing to be part of the solution to the challenges we face in recruiting new teachers, rather than adding to the problem.

    Just as I accept that this government hasn’t always got it right – and I wasn’t shy in saying that earlier – I want the teaching unions to accept that they haven’t always got it right either.

    There isn’t another government just around the corner to be frank. I’m yet to hear concrete policy proposals on raising standards from our critics.

    So teaching unions have a choice – spend the next 4 years doing battle with us and doing down the profession they represent in the process, or stepping up, seizing the opportunities and promise offered by the white paper and helping us to shape the future of the education system.

    Working with you

    The education system I see – in the schools I visit up and down the country, at every opportunity – is not in disarray or crisis. Quite the opposite.

    It is a system of increasing confidence, innovation and success. When I see professionals like Colin Hegarty, a teacher nominated for the international Varkey Foundation Award for his ground breaking approach to teaching maths; and Luke Sparkes, Principal at Dixons Trinity Academy in Bradford whose focus is on seeking out what pupils don’t know rather than affirming what they do, I know that the teaching profession is fizzing with bright new ideas as well as passionate teachers and leaders who are committed to driving up educational outcomes.

    If NASUWT’s leadership were being totally open, they wouldn’t tell you the system is in crisis either.

    So let’s resolve to work together so that we can build the education system we agree we all want.

    Ultimately it’s the young people up and down this country who will suffer if we don’t. They only get one shot at their time at school and they are counting on us – all of us – to give them the best possible start in life.

    We all know how far we have come since 2010. And we have done it together.

    Yes, we will continue to hold school leaders to account on behalf of children and parents. And where capacity is lacking, for whatever reason, we will make sure schools can get the support they need to improve. But we believe that educational excellence everywhere can only be achieved when the power rests in your hands.

    You know how best to use it.

    So I stand before you today to ask you to step up, decide to be a part of the exciting changes happening in the education system and seize all the opportunities that come with it.

    Thank you.

  • Arlene Foster – 2016 Speech at DUP Spring Conference

    arlenefoster

    Below is the text of the speech made by Arlene Foster, the First Minister of Northern Ireland, at the DUP Spring Conference held in March 2016.

    Mr Chairman, I am absolutely delighted to be here in Limavady today as we move towards the start of the most important election campaign in years.

    It is good to be back and see this beautiful constituency which has served these last 15 years as a pathfinder for DUP success.

    And so it will be again this year. ​

    This is an historic moment for this party and for this country. We are starting a campaign that will determine the direction of Northern Ireland for decades to come, shape our future and – importantly – determine who will be the First Minister to chart this course.

    There can be no better place to start than in the constituency of my friend and colleague Gregory Campbell. For the first time in many years, Gregory will not be fighting the Assembly election but I am absolutely certain he will be with us each and every step of the way.

    I am also delighted that former Ulster Unionist Councillor Raymond Farrell has travelled from Fermanagh to be with us today. I am even more delighted that Raymond is fully supporting the DUP election campaign in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

    Thank you Councillor Farrell, and we look forward to having your support in the weeks ahead.

    We gather here today in Limavady on the cusp of a new era for this party and new opportunities for Northern Ireland.

    I took on this job at an important moment in Northern Ireland’s history.

    Our country has changed beyond all recognition from the society I grew up in not too many years ago. There is so much that has been achieved but there is still so much more to do.

    We all know from the despicable attack on a prison officer in East Belfast yesterday that we must always be vigilant against those who would seek to take us back to the past.

    But one thing is absolutely clear, no matter how hard they try, no matter what depths they stoop to, they will never ever win.

    Northern Ireland has changed for the better. You don’t need me to tell you this you just need to watch the news or read the papers or look around in your own communities.

    We have begun the long slow process of rebuilding from the lost decades of the seventies, eighties and nineties.

    Twenty years ago who would have believed that Northern Ireland would become better known for golfers than guns? Who would have believed that our cities would be thronged by tour buses? Who would have believed that we could attract top businesses from across the globe to provide jobs for our young people and who would have believed we could attract world class sporting events to places people once feared to travel?

    These changes did not come about easily or by accident but because we were prepared to take tough decisions.

    Things are better and Northern Ireland is moving in the right direction, but we cannot be complacent. It took strong leadership to get us this far and it will take even stronger leadership to stay the course and see this journey through.

    You will not believe it but I’m old enough to remember what it used to be like! But I am also young enough to see through the next phase of the transformation of our society.

    I have seen the changes first hand. And I have spoken to others too.

    When I was elected leader of this party last December, I made it my first priority to get out and listen to what people had to say. Since then I have continued to travelall across Northern Ireland to hear from the people who make this country so great.

    Today, I want to talk to you about what the community has told me over the last ten weeks and to set our stall out for the election on the fifth of May.

    I want to build on the strong foundations laid down by my predecessors Ian Paisley and Peter Robinson – Northern Ireland is much better off for their vision and strength of leadership.

    The evening I was endorsed by our party executive andelected as party leader, I made it clear that while the fundamental values of the DUP would not change, I would want to make my own mark on this party.

    Ten weeks on, that process of change and renewal continues.

    I want to repay the faith that has been shown in me and do all in my power to help this Country and our peoplereach new heights.

    As a mother, I understand the pressures and worries of families when it comes to relying on a strong health system, balancing the family budget, hoping there are real job opportunities.

    As a politician, I am uniquely placed to help unite unionism and put an end to the decades of division we have seen.

    But if we want to continue to lead the people of Northern Ireland, we must first make sure our own house is in order.

