UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Anne McGuire – 2005 Speech on Disability Discrimination Act

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anne McGuire, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Work and Pensions, on 22nd September 2005.

    There are important challenges we must face if our society is to become more equal – and if all parts of our community are to be able to fulfil their potential.

    Today’s event is about the public sector disability duties in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 – and about how the new duties will help public bodies to rise to meet those challenges.

    The event will hopefully give us all the opportunity to learn about what the new duties will require and to think about what they will mean for your organisations – as well as giving you the chance to ask a few questions.

    The need to think ahead and plan is, of course, fundamental to these duties – and I know for many of you here today, you’ve already started thinking and this event is a vital part of that process.

    I hope my contribution this morning will help to set these duties in context for you – to explain where they come from, what they mean and why we think they were necessary.

    When we took office in 1997, disabled people had only limited civil rights.

    Where those rights were in place, they had only been granted reluctantly – after many frustrated attempts to bring forward legislation. So our challenge in Government, after years in opposition, was to put that right.

    I think we made a good start in establishing the Disability Rights Taskforce – to recommend the changes that needed to be made to advance disability equality in our country.

    Amongst other things, the Taskforce recommended that we establish the Disability Rights Commission – to act as a champion for disabled people.

    Well we did that – and this year the DRC celebrates its fifth anniversary. With the new legislation establishing the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to replace the current equality commissions, we are working to ensure that disability will be at the heart of the new Commission.

    I’m delighted that the DRC are represented here today – because in their short five years of existence, they have played an important role in helping us develop the duties, and in producing the code of practice which will shortly be laid before Parliament.

    And, of course, we have worked very closely with the DRC in delivering the biggest extension of disability civil rights this country has ever seen.

    So there has been progress towards our goal of equality for disabled people. The legislative measures we have taken have driven real change in the way that both public and private organisations conduct their business.

    Thankfully, I think we are also starting to see that society as a whole is starting to change.

    I think everyone in this room would agree that it can’t change fast enough. Some might even say that, in spite of advances, the pace of change has been painfully slow.

    The challenges are certainly still enormous.

    Disabled people are still more than twice as likely to have no educational qualifications.

    Disabled people are still less likely to be in work – and when they do work, they earn less than non-disabled people.

    Disabled children are still more likely to live in poverty – and the children of disabled parents are more likely to live in poverty.

    Here in London, the Greater London Authority found that one in three disabled people face discrimination on a regular basis. Half experience abuse or bullying – being laughed at, spat at and even physically attacked.

    Shockingly, disabled people are still more likely to die from conditions unrelated to their disability than other people.

    We must ask ourselves why – for example – people with learning difficulties are many times more likely to die young from physical illnesses which have nothing to do with their impairment.

    Many of you will be all too familiar with these facts. But I set them out because they demonstrate the scale of the challenge that faces us.

    And they also demonstrate that in areas where the public service has a key role – in education, in healthcare, in work – disabled people still do not get:

    – the same services and opportunities;

    – the same support; and

    – the same treatment that non-disabled people get.

    It is not just in those areas of course. Wherever you look, you will find that disabled people are comparatively worse off.

    There can be no single answer for overturning generations of disadvantage – as a Government, as a Minister, there is no magic formula for making equality a reality.

    But we have put measures in place which enable disabled people to challenge discriminatory behaviour and the cultures which perpetuate exclusion.

    Around 10 million people have individual rights under the DDA to get adjustments made when it is reasonable to do so – and to obtain compensation when these rights are breached.

    Yet, as I hope I’ve already demonstrated, disabled people still face disadvantage in public services.

    One reason for this is that individual rights cannot easily address a fundamental generic issue which leads to many of the problems faced by disabled people.

    That is – how do we ensure that the culture of our public institutions is one where consideration for disabled people, the barriers they face and how they are overcome is integral to how people do their jobs.

    We know that this does not always happen now. Everyone – from the Chief Executive to the shopfloor – needs to ask difficult questions of ourselves as individuals and of our organisations.

    Do we give enough thought to the impact of new policies, new procedures and new services on disabled people’s lives?

    Worse, might we, in fact, be putting fresh barriers in place which prevent disabled people from enjoying opportunities we all take for granted?

    Let me give you a real life example of what I mean.

    A local authority – I’ll spare their blushes by not saying which one – contracted its refuse collection service on the basis that all residents would leave their rubbish at the border of their property, dragging their wheelie bins up their garden paths for collection.

    No regard at all was given to the fact that some residents would find that difficult or impossible.

    The local authority then – in order to avoid discriminating against disabled people – needed to either negotiate a change to the contract or make alternate provision, both of which were costly.

    A simple example, but if things had been done differently – if, for example, the need to ensure disabled people get their refuse collected without unreasonable difficulty had been a priority at the beginning – the local authority need not have been burdened with the extra costs of putting things right.

    The bottom line is quite simple – proper regard should be had to the needs of all residents, whether disabled or not, 100% of the time.

    The measure that we are discussing today is designed to ensure that this happens. From December next year, the DDA 2005 places a legal duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

    It will no longer be legal for public bodies to design services or carry out functions without thinking about how disabled people are affected.

    Public bodies will have to demonstrate that – in everything they do – they are considering the impact on disabled people and that they have due regard to the best ways of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity.

    These new duties must make us work and do things differently. If they result in box-ticking exercises – without effecting real change to the lives of disabled people – then sadly we will have failed.

    I said that making our society more equal was a great challenge: in fact, it is a central challenge for the public sector.

    We in Government are not complacent – and the new DDA 2005 is only part of a broader strategy.

    However, I can reassure you that I am not asking you as representatives of public authorities to do something that we in national government are not prepared to do ourselves.

    Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit published a report called “Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People” which set out our ambition.

    An ambition that – within a generation – disabled people should have the full opportunities and choices necessary to improve their quality of life.

    An ambition that – together – we can build a society where no-one is written off.

    A key part of the strategy we have set to help achieve that ambition is the reform of Incapacity Benefit. We want to make sure that disabled people have the appropriate support – financial, advisory and rehabilitative – when they need it, when they want it, which would allow them to move towards work.

    The Strategy Unit report also sets out other practical measures including:

    Establishing an Office for Disability Issues to help coordinate and promote change across Government;

    Creating a National Forum for Organisations of Disabled People to ensure that disabled people are involved in developing policies that impact on their lives; and

    Moving towards individual budgets – leading to more choice for disabled people about the way they receive the support that is provided for them.

    As with the new public sector duties, we know that disabled people must be right at the heart of all these initiatives if they are to make a difference.

    I want to be very clear about our agenda. It is not about burdening public authorities with extra layers of bureaucracy: it is about achieving greater opportunity and fairness in our society.