    That’s why I want our party to set the standards in public life and not just to meet them. I want our members to know they are listened to and valued, and I want the public to get the best value from our political system.

    If, in the months and years to come, that means taking difficult decisions to help restore confidence in the political system, I will take those decisions.

    My plan for a stronger future for Northern Ireland comes from what I’ve heard, not just from party members but the wider community. It is their voice as much as mine that needs to be heard in the corridors of power, the Executive room and in the Assembly chamber. Before we can ask people to be on our side we must prove to them that we are on their side too.

    In just six weeks I have travelled from Bessbrook to Ballymoney, Ballynahinch to Bushmills, Cookstown to Coleraine, Dungannon to Larne, from Omagh to Bangor, Limavady to Lisburn, Enniskillen to Portadown to Ballymena and to north, south, east and west Belfast – and all places in between.

    I’ve been to party meetings and business breakfasts,visited schools and commercial premises and spoke to literally thousands of people.

    I’ve been lucky to have met people in every walk of life right across Northern Ireland.

    They are the bedrock of this country and why I have so much optimism for the future.

    The welcome I have received everywhere I have gone has been truly humbling.

    I started the tour to listen and to learn and finished more inspired and motivated than ever before.

    Many of the people I met have very different experiences of life but almost all share the same Northern Ireland values. Those values are belief in hard work, belief in family, in helping our neighbours, compassion for those who are less well off, and pride in our country.

    These are the values I was brought up with and have lived by all of my life.

    I may be the leader of the DUP and now First Minister but my story is really no different than that of so many people across Northern Ireland.

    Some of the most inspirational visits of all have been to primary schools to meet children who have been untouched by the Troubles and with boundless imagination for the future. Children who have not yet been sullied by the past or have grown tired of political stalemate.

    What more can any of us ask than for the next generation to have a better chance and a better start in life than the last?

    My vision for our future is simple.

    I want to build a stronger Northern Ireland.

    It’s easy to spout words –but it takes strong leadership to see it through.

    When our election campaign starts I will set out my detailed plan for Northern Ireland. But today I want to set out my priorities for the next Assembly term.

    They are shaped by what I have heard over the last six weeks but also by what I have known growing up in this community, all of my life.

    As a politician I know that there are some legacy issues that will not be easily or quickly addressed, but as a mother I know that we have to get on and sort the everyday problems that face ourselves, our friends and our neighbours.

    And what matters to people is not always what they are bombarded by on TV screens, on the radio or in the papers – it is what makes a difference to their everyday lives.

    They care about the public services they receive. They know that more money isn’t always the answer to every problem but they also know it takes money to run our schools and our hospitals.

    They care about the health service. My mother is over eighty years of age. I know how important it is to be able to see a doctor when you need to and to get treated within a reasonable time. People want to know that the NHS will be there when they need it.

    They care about being able to get a decent job for themselves and their children, so they can grow up in Northern Ireland and not have to move elsewhere. They care about having enough left from the pay cheque tolook after their families and they want to see government spending money wisely before they are asked to pay more.

    I know how much you want your children to have a good start in life and a fair chance from the education system. You want a good home and safe neighbourhoods in which to live and you want to see your local areas improved.

    These are aspirations we all share and I want to see them delivered for everyone in Northern Ireland.

    There is a renewed sense of pride in Northern Ireland – and not just from people from a traditional unionist background.

    Despite all of the pain and the hurt, I feel a genuinedesire in the community to put the past behind us. People tell me they want a peace process that works but they want to make sure that it is fair and balanced.

    They are prepared to move on from the past but they are not prepared to allow those who terrorised this country for over thirty years to rewrite it.

    They are optimistic about the future, but frustrated that progress has been slow.

    The Northern Ireland people are proud, they are strong and excited that we are on a new path.

    And when I go to the United States next weekend yes it will be to tell them that political progress has been made. We are a great place to invest and create jobs because a lower rate of Corporation Tax is being introduced – but more than anything, it will be to tell them to come to Northern Ireland to meet our people and share in our strong future.

    I want to lead a stronger Northern Ireland and continue on the path to make it a safer place for all of our people.

    Today I want to set out the five key priorities which will be at the very heart of my plan for a stronger Northern Ireland.

    Firstly, I want to continue creating more jobs and increase incomes.
    In the last five years we have promoted over 40,000 jobs though foreign direct investment, business start ups and local support.
    With the reduction of Corporation Tax to 12.5% from April 2018 I believe we can create tens of thousands ofjobs by 2020.

    Secondly, I want to protect family budgets.
    Due to the tough decisions taken by DUP Finance Ministers, Northern Ireland continues to have the lowest household taxes anywhere in the UK.
    We pay half as much as people in England and around 60% of the average in Scotland. That means people living here get to keep more of their hard earned money than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
    In this next Assembly term I want to continue protectinghousehold budgets, ensuring we don’t raise a penny more in household taxes than is needed.

    Thirdly, I will prioritise spending on the health service.
    I believe the single most important role for government in Northern Ireland is to provide the best possible health service for all of our people. That’s why our Health Ministers have employed 1200 more nurses and almost 300 more consultants. At the same time, we have tackled waste and saved £800m.
    To build on this work will involve a significant cross party agreement on reform but will also require prioritising funding. That’s why in the next five years we will increase the health budget by at least £1 billion to employ more doctors and nurses and to reduce waiting times.

    Fourthly, I want to raise standards in education for everyone.
    We rightly take pride in the best of our education system,which produces better exam results than anywhere else in the UK. But we must make sure that every child is given a chance in life and the best possible education.
    I want to build an education system which does not play favourites but is fair to every sector, every school and every child.

    And fifthly I want to invest in infrastructure for the future.
    That means building new schools, new roads and new hospitals so that Northern Ireland is prepared for the future.
    I want to see real investment in local communities and neighbourhoods so that everyone can take pride in where they live and improve their quality of life.
    I don’t pretend that government can solve all of our problems. In fact a government that tries to do too much will inevitably fall short: that is why I am clear about our priorities and our direction.

    As I indicated earlier, when the election proper gets under way I will set out my detailed plan for the next five years. We will also launch a series of policy documents detailing how we will deliver on our ambitions.

    But I need the strongest mandate to implement our plan to build a stronger, safer, more stable Northern Ireland.

    That is why I am asking for the support of people from right across Northern Ireland, from people who have always loyally supported us and from people who are prepared to give us a chance.

    I can’t promise the earth but I will promise to be as good as my word.

    If I’m asked a simple question, I will give a simple answer. I will not change course to court popularity but will always remain resolute to ensure I do what I believe is best for Northern Ireland.

    That may not always win me friends but I hope it will always win me respect.

    It is on this basis that I will put myself forward to be returned as First Minister at the next election.

    At the heart of this election is an important choice for the community.

    108 MLAs will be elected but in reality the next first Minister will either be me or Martin McGuinness. Your vote will decide. It’s that simple.

    We have come too far to now turn to the untried and untested. There is too much at risk.

    This is a time for political leaders, who have stood the test of time.

    It is the time for those who have made their name by having achievements of their own.

    It is time for those who are rooted in the community and have withstood the political battles to come out stronger.

    My record shows I can work with anyone in the best interests of Northern Ireland but make no mistake Martin McGuinness and I have very different visions of the future of this country.

    I want to work with our national government to bring about a better future, not against it.

    I want to make sure that we remember the past, not rewrite it.

    And I want to make sure that we have a fair and balanced peace process, not one where some are more equal than others.

    It is a choice between his vision of taking this Province out of the United Kingdom and my vision to strengthen the Union.

    What Northern Ireland needs now, more than ever, is strong unionist leadership.

    We need to move forward to a stronger future and not go back to the past.

    We must not allow all that has been achieved to be set back.

    Northern Ireland needs stability, not instability.

    We need a party with a plan and not half a dozen with competing and conflicting visions for the future.

    That is what the DUP under my leadership will offer on the fifth of May.

    Division and instability would be disastrous for Northern Ireland and would put at risk everything that has been achieved.

    I have more respect for those who stand their ground than those who blow with the wind and will seek to be all things to all men.

    On Election Day the people of Northern Ireland will be faced with a simple choice.

    I may not be on the ballot across the Province but a vote for our DUP candidates all across the country will return a unionist First Minister.

    People who vote for the DUP in East Belfast or East Antrim are voting for me to be the First Minister every bit as much as people who are living in Enniskillen.

    Northern Ireland needs strong leadership.

    That’s why your success will give me the opportunity to deliver on my plan to strengthen Northern Ireland.

    People seem to assume that this election is a foregone conclusion and that it has been decided even before a vote has been cast.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Politics in Northern Ireland is tough and brutal. This election campaign will be no different.

    Make no mistake, this election is very close.

    A swing of only two votes in every hundred from the DUP to Sinn Fein would see Martin McGuinness become the next First Minister.

    Their real agenda in the May election is to shred and split unionist votes.

    They didn’t make the breakthrough they wanted in the South and will do all they can to take Northern Ireland.

    They will seek to capitalise on a new and untested leader of the SDLP and on the complacency of some unionists.

    That would be bad for unionism and bad for Northern Ireland.

    It would take Northern Ireland in the wrong direction and send out the wrong message at this crucial time.

    For many, including myself, power sharing with Sinn Fein is difficult but it is a price worth paying to keep Northern Ireland Moving Forward.

    But if you think it is difficult now just imagine what it would be like with a Sinn Fein First Minister and the Executive dominated by republicans.

    That’s why we must stand our ground and fight for every vote.

    And it’s not just to stop a Sinn Fein First Minister, I want the mandate to promote my positive agenda for the future.

    But we can only deliver it if we get the support of the people at the ballot box.

    The next two months will determine the fate and fortunes of this party and of this country for decades to come.

    Every vote in every seat will matter.

    The stakes could not be higher. Not a single vote has yet been cast. The outcome will be for the people of Northern Ireland alone to decide. We serve at their pleasure and only with their consent.

    If motivation were needed just imagine what our forefathers a century ago fought for and endured.

    Let ours be the generation that brought unionism back together and gave unionism new hope for the future.

    Let ours be the generation that made 2016 the year the people of Northern Ireland made clear our place within the United Kingdom is settled for decades to come.

    Last December, you did me the honour of electing me as leader. Today I am asking you to go out to fight for every vote and for every seat.

    This party is the only party that can provide strong leadership for a better future.

    A momentous choice faces the people of Northern Ireland.

    To win this election we need your help.

    We must remind people of the choice they face and take our plan to every city, every town and every villageacross the Province and up and down every lane way on the map and a few that are not!

    When you meet them on the doorsteps tell them what is at stake on the fifth of May.

    Remind them that their vote matters and their vote will determine if Martin McGuinness or myself wake up as First Minister on the sixth of May.

    Tell them about our plan for the future of Northern Ireland.

    Tell them how close this election really is.

    And when you have done all of that, ask them for their precious vote on election day.