    The principle behind the new duties is that we must plan for a more equal future – where the needs of all our citizens are anticipated and, where possible, accommodated.

    We must address the ignorance and prejudice which holds disabled people back. And we must give disabled people confidence that they can rely on public services – and not be an afterthought, as has often happened in the past.

    This is a massive challenge. The legal framework is there – what we now have to do is to change the culture of our organisations as a step towards changing society. This challenge is one that I’m sure very many of us welcome. It is one that I am confident we will all rise to meet.

  • Michael Martin – 2009 Resignation as Speaker

    Below is the text of the resignation statement made by the then Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, on Tuesday 19th May 2009.

    Since I came to this House 30 years ago, I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday 21 June. This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday 22 June. That is all I have to say on this matter.

  • Michael Martin – 1979 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Michael Martin in the House of Commons on 17th May 1979.

    It is a privilege to represent the Glasgow, Springburn constituency. I have lived in the constituency for more than 13 years, and before that I resided in the neighbouring constituency. Therefore, I know of the good work that my predecessor, Dick Buchanan, has done for the area. I was pleased to learn that he was held in high regard in the House. He had many fine qualities. I was always impressed by his willingness to give service to the community. As a young man he was a shop steward in the local railway workshop, and he fought for, and succeeded in getting, better conditions for his workmates. When he was city treasurer in the old Glasgow corporation he was responsible for many projects which are still of benefit to the people of Glasgow. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him well in his retirement.

    At one time Springburn had a thriving railway industry which produced steam locomotives. In fact, Springburn made more than half the number of steam locomotives produced in the world. Many of them are still in use in Africa, India and South America. The industry not only employed thousands of skilled and semi-skilled workers but provided work for the smaller firms in the area. I am convinced that had the private railway companies ploughed their profits back into the industry Springburn would not have the unemployment problem that it has today. I hope the Government recognise the need to strengthen the Scottish Development Agency so that it can bring new industry to Glasgow and to places such as Springburn. My constituency needs industrial revitalisation to prevent its becoming an industrial graveyard.

    The constituency has various types of housing. In the Dennistoun district there is a mixture of private and local authority tenements. In Petershill we have the highest multi-storey dwellings in Europe—33 storeys high. In Germiston, Balornock and Barmulloch we have mainly council housing stock. The Cow-lairs area consists of private tenements, where many of the tenants are suffering from landlords and property owners who have neglected their properties and refused to carry out repairs for more than half a century.

    Recently an organisation known as Norman Properties operated in the area. Its activities were questionable, to say the least. Young couples, desperate for a house of their own, had to pay as much as £1,000, only to find that they had no legal rights when the local authority introduced compulsory purchase schemes. The good people of Cowlairs deserve better, but the private sector has failed them miserably.

    The only hope for the people in this area is for council house building to be speeded up and for encouragement to be given to community-based housing associations, which have an expertise in the modernisation of older tenemental properties. I hope that the Government do not intend to make cuts in the Housing 496 Corporation’s budget, because it does an excellent job in building up such organisations.

    Reference is made in the Queen’s Speech to the sale of council housing. It worries me considerably that the Government may feel that they are giving some sort of freedom to the sitting tenant. Have they considered what it will mean to the types of tenants whom I have just described? The sale of council housing will mean that the good-quality housing stock will go to the highest bidder and not to those in need. Have the Government considered the consequences of selling houses in a city such as Glasgow, which consists largely of tenemental properties? Who will ensure that the owner-occupier maintains his share of the council tenement? Who will ensure that the owner-occupier looks after the communal facilities, such as the back greens and the drying areas, or even the paths leading up to the tenements? Who will make sure that these communal facilities are looked after? I foresee many practical difficulties in the proposal to sell council housing.

    I should like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that less than a year ago every party on Glasgow district council called upon the Government to make Glasgow a special case. Glasgow has many problems, and it needs a massive injection of capital to revitalise the city and attract new industry. I hope that the new Government will give Glasgow such consideration.

  • Hilary Benn – 2015 Speech at Coventry Rising 15

    hilarybenn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at Coventry Rising 15 on 11 November 2015.

    It is a great honour to have been invited to contribute to Rising 15 and to do so on 11 November here in Coventry.

    This cathedral – the old and the new – stands as a reminder both of the consequences of war and of the enduring power of faith to inspire.

    Two weeks ago I was in Jordan listening to a mother describe how she fled there from Syria with her children after her husband, a baker, was arrested, tortured and killed by President Assad’s forces.

    There is not one of us who does not ask why human beings do this to their brothers and sisters? Maybe we shall never know, but there is another question that we can try and answer. What should we do when these things happen ?

    I was brought up on the parables of the New Testament, and the one that left the greatest mark on me was the Good Samaritan.

    St Luke’s gospel records that it was the question “And who is my neighbour?” that prompted Jesus to tell the story of the man on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho who was robbed and beaten and left for dead by the side of the road.

    While the Priest and the Levite both, separately, chose to pass by on the other side, it was the Samaritan who stopped to help.

    And having told the story, Jesus then asked his questioner:

    “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves ?

    And he said, He that shewed mercy on him.

    Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”

    I have chosen this parable as my text for today.

    When we see the extreme suffering of others, what is our responsibility to our neighbours?

    For some, this is an uncomfortable moral choice and they hope it will pass them by.  Some say it is none of our business. Others respond by renouncing violence – an aspiration we should all share – but until all 7 billion of us do so, we have to face up to the effects of violence on its victims.

    War is often the handmaiden of poverty and civil wars on average result in 20 years of lost development.

    It is no accident that Afghanistan and Somalia have the highest rates of infant mortality in the world.

    Both are poor and both have been wracked by conflict.

    The causes of war are many. The legacy of colonialism. Resources. Ethnic and regional tensions. Politics. Nationalism. Ideology. Religion. Terrorism.

    And in the years to come, we may see added to this list people increasingly fighting over energy, land or water.

    So when is it right to act to prevent these things?

    Looking back on the Second World War which led to the bombing of this cathedral, did more people die than would have lost their lives if Hitler had not been confronted? Maybe. Was the war an expression of failure? Most certainly. And yet, was the second world war justified?  In my view, it was.

    And from its ashes came a determination that such a conflict should never happen again.

    Its expression was the founding of the United Nations in 1945 and three years later, the UN General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Article 3 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

    Article 28 says: “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised.”

    And yet, for millions of people these rights – so nobly expressed – have remained just words on paper.  The refugees from Syria I met in Jordan could not have been clearer. They said simply: “The world has forgotten us”.

    Why is this so? Because those affected lack the means to do anything about these conflicts themselves and because we, the rest of the world, lack the will or act imperfectly or not at all.

    This will not do.

    First, and most importantly, because we should uphold the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They mean something as the ultimate expression of our responsibility to one another. And yet without the rule of law and peace in all countries they mean nothing.