    We need strong leadership if we are to build a stronger Northern Ireland that is a better and safer place to live.

    I look forward to seeing you all on the campaign trail. Let us go out and make sure we can commemorate the sacrifice of 1916 and celebrate the centenary of Northern Ireland with unionism still in the driving seat.

    Thank you.

  • Ed Miliband – 2016 Speech on the EU Referendum

    edmiliband

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ed Miliband, the former Leader of the Opposition, on 22 March 2016.

    I want to start by echoing Alan’s words about the terror we have seen unfolding in Brussels.

    All my thoughts are with the victims and their families.

    It is a terrible reminder of the threats we face and the whole of our party will be feeling the deepest solidarity with the people of Belgium.

    I am speaking out today because of the importance of the EU referendum.

    I am doing so because I know some Labour voters feel ambivalent about it.

    Because this was a referendum called by David Cameron.

    Because the EU, like any institution, is not perfect and needs reform.

    And because there are so many other issues that concern us about the future of the country.

    We may not have sought this referendum, we may not have chosen its timing but this debate is too important to be one conducted between the centre-right, the right and the further-right.

    My speech today will be followed after Easter by our leader Jeremy Corbyn.

    And today I want to explain why this referendum should matter to us as Labour supporters and to every progressive in Britain.

    This is not a debate about whether we support David Cameron or who will lead the Tory Party after him.

    It is a debate about the future of our country.

    I want to send a very clear message to the nine million people who voted Labour at the last election:

    I believe the change you voted for and still want to see in Britain can only be achieved by us remaining in the European Union.

    And leaving would irreparably set back the cause of Labour politics.

    So I urge you to vote for Remain on June 23rd.

    And I want to say to all members of our party that we cannot sit this one out.

    We cannot sit it out when this choice is so fundamental to helping build the kind of country we want.

    We cannot sit it out when the decision of Labour voters will be so crucial to the outcome of this referendum.

    We are united, we can speak with one voice, and we need to do so.

    By contrast, the last few days have shown the Conservative Party is divided, disunited and at each other’s throats.

    But that makes it all the more important that we set out our case on Europe.

    The civil war in the Conservative Party cannot and must not obscure the central question in this referendum:

    Are we more likely to secure social justice and progressive change inside the EU or outside?

    The answer is resoundingly that we should vote Remain.

    This is my case:

    First, the problems of the 21st century need co-operation across borders more than ever.

    Second, yes, the EU needs to change to make it the more progressive union it needs to be – but that cannot be an argument for leaving.

    Third, we need to expose the real agenda of most of those who would Leave –a direct route to a more unequal, unfair, unjust Britain.

    My argument begins with the most basic of all Labour principles.

    It unites Keir Hardie and Tony Blair, Clement Attlee and Jeremy Corbyn.

    At heart our principle as a party is one of collectivism: the idea that we achieve more together than we can alone.

    It says it on our party card.

    It is true in Britain as we think about our great achievements produced by collective struggle and collective advance: trade unions, workers’ rights, the NHS, the minimum wage.

    And it has always been the case that we have applied that principle internationally too: from the Spanish civil war, to the fight against the Nazis, to post war reconstruction.

    But the unique thing about the 21st century is that this principle of international co-operation applies to so many more of the problems we face.

    Think of any of the great challenges we care about in Britain 2016, and I will tell you why it is essential we stay in the EU.

    Tackling inequality is the cause that brought me and so many of us into the Labour Party.

    Then think about the different ways we need to tackle it.

    We need to trade across borders to ensure good jobs and keep prices low.

    That’s why we need to be in the European Union.

    We need to make companies pay their taxes but one country can’t do it alone.

    That’s why we need to be in the European Union.

    We need to guarantee basic rights for workers but one country will find it much harder to do it on its own.

    In a world where countries can be played off against each other, we need to co-ordinate across borders to make it happen.

    That’s why we need to be in the European Union.

    And don’t just take my word for it, look at the rights that have been delivered: four weeks paid holiday, better maternity leave, the 48 hour week.

    It didn’t happen by chance, it happened because of our collective power in the European Union.

    We need to cope with the threat of global stagnation, not with continued austerity but a different response.

    But once again one country cannot do it on its own.

    That’s why we need to be in the European Union.

    Then take the most important threat of all; climate change.

    It just isn’t realistic to think one country can do this on its own.

    Britain is about one per cent of global emissions, the EU ten per cent.

    Far from us being smaller, weaker and less significant in the EU the opposite is true.

    We walk taller, prouder and have more influence inside not outside.

    Membership of the EU has cleaned up our beaches, improved our water supplies and without the EU we would not even be debating the silent killer that is air pollution.

    It is only EU legislation that is forcing any action from this government.

    And then take the wider world in which we live.

    The high ideals that led to the setting up of the EU after two world wars – are more relevant than ever

    How do we deal with global threats and challenges?

    Only by acting together not alone.

    So mine is an argument rooted deep in Labour values of solidarity and co-operation.

    And it is not based on the idea that our country doesn’t need to change – far from it.

    We need to tackle inequality, turn away from austerity, make companies pay their taxes, confront the threat of climate change, and work internationally for a just world.

    But the best way, indeed the only way we can effectively do it is by remaining in and not leaving the European Union.

    The EU is an essential tool to tackle the great injustices of the 21st century.

    But as I said at the outset, the EU is not perfect.

    Some people on the Left look at what has happened in the European Union in recent years and see quite a lot they don’t like: austerity, the remoteness of some EU institutions, the response to the migration crisis, the proposed trade agreement with the US.