    Imagine if the world consisted only of the United Kingdom and someone argued that it would be alright to have peace in Coventry, but civil war in Leeds and genocide in Glasgow. What would we think ?

    Of course, this doesn’t happen because these rights are enjoyed in all parts of our country. And yet, we are one world and having created the United Nations, we have a duty to ensure these same rights are available to our fellow humans whichever part of the  planet they were born on

    The second reason why this matters is because  interdependence defines the condition of humankind today more clearly than at any other time in human history.

    The effects of conflict elsewhere are felt here, whether it is watching it on television, seeing the flow of refugees, feeling the repercussions in our politics or experiencing the impact of terrorism on our own lives. And as the world’s economies become more dependent on each other, the consequences for trade and travel are increasingly serious.

    The third reason is that no country can progress while it is mired in conflict.

    So those who care most passionately about overcoming the scars of poverty, disease and squalor, must be equally passionate about the part that peace and stability play in helping to bring this about.

    And the fourth reason is that new threats beckon.  Unchecked, climate change will affect our future security. If people can no longer live where they were born because their homes are under water or it has stopped raining, then they will do what human beings have done throughout history. They will move in search of a better life. They may be coming to live near you or me. And their number will dwarf anything we have seen thus far.

    What recent history teaches us is that whether it was Sierra Leone under the RUF and the West Side Boys, the Rwandan genocide, Kosovo when Muslims were being murdered in Europe’s backyard or Syria today, the world needs to find a way of dealing with crimes against humanity.

    In some of these cases we did act; in others we failed.

    It is not that the international community does not care. But there is not yet a settled and united will to act, and we lack the capacity to do so in an effective way.

    So how can we build this capacity?

    One of the problems we face is national sovereignty. A country invading another is one thing, but when terrible events happen within a country some still say that this is an internal matter and none of anyone else’s business.

    We used to hold the same view of domestic violence here in the UK. Forty or fifty years ago, if the police were called because of reports that a man was beating up someone in the street, he would be swiftly arrested. But if the victim was his wife or his partner behind a closed front door, then the prevailing attitude was ‘it’s a domestic dispute and not for us to get involved.’

    That doesn’t happen anymore. A crime is a crime, and the sovereign state of the kitchen or the bedroom no longer provides any protection against enforcement of the law.

    I think we are currently witnessing the world going through exactly the same process internationally for exactly the same reason. An increasing number of voices are saying that leaving people by the roadside of conflict to fend for themselves simply cannot be right.

    And so was born the concept of Responsibility to Protect – the idea that the international community does have a responsibility to stop people becoming victims of the most terrible crimes.

    Developed by the Canadian Government’s International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001, it led – following Ban Ki Moon’s report on implementing the Responsibility to Protect – to the UN General Assembly adopting a resolution in 2009.

    Seeing state sovereignty not as a privilege but a responsibility, R2P seeks to prevent and stop genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. And it explicitly accepts that the international community does have a responsibility to act in certain circumstances.

    I support R2P very strongly, but it is not without controversy, so I want to try and address directly the reservations and concerns people raise about it.

    The first is authority. Who is to decide what should be done?

    For me the answer is clear. It should be the Security Council of the United Nations. That is why we created it. The UN has both a unique responsibility because of its authority and a unique legitimacy.

    And yet we see from history that the UN has not always been capable of agreeing on what should be done or of acting effectively when it has.

    We have to accept that the veto exists to bind the world’s major powers – the five permanent members of the Security Council – into the United Nations, but with it comes a great responsibility. That is why the French Government has proposed that in cases of mass atrocities permanent members of the Security Council would voluntarily agree not to use their veto. I think this is an important proposal and it should be strongly supported by the UK and others.

    But what if the UN will not or cannot act – then what?  Is that an argument for standing on one side?  Not in all cases some would argue, including me, as our support for intervention in Sierra Leone and Kosovo demonstrated. Others, however, take the view that in the absence of a UN mandate there can be no legitimacy for any action.

    The second issue is that people fear premature military intervention. That’s why diplomatic and public pressure should always be the first resort. It can work.

    Western sanctions have played an important part, for example, in persuading Russia to implement the Minsk Agreement in Ukraine.

    We have also learned that a single camera or a single reporter bearing witness to an atrocity – and the shame that can be brought upon those responsible – can have a power equal to a thousand resolutions. The reason why the UK Government changed its mind in September about Britain taking more Syrian refugees was that photograph of little Aylan Kurdi’s lifeless body lying on a beach in Turkey.

    The third issue is deciding when states should act.

    Agreeing a threshold is difficult and highly contentious and achieving consensus about whether or not diplomatic options have been exhausted is fraught with difficulty. And yet, if we wait for evidence of genocide to become conclusive then it may be too late to do anything or to save anybody.

    The fourth issue is practicality. If a decision is taken to act, then who is going to undertake the work? If it involves military intervention, then whose troops will be used?  How many?  Under whose command?  With what resources and what mandate? And what is the plan for after military intervention?

    One way of answering these questions is to continue to build capacity regionally to be able to handle  peacekeeping. Was it right for the African Union to take the lead in Darfur and Somalia? Absolutely.

    Both because western forces in an Islamic country in those circumstances would not have been accepted and because these were conflicts in Africa’s backyard.

    On mandate, peacekeepers need the tools to do the job, and that includes the ability to protect and intervene if necessary under Chapter VII.

    Where there are people to protect or a peace to keep, we need more peacekeepers. At present there are close to 125,000 military and civilian UN peacekeepers compared with only 11,000 a quarter of a century ago.

    Despite this, there still aren’t enough for all the missions the UN would wish to run, and to the high standards we expect of them. For as well as numbers, there is also the question of training, equipment, and capacity, particularly as regional institutions build their own peacekeeping.

    This is an area in which Britain could and should play a much bigger part given the skill, experience and expertise of our armed forces. There are currently just under 300 British peacekeepers contributing to UN missions although another 300 are soon to deploy to South Sudan and Somalia. That simply is not good enough and I call on the Government to set out in the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review how the UK can play a much bigger part in UN peacekeeping in the years ahead.

    And when action has been taken, it needs to be followed up with stabilisation, a political process and decent governance. There is no substitute for the parties to a conflict finding their own way out of it.

    Lastly, what is the consequence? There are two types of consequence; that of acting and that of not acting.

    In the case of Sierra Leone, the outcome of British and UN intervention was beneficial. The country remains poor but it is largely free of violence now and has taken the first steps on the road to recovery.

    In the case of Afghanistan, where the world responded to 9/11, the removal of the Taliban enabled about three and a half million of the estimated four million refugees who had fled the country to return. The conflict however continues – many lives have been and are being lost – but the aim remains enabling the elected Afghan government to look after its own security as politics brings a peace settlement.