    Some Labour voters worry about free movement of workers.

    And in particular, what it means for them.

    Let me confront head on both sets of concerns.

    To the first set of concerns, I say, let’s not take the flaws in the implementation of a great principle and conclude that cooperation between countries is somehow the problem.

    Because it isn’t.

    The idea that we could confront the great causes of the 21st century outside the European Union is simply a fantasy.

    We can’t end centre-right austerity across Europe on our own.

    We can’t tackle climate change on our own.

    We can’t make companies pay their taxes on our own.

    We can’t solve the refugee crisis on our own.

    We can’t confront any of the great injustices on our own.

    Nothing in our values, our history, our beliefs tells us otherwise.

    I ask you – how would we explain to our Socialist partners in France, Germany, Sweden, Spain that we had decided to abandon our principles of internationalism and go our own way?

    The Labour party with our proud history.

    They would look at us with disbelief and dismay.

    They would ask why we are abandoning them and their attempt to build a centre-left Europe.

    And they would be right to do so.

    The answer is not to leave or hedge our bets, but instead implement a compelling progressive reform agenda for Britain and Europe.

    We know the areas where we need change.

    We must champion the opening up of EU institutions.

    We must make the EU the powerhouse for tackling corporate tax avoidance.

    We should be persuaders for the EU stepping up on the environment and not shrinking back.

    And on the trade agreement with America, say ‘yes’ to trade across borders, but say ‘no’ to undemocratic, corporate dominated decision-making.

    This kind of reform agenda is not only necessary but is in my view, also possible.

    As far as the second set of worries is concerned, as a constituency MP, I hear it a lot.

    The workers brought in and used to try and undercut wages.

    The loopholes in rules which seem to mean unfair treatment.

    The exploitation of migrant workers to undermine terms and conditions.

    This is a profound issue.

    But the answer is not to leave the European Union.

    Because think about how much our workers would lose out from the end of the single market and all that means.

    And even if we were to stay within the single market, but outside the EU, the experience of Norway shows, you end up being subject to free movement anyway – but having no say over the rules.

    The real answer is to do a far better job of tackling that exploitation here at home.

    Exploitation that this Government chooses not to act on.

    Exploitation that is nothing to do with Europe and everything to do with political will.

    We can end the abuse of agency workers rules.

    We can end the rogue landlords.

    We can change the rules in Europe to counter the undermining of collective agreements.

    All this is possible.

    It doesn’t need us to leave Europe.

    It needs a government willing to make it happen.

    So the answer is reform and remain – not leave.

    And as we make our positive case, we need to be clear about the real agenda of most of those who would have us leave.

    There are honourable Labour colleagues who have been consistent advocates of Leave.

    I leave them aside in this.

    But the vast majority of those who would Leave are not trying to build a fairer, more just Britain as we understand it.

    They may play on people’s concerns about standards of living but just think of what they believe.

    They are people who are anti-regulation wherever it comes from, who are anti-workers’ rights wherever they come from, who are sceptical about laws on the environment wherever they come from.

    To be fair, that is because they have a consistent position.

    When I say that the EU is a necessary tool against the power of corporations, they shake their heads.

    They do not want to counter that corporate power.

    Iain Duncan Smith in his maiden speech as an MP lauded the opt out from the social chapter.

    Boris Johnson has repeatedly said he wanted to create a narrow relationship with Europe simply focussed on the single market.

    Nigel Farage opposes protections for workers not simply because of Europe but because of what he believes.

    Now these people may differ in some respects but they are united in their vision of a free market, low regulated, race to the bottom offshore Britain.

    They believe low tax, low regulation is the way we succeed.

    You can hear it in their speeches and see it in their agenda and even read it in their articles in the Daily Telegraph.

    Think of the vision of Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith for the country.

    It is not my vision, it is not your vision and it is not the vision of nine million Labour voters either.

    If Britain left the European Union, it would not serve a progressive, optimistic agenda.

    It would serve a reactionary, pessimistic agenda.

    Tax avoiders want to divide country from country to drive down tax rates.

    Polluters want to turn country against country in a race to the bottom on standards.

    Russia and those who disagree with us want to divide Europe.

    Outside the EU that is what we would be exposed to.

    Our strategic influence would be diminished, our country would be weaker and our capacity to achieve fairness and justice would be shrunken.

    And in the end this is about the character of our country.

    The fundamental question being asked now in Europe as in America is are we stronger as a nation when we build bridges or build walls?

    Are we a people who choose to face our problems linking arms with our friends or hunkering down on our own?

    Where the little Englanders look at the channel and see a moat, Britain’s success has been built for centuries by those who saw not a moat but sea lanes, shipping, the means of bringing our peoples together not dividing them.

    That is what my parents found when they got refuge here.

    They built a life for themselves and their family.

    They made a contribution to the country.

    Theirs was a life built from optimism out of the darkness and pessimism of the second world war.

    And I believe we are the optimists in this campaign.

    Optimists that we can conquer problems of inequality together.

    That we can tackle climate change together.

    That we can build social justice together.

    That we can tackle the threats the world faces together.

    Our opponents are not the optimists.

    They share one thing in common

    They are the pessimists.

    Pessimists that we can work with others to build a better Britain.

    Pessimists that these great causes like inequality and climate change can be tackled.

    Pessimists that a more hopeful, internationalist future lies ahead.

    We have always been the optimists.

    So my message to you is to go out and win this referendum heart and soul.

    Let’s recognise that we cannot put our feet up and see what happens

    We cannot as party members be spectators or bystanders in this campaign.