    In Somalia, the American troops who went in to help with humanitarian relief ended up in a gun battle. They were replaced in time by African forces, but despite recent progress, parts of the country remain deeply troubled and insecure as the recent attack by al-Shabab in Mogadishu demonstrated. More positive has been the impact that international co-operation has had on piracy off the country’s coast. And, by contrast, Somaliland shows what can be done if politics is made to work.

    For the people of Rwanda the consequence of our not acting was devastating. In 100 days just under one million people were killed – the equivalent of 6 million people being murdered here in the United Kingdom on our street corners, and in our schools and on churches – as the world stood by and watched.

    Anyone who has read Romeo Dallaire’s book ‘Shake Hands with the Devil: the failure of humanity in Rwanda’ will weep with him in rage at what happened while we failed to help.

    And while the Syrian civil war has continued, over 200,000 people have been lost their lives, half the population have had to flee their homes and the barrel bombing by the regime and brutality of ISIL/Daesh continue.

    The world has to be much more effective in dealing with conflicts like this before they turn into brutal and bloody civil wars. The responsibility to protect was meant to be about that, but let us be honest: in Syria, no-one has taken responsibility and nobody has been protected.

    Now we do also have to deal with charges of selectivity and, at times, hypocrisy; that we have not been consistent in our choice of when to act, or that countries have chosen to act when there is much at stake for them but not when there isn’t.

    It is a reasonable criticism, and it has on occasions force.

    And yet the argument that just because you have failed to do the right thing everywhere you should not attempt to do the right thing anywhere is one I find profoundly unconvincing.

    Of course, in the case of all conflict, prevention is better than cure. There is nothing more important than putting time, effort and energy in trying to prevent violent conflict in the first place.

    Particularly important is the UN’s capacity to mediate and so help the parties to resolve their differences without turning to violence. So we need skilled, readily deployable teams able to go and support peace talks around the world, as Staffan de Mistura and Bernardino Leon are currently trying to do in Syria and Libya.

    Few civil wars arise from nowhere. So we need to be better at monitoring and understanding the causes of tension; the exclusion and injustice that makes people angry.

    The establishment of the Atrocity Prevention Board by the US Government is a particularly good example of what can be done.

    If all this sounds depressing, two decades ago things were much worse. Half of the countries in Africa were then affected by violence – many in regional conflicts across West and Central Africa.

    Now, we can look back and say that sub-Saharan Africa was the only region in the world to see a decline in violent conflict at the start of the 21st century.

    Much of that is down to the pioneering work of the African Union and its Peace and Security Council. It can deploy military forces in situations which include genocide and crimes against humanity and can also authorise peacekeeping missions. The AU has put troops on the ground in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Darfur, and most recently in Somalia in the form of AMISON – a regional mission operating under a UN mandate

    We are getting better at negotiating peace. According to the Human Security Report, the international community has negotiated more settlements to conflict in the last 15 years than in the 185 years previously.

    Finally, when all of this is done, we need to end up where we started – with the rule of law so we can call those responsible to account.

    That is why the UK has been such a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court. The message it sends is clear and simple. Anyone who is planning crimes against humanity will think twice because they will know that the international community will in the end catch up with them, as Slobodan Milosevic and Radko Mladic both discovered.

    The reason why we should want international action at the UN to succeed is that this is all about demonstrating that multilateralism – countries working together – can provide the answer to that uncomfortable question – what is to be done?

    And the more it does succeed, the stronger is the argument we can make with those who would act unilaterally that there is another way.

    I would like to end on a note of optimism. 100 years ago this year my grandfather William fought in Gallipoli in the First World War. He lost his younger brother in that campaign and his eldest son in World War Two. This is what he wrote about war:

    “Is there anyone, now, who will deny that, step by step, warfare degrades a nation? …[Soldiers] know from bitter experiences what militarism really means; its stupidity, its brutality, its waste. They are chivalrous because they have learned the one good thing that war can teach, namely that peril shared knits hearts together – yes, even between enemies. They have mingled with strangers. They know that common folk the world over love peace and in the main desire good will.”

    Nearly a hundred years after he wrote those words, they remain true.

    Human beings everywhere yearn for peace and if together we can make our politics work in the service of humankind then we will bring nearer the day on which that hope is realised.

    Thank you.

  • Hilary Benn – 2013 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the 2013 Labour Party conference in Brighton.

    I want to begin by thanking David Sparks and all our Labour councillors, including the 291 newly elected last May, for the terrific job they do standing up for our communities and flying the flag for Labour values.

    We may not be in government nationally, but we are increasingly in government locally and in exceptionally tough times our councillors are leading the way.

    I would also like to thank my great team in the Commons and the Lords for holding this awful Government to account.

    Three years on, we now know exactly whose side they’re on. And what they think.

    Do you know what, Michael Gove actually said recently that the reason people have to go to food banks – I know it’s hard to believe it – is because they can’t “manage their finances.”

    No, Mr Gove, that’s not why they swallow their pride and ask for help. It’s because they haven’t got any money, and they haven’t got any food. And instead of you patronising them, we should be helping them.

    And what about Eric Pickles? He told us he was protecting people from council tax rises, but what did he actually do in April? He imposed a hefty increase in council tax on over two million of the very poorest households.

    Nearly half a million already in arrears. Thousands of summonses issued. People facing fines and even the threat of jail. Mr Pickles, you should be ashamed of your new Tory poll tax.

    And then there’s Iain Duncan Smith, the man who came up with the hated bedroom tax. Hated because it hits families, and widows, and disabled people. Hated because it’s unfair, immoral and doesn’t work. And who helped him do it?

    Forget all those troubled consciences you saw paraded around Glasgow last week. It was the Liberal Democrats who helped him to do it and they should be ashamed of themselves too.

    Well, I’ll tell you what we’ll do. The next Labour government led by Ed Miliband will stop taxing the bedrooms we have and start building the homes we need.

    Conference, our housing system is broken. Parents and grandparents worry. “Where are our children and grandchildren going to be able to afford to live?”

    Young couples unable to buy their first home. Families forced to pay spiralling rents and wondering if they’ll still be in the same home next year when their tenancy ends.

    This is the reality of the cost of living crisis for many people.

    And what’s the Government done? Cut the affordable housing budget cut by 60 per cent.

    And when the IMF said to the Chancellor that Britain should be investing £10 billion in infrastructure – that would build 400,000 affordable homes – what did the Government do? Nothing.

    No wonder housing completions are at their lowest peacetime level since the 1920’s.

    But there is hope. Labour councils. Labour councils building council houses.

    In Liverpool and Leeds, Stevenage and Southwark, Manchester, York, Exeter, Nottingham, Ipswich and in many other Labour areas our councillors are building social homes on a scale we haven’t seen for a generation. Tackling the cost of living crisis by building homes that families can afford.

    And, Conference, that’s why a Labour government will help councils to build more affordable homes by reforming the Housing Revenue Account.

    And for the 8.5 million people who now rent privately, we will tackle the unfair fees charged by lettings agents. We’ll introduce a national register of private landlords. And we’ll fight for longer tenancies and predictable rents so that families can put down roots.

    And for the millions of people who dream of owning their own home, Labour will get Britain building again. We’re just not building enough homes and yet, in the last few years, the profits of the big housebuilders have soared.

    Land is too expensive. Too often developers hang on to it hoping for the price to rise. And communities feel powerless.

    Today Ed Miliband will pledge to change that.

    So what will a Labour Government do?

    First, we must admit that we can’t carry on saying on the one hand “where are the homes for the next generation?” and on the other “please don’t build them near me”.

    Nor will we get more homes by top-down targets. Councils and communities must take that responsibility but they need more power to be able to do so.

    Communities should know where land is available. That’s why we will ensure developers register the land they own or have options on.

    And where land is not brought forward for homes, communities should be able to do something about it.

    And when communities have given planning permission they should be able to say to developers: we’ve given you the go ahead so please get on and build the homes you said you would. And if you don’t then we’ll charge you and, if you still don’t, we’ll sell the land on to someone else who will.

    Secondly, there are areas in the country where councils and communities see the need for more homes but there just isn’t the land to build them on. So the next Labour government will give those communities a new ‘Right to Grow’, allowing them – if they want – to expand and ensuring that neighbouring areas work with them to do so.

    Thirdly, conference, it’s time to build new communities – new towns and new garden cities. That’s what the great Attlee Government did as they started to rebuild Britain and we need that same spirit again. So we will invite local authorities to come forward, and in return, we will make sure that they get the powers and the incentives they need to acquire land, put in the infrastructure and build. Build those new communities.

    Getting Britain building, with communities taking the lead. People deciding where the new homes will go and what land they want to preserve.

    Passing down power is the answer to many of the great challenges we face as a nation.

    With an ageing population we need Andy Burnham’s revolution in whole person care with local government and the NHS working together.

    We need more school places. That’s why Stephen Twigg will get rid of Michael Gove’s absurd ban on local councils opening their own schools for their own children in their own area.

    Too many people can’t find jobs, including nearly one million young people. So, Liam Byrne wants councils to take a lead in helping people to find work, get skills and deliver Labour’s jobs guarantee.

    We need to get the country moving. So why do we tolerate the endless journey back and forth to Whitehall so that ministers can decide on local transport schemes when we all know – as Maria Eagle says – that local government could do it faster and better?

    Now, what about fairness. This Government has imposed the deepest cuts on our most deprived communities and they have the nerve to give David Cameron’s council an increase.

    It’s just not fair and a Labour Government will change it. Money should go to meet need.

    And why do we need to do all this? Because of what Ed calls the new politics.

    We have reached a defining moment for our country.

    A fork in the road.

    A moment of huge danger but also of great opportunity.

    The financial crisis rocked the foundations of our banking system and our economy. But it did far more than that.

    It undermined people’s sense of hope and their confidence in a better future.

    It damaged the faith in politics to make a difference.

    It has left a generation unsure that their children’s lives will be better than the life they have enjoyed.

    And that’s why these days there is so much despair.

    I get that, but despair didn’t inspire the previous generations who first brought gas, electricity and clean water to our homes. The schools that teach our children, the parks in which they play, the hospitals that treat us when we’re sick and the libraries that transform lives.

    And it won’t help us – our generation – to build the homes we need. To care for our Mums and Dads as they get older. To bring fast broadband to every city and village. To kick out the local sharks and bring in the credit unions. To generate our own energy to keep down the bills.

    Our task is to turn despair into hope.

    For with hope comes confidence. And with confidence comes trust.

    And if we, as Labour, are going to win people’s trust, then we must trust the people. We must be the movement that helps people to change their own lives.

    Money may be short, but in every community – every village, every town, every city – there is an inexhaustible supply of energy and of ideas.

    That’s how we helped to change the country for the better before.

    And that’s how we will make our country One Nation again.

  • Hilary Benn – 2014 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the 2014 Labour Party conference in Manchester.

    Conference, I want to begin by saying thank you.

    To all our great Labour councillors and leaders for the work they do to stand up for Labour values in difficult times, to all the members of our team in the Commons and the Lords, and to everyone on the Policy Commission.

    Last Thursday the people of Scotland made their decision. They voted against separation, but they also voted for change.

    In years to come, this will be seen as a moment in our history when the ground shifted beneath our feet.

    A moment – uncertain and exhilarating in equal measure – but also full of opportunity. A moment to lift up our eyes.

    We get the message about the distance and, at times, the alienation that too many people feel from politics, and we have a plan to radically transform our political system so that people can see that change is coming.

    It is no wonder there is discontent. We see Tory Ministers on the television telling us that the economy is doing fine. There’s nothing to see here. Everything is OK. Move along.

    It just shows how out of touch they are.

    People working hard day after day, putting in the hours, doing their best for their family, but finding it tough. Pay not rising enough to meet gas and electricity bills.

    Nearly one and half million people on zero hours contracts, not knowing from one week to the next how much they will earn and for those on the very lowest incomes, David Cameron’s bedroom tax. Pushing families into a spiral of debt.

    It’s a rotten policy that comes from rotten values with no regard for decency and security.

    Well, Conference, we have different values. We reject the bedroom tax and we will scrap it.

    And what about our broken housing market? Housebuilding at its lowest peacetime level since the 1920s.

    Young people doing all they can to save, but knowing that their dream of owning a home is moving further and further out of reach. So they end up renting, and often find themselves paying off someone else’s mortgage, rather than one on a home of their own.

    They probably have a short term tenancy and worry that the rent may jump up, even if they get a new contract.

    And if their children are about to start primary school, what kind of security and stability is there if they may be forced to move away from friends and neighbours next year?

    We all hear these stories, but this government doesn’t get it.

    Well we do – and that’s why we are determined to introduce three year tenancies; to put a ceiling on rent increases; to scrap lettings agent fees for tenants; and to build at least 200,000 homes a year by the end of the next Parliament.

    Because we know that our home is where we feel most secure.

    And how will we do this? By being bold and by offering a different kind of politics. By giving people the responsibility to make it happen and the means to do so.

    So instead of communities feeling that they can’t influence where new homes go because developers ignore the sites the council has identified, and instead try to build somewhere else.

    Instead of communities saying that the design is poor, the rooms are too small, and the GP surgeries, roads and schools won’t be there.

    And instead of them thinking that even if the homes are built, that their children or friends or neighbours will never get one of them.