    Let’s understand the obvious fact: that those who turn up and vote will decide this referendum

    Let’s be for remain not with apathy but enthusiasm.

    Let’s win this referendum not simply with the arguments for remain but the arguments for how we want to change Britain and change Europe.

    I want a more equal, a more just future.

    We can only get it by remaining in the European Union.

    Let’s vote to remain and then let’s elect a Labour government that can change Britain and change Europe.

  • Anthony Eden – 1955 Speech on Re-Election of William Morrison as Speaker

    anthonyeden

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Eden, the then Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 7 June 1955.

    Mr. Speaker-Elect, in accordance with time-honoured custom in the House, it is my privilege to be the first to voice our congratulations to you on the signal honour, the greatest honour that the House corporately can bestow on any man, which has this afternoon been repeated in acknowledgment of your services. I do so with great pleasure, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of all my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House. Perhaps I may also say that I do it with all the greater fervour as the first Englishman who has ventured to intrude at all in this afternoon’s ceremony.
    As the House does this act of congratulations to you, in truth we all feel that we are congratulating ourselves. As the last Parliament developed, we all felt to an increasing degree how much we owed to your guidance. Your ease of dignity, the clarity of your decision, the width of your experience, and certainly not least the native wit of Scotland placed us many times under an obligation to you. I am sure that the whole House feels fortunate indeed that you should be here and willing to preside once more over our proceedings.

    I think it was said that Mr. Speaker’s principal duties were to guard minority parties and even guard the rights of individual Members. About that I have no doubt that you will be zealous, even against the wishes of the Executive. That is as it should be. But there is something even wider than the rights of individual Members which you guard and cherish for us, and that is the character of the House. Each new Parliament develops its own personality. As we do that, as most certainly we shall, I believe that we shall have in mind that this new Parliament, like so many that have gone before it, in what it achieves and how it achieves it is showing leadership to all the free institutions throughout the world.

    It is perhaps at this time that special responsibility which we all value most and which I know, Mr. Speaker-Elect, you have so well understood in the past and will so cheerfully guard in the future. I feel every confidence that under your tolerant, wise and experienced guidance the House will receive all the help which it is in the power of the Chair to give. In all sincerity, we wish you good fortune and good health in the discharge of your duties.

  • Anthony Eden – 1955 Statement on Becoming Prime Minister

    anthonyeden

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anthony Eden in the House of Commons on 6 April 1955.

    I must, first, try to acknowledge the very generous words which have been used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have spoken in the House this afternoon—in well-deserved terms—about my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee) rightly said that this is not the time for us to appraise my right hon. Friend’s work. For one thing, he is, fortunately, still among us; and we all know quite well that whenever he returns to us from his holiday he will still be the dominating figure among us.

    But while we admit that this is not the time for such an appraisal, perhaps the House would permit me a very few words on this subject, because for more than sixteen years we have been so intimately associated in political work, and, as it so happens, I have never spoken about this before. As I reflect over those years, and think of them in the terms of what we yet have to do, certain lessons seem to me to stand out for us in the message of what we have done.

    First, I think, in work, was my right hon. Friend’s absolute refusal, as his War Cabinet colleagues knew so well, to allow any obstacles, however formidable, to daunt his determination to engage upon some task. With that, courage; and the courage which expresses itself not only in the first enthusiastic burst of fervour but which is also enduring, perhaps the rarer gift of the two.

    Although my right hon. Friend has perhaps the widest and most varied interests in life of any man we are likely to know—and that is true—I still think that his great passion was the political life and that he brought to the service of it a most complete vision. No man I have ever known could so make one understand the range of a problem and, at the same time, go straight to its core. I believe that in statesmanship that will be the attribute which many who knew him would place first among his many gifts.

    Apart from these things, in spirit there was the magnanimity, most agreeable of virtues; and, let us be frank about it, not one which we politicians find it always easy to practise, although we should all like to do so. In part, perhaps, this was easier with him, because I think he always thought of problems not in abstract terms but in human values; and that was one of the things which endeared him to all this House.

    Finally, as has been so well said, there was the humour—the humour based on the incomparable command of the English language, which was so often our delight, not least at Question Time. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be deeply moved by the things which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have said of him this afternoon, for he loves this House—loves it in companionship and in conflict.

    The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others have been kind in their welcome to me. I enjoyed very much the Melbourne reflections. The right hon. Gentleman, with his deep knowledge of history, will not, however, have forgotten that Melbourne, although always talking of leaving office, contrived to stay there for a very long time indeed. But I have no desire, I beg him to believe, to emulate that in its entirety. For the rest, I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Father of the House, too, that I have been deeply touched by what has been said this afternoon and that, for my part, I will do all I can to serve our country.

  • Anthony Eden – 1961 Maiden Speech in the House of Lords

    anthonyeden

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Anthony Eden in the House of Lords on 18 October 1961.

    My Lords, I hope that it will not be thought presumptuous in a newcomer if I say with what interest and pleasure I have listened to a number of the speeches in the debate in the last two days. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary, whose speech has just been referred to by the noble Lord opposite, gave us yesterday a survey of the international scene which I thought remarkable for its clarity and candour, two qualities eminently desirable in a Foreign Secretary. Also, I thought that, in the record he gave us of his stewardship, there was little that we could question. In fact, with his account I found myself almost always in close agreement.
    I also enjoyed yesterday, not for the first time in my political experience, a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who seemed, as I recall, to be in characteristic form, and in a vein with which I am bound to admit I have not always been in agreement. Then to-day we have had the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who has given us a lucid report on the hazardous and useful journey which he made, and on the tragic circumstances which surrounded the last hours of Mr. Hammarskjoeld’s life and his lamentable death, as we all felt it to be.