    Instead of all of this, we will give communities, as Sir Michael Lyons’ report will recommend, the powers they need to tackle land banking; put together the sites; get the design right; put in the infrastructure; and work with small and medium-size and large builders to build the homes that local people need where local people want.

    And Conference, we’ll work with councils so that they can build more council houses.

    Let’s be proud of the Labour councils already leading the way and outbuilding Tory councils.

    The building of social homes by Labour councils on a scale not witnessed for a generation.

    Conference, the problem with housing is a symptom of the problem with our politics. People feel distant from decisions that affect their daily lives. They don’t feel in control and they want a bigger say.

    That’s why the ground is shifting. So we will build a new politics that works for people rather than just telling them that’s how things must be.

    After all it’s where we started as a movement and how we first won the people’s trust.

    Our fellow citizens who went to the polling stations four days ago spoke not only for themselves but for the whole of the United Kingdom.

    Labour will honour the promise we made to Scotland and we will offer a new deal to England too.

    The people of England have been very patient and in that very English way, they are now saying “Excuse me, but what about us?”

    Well, we are listening and that’s why Labour will offer England a new deal that will pass power down, money down, responsibility down.

    I want cities and counties, towns and districts, parishes and neighbourhoods to make more decisions for themselves and to have more control over the money they raise and contribute.

    But I want that to be fair, because what we have now certainly isn’t.

    Look at the shameful and deliberate way the Tories have taken most money away from the most deprived communities.

    They’re cutting spending power for every household in the ten most deprived areas in England by sixteen times as much as the ten least deprived. Sixteen times.

    They’ve targeted Labour Liverpool and Hackney and Knowsley and Birmingham while at the very same time they’ve actually given increases to Tory Elmbridge, Surrey Heath and Wokingham.

    Rotten values once again. It’s not fair and we will change it. We will make sure that the money we have is fairly shared. We will make sure devolution goes hand in hand with redistribution from each according to their ability to contribute, to each according to their need.

    That’s why we plan to take £30 billion from Whitehall over five years and pass it to local communities – to city and county regions across the length and breadth of the land to: give them the means to create jobs; help people into those jobs; train them in the skills they need for those jobs, invest in the trams, the buses, the railways and the roads to help them get to work and businesses to thrive, and build the homes for those workers and their children.

    That’s why we’ll say to local authorities: “Help us to commission our new Work Programme.”

    That’s why we will give local areas control of the funding for further education for 19 to 24 year-olds.

    That’s why we will put together the money for health and social care so that local communities can provide better integrated care for the old, and for those with long-term conditions and disabilities.

    Why should our mums and our dads be sent to hospital or kept there for want of a grab rail or someone to help them get dressed in the morning?

    After all, isn’t that what we want for them, and for us, when our time comes?

    And by doing this we will help communities to build a stronger economy, a stronger society and a more equal one too, so that not only does London get investment and flourish, but Leeds and Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle, Sheffield and Bristol, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, Cornwall and Essex.

    Our new deal is for all parts of England. Conference, this will be the biggest economic decentralisation in a century. But it won’t be enough.

    We will go further in changing the way decisions are made so that we can free local communities, the people of England, to shape their own destiny.

    Not something cooked up in corridors of Whitehall, but a deeper, more profound change involving people from every part of the country.

    A national debate – leading up to a Constitutional Convention – as fervent and as involved as the one that paved the way for devolution in Scotland.

    This isn’t about the long grass; it’s about the grass roots telling us what they want in the long term. A Convention with a purpose.

    Change that is a means to an end. No longer “what will you do for me?” but “what shall we do for ourselves?”

    The change we need to build the homes, generate renewable energy, create jobs, give our young hope, overcome poverty, care for our community and one another.

    So, Conference, change is coming. Change that devolves power but which also binds our country together.

    Every part of our United Kingdom – side by side, shoulder to shoulder. England and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    And despite the cynics and the critics, it’s everyone’s responsibility to stand up for our democracy. To cherish our democracy. To have faith in our democracy because we know it’s how we built the better society we became, and how we will build the better society of tomorrow.

    Yes, there is so much more to do, but the next time someone tells you that getting involved, doing your bit, standing up, getting organised, voting doesn’t make any difference, look them in the eye and say “It isn’t true.”

    And tell them this. 70 years ago Europe lay in ruins. We had huge debts and money was short, but faced with this, the British people chose to put their trust in us because they wanted to change the country.

    It was a Labour government which started building homes for the returning troops and for those whose homes had been bombed, which strengthened the welfare state, and which gave life to our precious National Health Service.

    It’s why we will fight to the death to save it.

    People came together to change their own lives and the lives of their neighbours. And how did they do it?

    By drawing on compassion for each other and a burning desire to make things better, using the most powerful weapon of all in a democracy: ideas; a piece of paper and a pencil. Cross after cross after cross.

    That was how the Scottish people made their decision last Thursday and that is how the British people will make theirs next May.

    We know how much this matters. We know how hard the fight will be, but conference, we also know that the greatest victories are won in the toughest circumstances.

    So let’s give people hope and let’s go out there and win.

    Thank you.

  • Hilary Benn – 2015 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    hilarybenn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to the 2015 Labour Party conference.

    Good morning Conference.

    I would like to begin by thanking our friend and my predecessor, Douglas Alexander. Douglas gave outstanding service to his constituents and to our Party over many years. We wish him well.

    Conference. At the start of this new century, what do we see as we look around our world?

    Fewer conflicts. Technology transforming and enriching our lives at a blistering pace. The rise of new global powers. Economic and social advance as trade opens minds. But we still face old problems like poverty and new challenges like climate change.

    And one constant remains. The innate human desire to decide for ourselves and our families how we live our lives. The argument for democracy.

    This changing world is at times uncertain but it is also full of possibility, and it calls on us to look outwards.

    And that’s why the choice the British people will make when they vote in the European referendum will be the most important decision for 40 years about our place in the world.

    Thank you Alan for leading Labour’s campaign to stay in and thank you Glenis and our MEPs for the important work you do.

    Together we believe that Britain’s future lies in Europe because whatever the disagreements of today or the changes we want to see tomorrow, it has given us jobs, investment, growth, security, influence in the world and workers’ rights.

    Don’t mess with them, Prime Minister, but be assured that if you do, a future Labour Government in Europe will restore them. We will not be part of a race to the bottom.

    Above all Europe has brought peace to our continent; a continent that has seen enough graveyards filled with the flower of generations who gave their lives in war.

    In our party, in our movement, we understand that our responsibilities extend beyond Britain’s shores. From the struggle against Franco’s fascism in the 1930s to the defeat of Nazi Germany; from the fight against apartheid in South Africa to the protection of the people of Kosovo and Sierra Leone, we have always been proud internationalists.