    For the few moments during which I shall venture to detain your Lordships, I should like to come back to the European scene. It is about thirteen years ago that I stood where I am standing now, or a few paces to the left, to endorse, on behalf of the Opposition, the proposal made by the Labour Government of the day to take action on behalf of the Berlin Air-lift, a decision which I then thought, and still think, was both courageous and wise and, I agree with the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, one for which the Labour Government were entitled to full credit.

    To-day, we once again discuss Berlin, as perhaps we could not have done, had the Labour Government not acted as they did then. But, of course, it is not only the fate of this great city with which we are concerned, any more than it was only the fate of that city with which we were concerned thirteen years ago, or only the fate of Danzig with which we were concerned in 1939. The Soviet purpose is to gain possession of West Berlin, either directly or through their satellite Government in East Germany; and to do this they will employ threats, cajoleries and blandishments, hoping to prise the Western Allies out of the city, or to scare them into making concessions which will further weaken their position.

    The Russians do not want war, as Hitler wanted war; but they want Berlin, or at any rate so large a measure of control in Berlin that it cannot live the kind of life which, by agreement, when the war was settled, it should live—its own life. Of course the Soviets have a great confidence in themselves, which could be dangerous to the world, and dangerous to them. It is based on a belief in their superior strength, and this may be exaggerated. The offer, already referred to, which was made in a speech yesterday at the Communist Congress in Moscow, of a respite in the settlement of the differences about Berlin and at the same time the announcement that they were to explode a 50-megaton bomb, is characteristic of a sense of overweening power. But for us, for the West, it remains an inescapable truth that if the Soviets, or their satellites were allowed to take over West Berlin, however much appearances might be saved, they would then be free to pass on to other demands, which would follow thick and fast and strong. And where should we then stop them?

    We must not burden our policy with make-believe. What is at issue is not the future of Berlin, but the unity of the will and purpose of the Western Alliance and its ability quietly but firmly to say “No” to unreasonable demands. We have done so before on occasions, and it has not always been without effect. We did so about Austria; we did so when the Western Powers created N.A.T.O.—also an achievement, so far as this country is concerned, of a previous Labour Government. To hold to the essentials of our positions in Berlin does not mean that we must refuse to talk—certainly not. But for discussion to be possible there must be something to negotiate, and so far all the Soviets have done is to grab and then show a willingness to talk about the next stage in their plan. That is not negotiation. It is to ask the West to ignore violent deeds and to enter into discussion as though they had not been done. I do not think that is possible. To accept such a course would be to connive at a progressive deterioration of international relations. At each backward step the West would be so much the weaker. That way lies disaster.

    This country, as my noble friend Lord Strang said last night, is not entirely a free agent in these matters. We have obligations. We played our part in the creation of N.A.T.O.; we played our part in bringing Western Germany into N.A.T.O., for which I accept, and do not regret, a personal responsibility. The N.A.T.O. partnership is the strongest political deterrent which exists to Communist world domination. But we must not think for a moment that the outcome of events in Berlin will be without its influence upon N.A.T.O. Germany’s N.A.T.O. partners have expressed opinions, as have Governments of all Parties in this country, about the future unity of Germany. They cannot go back on those decisions except by agreement.

    The hope in the minds of many in West Germany is that their country will one day have reunity. It is a perfectly legitimate hope and one that successive Governments in this country have many times endorsed. It would not be loyal to extinguish it; nor would it be wise. We must guard against a tendency to speak as though British Ministers were uncommitted in these matters; as though they could in some way arbitrate. That is not their position. If we did not stand by our N.A.T.O. partners we should commit an injustice and a blunder, because we could not then complain if West Germany were to seek other means to gain German unity. Another Rapallo is not an impossibility, and it had better not be our fault.

    For these reasons, my Lords, I submit that if there is to be a negotiated settlement, as I should like to see it. about the future of Berlin, it will have to contain some contribution from the Soviet side, of which hitherto, so far as I know, there has been no sign. The Soviets and their East German satellites have, in fact, already achieved a part of their purpose and have been scarcely challenged doing it. They have closed the mercy gate, which is a harsh deed. It is a deed contrary to the spirit, and I think the letter, of the Four-Power Agreement which we made at the end of the war. They are building a wall, a cruel wall, which in truth condemns them, because it is a prison wall, forbidding those behind it to reach physically to freedom. If I am right in my assumption that to build this wall is contrary to the international engagements we four Powers entered into, then this topic, I suggest, should be on the agenda when a Conference is held which includes the Soviet Power.

    The most important contribution the Soviets could make to-day, if they would, to a discussion would be to show a willingness to take decisions to allow East Germany a freer opportunity to lead her own life, and to put an end to that callous rampart they have just built. In other words, what we ask for is self-determination, which the Russians so often preach but forbid ruthlessly in the territories they control.

    The fact that such a settlement is so difficult for us to believe possible shows how far Moscow was challenged in taking forward positions to suit her policy. To stand firm over this issue of Berlin is not to invite war; it is the surest way to avert it. If we are firm, as I can see the Government have every intention of being firm, then we shall get negotiation. But we cannot accept a series of diktats, one after the other, nor the taint of being hostages, as I understand we have recently been described. The resumption of these atomic tests by Soviet Russia was intended to intimidate. There is no argument about that; they have told us so themselves. It was to shock the Western Powers into negotiation on Germany and on disarmament, presumably on Russian terms; and in this context Berlin and nuclear testing are closely linked. That is the reason why, though we will negotiate, and should, in certain conditions, the free world cannot yield to atomic blackmail and survive.