    Proud to stand in solidarity with those in trouble.

    And determined not to walk by on the other side of the road.

    And so, despite all the progress that humankind has made, when we see the five remaining giant evils of our time – disease, inequality, oppression, war and environmental damage – we have a moral duty to act.

    Earlier this summer we looked in horror at that photograph of Aylan Kurdi lying dead on a Turkish beach, and our eyes filled with tears.

    I think we all felt ashamed. This small and precious child had his whole life before him when his desperate family – victims of a civil war that is raging through Syria – stepped into that boat in search of a better life. They had fled from Kobane – a city in which the BBC reports “every building, home, shop and street is ruined.”

    Each death in this conflict is a rebuke to the world for its failure. We believe in the responsibility to protect, but in Syria no-one has taken responsibility and no-one has been protected.

    Nearly half the population are today no longer living where they were when the civil war broke out.

    Seven and a half million people are internally displaced.

    Four million have fled the country.

    That’s why this is the great humanitarian crisis of our age.

    Britain is second only to the United States in the generosity of its humanitarian aid.

    But that makes it all the more shocking that David Cameron thought that our nation had already done enough when he turned away and said we would not take in any more refugees.

    It was the British people who changed his mind, and now we must change his mind again to offer shelter, not just to families still in the region, but also to the most vulnerable already here in Europe.

    After all, why is a child now in Greece who has safely made the same perilous journey that claimed little Aylan Kurdi’s life any less deserving of our help than a child still in a Syrian refugee camp?

    It is a false choice for the Prime Minister to say we shouldn’t. He’s wrong. We should help both.

    And it is not just the bloody terror of President Assad they are fleeing. It is also ISIL/Daesh whose brutality is as indiscriminate as it is mind-numbing.

    In Syria and Iraq, they have killed Muslims and Christians alike.

    Stoned people to death.

    Thrown gay men off buildings.

    Raped girls and women and sold them in markets.

    Cut the heads off brave humanitarians who only came to help.

    If doing something about this crisis is not one of the great tests of our age, then what is?

    And just as the first responsibility of any government is to ensure the security of its people and to be prepared to defend our nation from those who would do us harm, so we are right to be offering air support to the Government of Iraq in trying to defeat ISIL/Daesh, but let me be clear we do not want British boots on the ground in either Iraq or Syria.

    Now, there’s been a lot of talk about airstrikes in Syria, but to bring peace, stability and security there we need a much broader, more comprehensive plan than just trying to deal with ISIL/Daesh.

    This will require political, diplomatic and humanitarian will too.

    This week the United Nations General Assembly is meeting in New York for the world leaders’ debate.

    Presidents Obama, Putin, Xi Jinping and Rouhani will be among those speaking, but it seems that the UK’s contribution will be made by the Foreign Secretary and not by David Cameron.

    I say to the Prime Minister today that that’s just not good enough. Given the scale of the crisis in Syria he should be staying on in New York and straining every sinew to secure a comprehensive United Nations Security Council Resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter calling for:

    Effective action to end the threat from ISIL/Daesh;

    The creation of Safe Zones in Syria to shelter those who have had to flee their homes;

    The referral of suspected war crimes to the International Criminal Court;

    Increased humanitarian aid to those who have fled to neighbouring states;

    An international agreement for countries to welcome their share of Syrian refugees; and
    A major international effort bringing together Russia, Iran, the neighbouring countries, the Gulf states, the United States of America and Europe to agree a post-civil war plan for Syria.

    It is no longer good enough for the world to say “this is too difficult.”

    Instead we must say “this has got to stop” so that the people of Syria can go home, rebuild their country and give hope to their children for a better future.

    Conference, we live in an increasingly interdependent world in which what happens in one country – as we have seen this summer – will increasingly affect those of us who live in another.

    We are 7.2 billion people today. By the end of this century we will be 11 billion.

    And so, whether it is how we are going to overcome conflict, or poverty or climate change there is a truth we must face.

    If people can no longer live where they were born and brought up because their homes are under water or their crops have failed because it has stopped raining.

    If young people having had the chance to go to school, discover that there is no job for them afterwards.

    If disease means that a mother thinks ‘if only I could get to a country with good health care than I could save my child’s life.’

    If people experience these things and think these things, then they will try to move to find a better life.

    It is after all what human beings have done since the dawn of time.

    The reason why we stand against this inequality in life chances is not only because it is morally right, but also because continuing inequality in our world in this century is unsustainable.

    And so, the fight for freedom from disease, inequality, oppression, war and environmental damage is our fight.  It is the challenge of our age.

    We can end conflict. Look at Angola, look at Northern Ireland, look at what is happening in Colombia today.

    And we must end the conflict in the Middle East, where it is now time for the Palestinian people to have their own state so that they and the people of Israel can live in peace.

    Britain’s voice, Britain’s influence, can and should help make these things happen.

    Because those of us who have enjoyed the benefits of progress have a particular responsibility to use that voice and that influence to help others – our friends and neighbours – with whom we share this small and fragile planet.

    At this Conference nearly 70 years ago, our Prime Minister Clem Attlee said this:

    “We ask for others the freedom that we claim for ourselves. We proclaim this freedom, but we do more. We seek to put it into effect.”

    And that is why Conference, as a country we should reject the siren calls of those who would have us turn our backs on the rest of the world.

    Instead let us proclaim.

    That Britain always has been, is now and always will be an outward facing country.

    That Labour always has been, is now and always will be an internationalist movement.

    And let us stand together – a Party united – ready to play our part in building a better world.

  • Pat McFadden – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Pat McFadden to the 2010 Labour Party conference.

    It’s a strange thing opposing the Business Department.

    One minute they’re speaking up for business on the immigration cap.

    The next, they’re calling for the abolition of capitalism.

    Who ever said the Liberal Democrats were all things to all people?

    When Britain was hit by the worldwide recession Labour knew that government could not just stand back and let it run its course.

    We saved people from the collapse of the banks.

    Stimulated the economy.

    Put in place a scrappage scheme for a car industry that was on its knees.

    Gave 200,000 businesses extra time to pay their tax bills.

    Business and unions too played their part, accepting pay freezes, s hort time working and other changes.

    In this recession; unemployment, home repossessions and business failures – all about half the level of the early 1990s.

    Don’t let anyone tell you the action we took didn’t make a difference.

    Taking this action wasn’t losing control of public finances – it was helping the country through and we were right to do it because we saved people from the pain of a far greater downturn.

    But as the world tries to recover, people ask, where will the jobs of tomorrow come from?

    Labour must always be a party of wealth creation as well as wealth distribution. Economic prosperity and social justice go hand in hand.

    To achieve both we need successful businesses large and small.

    We have been through an era when first, finance dominated. Then, finance collapsed.