    Soviet Russia really ought not to object if we maintain the position that negotiations can take place only on the basis of existing engagements and mutual respect. Their literature is for ever complaining of the weakness which they allege the Government’s of France and Britain showed towards Hitler’s Germany in the years immediately before the war. They roundly condemn appeasement; they indict Munich in all their propaganda. It is surely rather illogical that they should now invite us to be appeasers in our turn, and bitterly revile the Governments of the West if, having learned their lesson, they are not prepared to negotiate a Munich over Berlin.

    When Her Majesty’s Government are considering whether or not there is a basis of negotiation, I should like to suggest to my noble friend a test which they might apply: it is whether the agreement for which they are working will serve only to relax tension for a while, or whether it is in the true interests of lasting peace. We must not perpetrate an injustice in order to get a little present ease; and the Government have to consider whether their decision gives peace, not just for an hour or a day or two, but in their children’s time. That is the difference between appeasement and peace. A long trail of concessions can only lead to war. I suggest to the Government four signposts as guides in these uncertain times though I admit how difficult they can be to follow: to stand by our Allies; to fulfil our obligations; to repudiate threats; and to probe for negotiation, while being beware of appeasement as I have tried to define it.

    My Lords, even as it is to-day the pressure upon Communist Powers is world-wide and continuous. Berlin is, at the moment, the focal point, but there are others. In Iran every method of intimidation and subversion, as it seems, is being unscrupulously employed. There the purpose is strategic and economic; the approach to the Persian Gulf, and the control of oil, to disrupt the economies of the other nations. In South-East Asia, particularly in South Vietnam, the area that strategically matters the most, fresh efforts are now apparently being made by extensive guerrilla activities to undermine the Government of the day; while in Tibet the conquerors are established, merciless and unchallenged.

    There is no reason to suppose that these pressures will subside. On the contrary, we must expect them to gather force as the Kremlin glories in the new power to intimidate, which its breach of the agreement to suspend nuclear testing is gaining for it. It may seem surprising that this action, which must to some extent imperil the future of the human race, has been so little condemned by what is usually called neutral opinion. I think the explanation is that its brutality—because it is brutal—was deliberate at that particular time in order to create fear, and in that it largely succeeded. The threat of nuclear war is for Moscow an instrument of policy.

    These events seem to me to show that the Free World is in a position of the utmost danger. I said a year ago that our peril was greater than at any time since 1939. Some thought that alarmist, though I do not think anybody would think so now. Yet we are still not realising the nature of the effort which is called for from us if we are to survive against a challenge of so much ruthlessness and power. Here I am not criticising any particular Government of any country, but posing the problem as it besets the Free World. Our methods do not yet match our needs. Admittedly, machinery is no substitute for will; but unless you have the machinery even the most purposeful will cannot achieve results.

    Many of your Lordships had experience during the war of the work of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff. Without that organisation there would have been, as many noble Lords know, confusion and disarray; Allies playing their own hands in different parts of the world, often without understanding of the interests of others, sometimes regardless of them. That is exactly what has been happening often—only too often—between the politically free nations in the post-war world. We need a closer and more effective unity if we are sometimes to mould events and not only to pursue them.

    We have had two examples in the last few months of the consequence of not being prepared and agreed in advance for eventualities which were not very difficult to foresee. One was the building of the wall in Berlin, which I have just mentioned. The second has been recent events in the Congo, where opinion among the Western Powers seems to have been at odds and their actions uncoordinated, even within the United Nations. I do not want to argue about what the policy of the United Nations in the Congo should be, only to say this. While it seems to me a course of wisdom to encourage confederation in the Congo. I do not believe that it is defensible to try to impose federation by force.

    But however that may be, would not our policy in the Congo have been more influential if, even in the last few months, we and the United States and our other N.A.T.O. allies could have acted in unity? And should we not have had a better chance to do so if an international political General Staff had been at work to prepare joint plans in advance, as was done in war time, against a contingency which could be foreseen? I admit that to create such a political General Staff involves an act of will, overriding old jealousies and old prejudices which still exist between allies in the Free World, in what are nominally peace conditions. I therefore find it encouraging that this intention has received most support so far in the United States of America.

    In conclusion, my Lords, there is just one aspect of our affairs which, since I am now out of the stream of active politics, I think I can mention without being either patronising or partisan. There is another way in which this country can influence the international scene: by the image of its purpose which it creates in the minds of other people. I do not think we can, any of us, be altogether happy about that portrait just now. That is partly because of the theme of recurrent economic crises which have been endemic since the war and which, when they are temporarily surmounted, are so easily forgotten. Immediately after the war they seemed more readily acceptable. After the prodigous national effort that our country had made, and the unstinted expenditure of our resources, they seemed excusable. But now nothing would so much increase the authority of my noble friend the Foreign Secretary as the conviction in the world that we have put these recurrent spells of economic weakness behind us for good.

    I have no doubt that we can realise this, but only by a national effort in which every member of the community plays his part with a will to see the business through. This is something more important than the politics of any Party; it is our national survival as a great Power. If we can approach our economic problems in a spirit such as we have so often evoked in the past in the face of our country’s danger, selflessly, but with determination, we can solve them. We have to succeed, if our deliberations are to count for anything and if our country’s influence is to hold sway for justice and for peace.