    And we never again want the country to be held to ransom by the banking system.

    The huge rewards at the top of banking are totally out of line with anyone’s sense of fairness or worth. That’s why Labour acted to introduce the levy on bankers’ bonuses.

    But the real test in politics isn’t a rhetorical auction of who can bash the banks most.

    The real test – the issue that matters – is how to get banks lending again to good businesses so that we get the growth and jobs that Britain needs in the future.

    And on that, we have heard precisely nothing from the coalition Government.

    The opportunities for new growth and jobs are there. The shi ft to low carbon. The digital economy. Our brilliant creative industries.

    We should never resign ourselves to Britain being a post-industrial society.

    We stand for both strong manufacturing and great services.

    This isn’t nostalgia. We are still a country that makes things. Every week in my constituency I see firms that do so with pride and skill.

    The Tories and Lib Dems say that if only we cut the state fast enough and hard enough, the private sector will step up to the plate.

    But cut too fast or in the wrong places and you run a risk with recovery and prosperity.

    Around the world, our competitors know that Government has a crucial role in creating the capability a successful economy needs.

    This doesn’t get in the way of jobs and growth. It’s the foundation for jobs and growth.

    You don’t rebalance the economy by cutting £3bn in investment allowances for manufacturing industry.

    And you don’t rebalance the economy by abo lishing the Regional Development Agencies that are providing support for business up and down the country.

    Eight organisations abolished.

    Fifty eight bidding to replace them.

    More bodies chasing less money.

    That’s what they call the bonfire of the quangos.

    And on industry, don’t let the Tories and Lib Dems tell you we were wasting money.

    It wasn’t a waste of money to work with Nissan to make sure their first electric car was built here in Britain in the North East.

    It wasn’t a waste of money to put a loan guarantee in place for Ford to make the next generation of low carbon diesel engines here in Britain.

    And it wasn’t a waste of money to grant the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters to help make Britain a world leader in the civil nuclear supply chain.

    Last week Vince Cable made a speech attacking the banks and arguing for corporate change. Fine. We can agree on a lot of that. But in denying this loan the Government behaved just like the banks they like to attack for not supporting industry.

    So if they really have a Regional Growth Fund of £1 billion why is its first decision not to reinstate the loan to Forgemasters and put this stupid refusal behind us once and for all?

    Conference, together we will keep fighting for this decision to be reversed.

    But having jobs and growth in the future isn’t just about individual companies or sectors.

    It’s about people.

    It’s about giving them a chance to be everything they can be in an age when knowledge is more important than ever.

    Before we came to power – just 60,000 apprenticeships. When we left office – 250,000 – apprenticeships a mainstream part of the labour market again thanks to what we did in Government.

    All around the world countries are sending more young people to university. Yet here some argue that more achievement means lower standards, as if there was just a small lump of talent that had to be shared among the traditional chosen few.

    But more achievement isn’t a decline in standards. It’s people getting chances in life that their parents and grandparents could never have dreamed of. And our movement knows that if you give people a platform, they will achieve.

    There are tough decisions coming about how to pay for Higher Education.

    And it’s right that if we can get more value out of the system we should.

    But I have a message for the ministers in charge who benefited from the best education themselves: stop attacking the goals of more participation in higher education that Labour put in place; don’t pull up the drawbridge up from the generation that comes after you.

    Our economic future isn’t just about how far or how fast we cut.

    It’s also about shaping something anew out of the crisis we have been through.

    Britain isn’t broken.

    We could build a recovery that lasts.

    But it needs a vision for jobs and growth for our economic future.

    It needs belief that more educational opportunity is a goal worth fighting for, not a target to be decried.

    And it needs the will and the resources to make it happen.

  • John McDonnell – Speech to the 2009 PCS Conference Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by John McDonnell to the Public and Commercial Services Union in 2009.

    Look, thanks, look I’ve got to be brief today, sorry about this, I can’t hang about, I’ve got to get back home, there’s a bloke coming round to do the moat, put up the pergola and tarmac the tennis courts.

    I couldn’t get here the other day for Mark’s rally because I was dealing with the bill on prostitution in parliament, and I’ve learnt a lot, so when I heard that someone had claimed for floating their duck, I thought it was rhyming slang for some bizarre sexual practice.

    You just can’t make this up can you? I was here two-years ago, can you remember? It was the day that I hadn’t got nominated to stand as leader of the Labour party.

    I couldn’t get the nominations, one of the MPs told me that ‘I’d seen your manifesto and I’ve seen your proposal for public expenditure and I can’t nominate you, ‘cos we can’t trust you with the public finances’. You can’t trust this lot with the bloody tea money, let alone the public finances. Unbelievable isn’t it.

    There is a deep sense of irony that when all this scandal on the expenses was beginning to break, parliament, MPs were voting through the welfare reform bill.

    A welfare reform bill where people lose benefits, not for fiddling their benefits, not for fiddling at all but just because they simply don’t turn up for an interview.

    A welfare reform bill, where we are forcing the long term unemployed to work, under workfair proposals where they will work for one pound seventy three an hour, contrast that with the £400 a month that some of the MPs have been spending, two-thousand pounds on plasma television screens, tens of thousands of pounds on mortgages which didn’t even exist.

    Obscene? Of course it is. And no wonder people are pissed off quite honestly, no wonder. I’m angry as well ‘cos they bring us all down, they bring us all down.

    You know the solution isn’t just about sacking the speaker, or a few corrupt, bent politicians, it’s just as the solution to the economic crisis isn’t just about getting rid of a few bankers.

    The solution for this political crisis isn’t just about getting rid of a few MP’s, this is a systemic crisis, it’s a systemic failure.

    And the political and economic crisis are not isolated, they’re two sides of the same corrupt, incompetent, unfair, and un-democratic system in which we live. An economic system which has created grotesque inequalities of wealth.

    A society where 3 million children still live in poverty, whilst the rich pay less in proportion of their taxes than their own cleaners.

    But also it’s a political system which has created vast inequalities of power, why, and we know, we see it everyday, a government permeated by big business.

    Number 10 populated by advisors who have come from big business, lucrative jobs, or are going to lucrative jobs in big business.

    Where we witness the farce of welfare reform, designed for this government by a venture capitalist, someone clearly expert in poverty and it’s experience.

    Where former ministers who have awarded contracts to companies within months of standing down as ministers are employed as consultants by those companies and raking in anything in some instances from 50 and in some instances a 100 thousand pound a year.

    And to be frank with you, where MPs will vote for what ever is put in front of them. What for? Just to be offered the chance of being a bag carrier to a bag carrier.

    And this week, the reason I was in parliament yesterday is a classic example, we had before us a change in the standing orders of parliament, not as enlightening as the last debate I have to say, it was bringing forward a change in standing orders which would allow parliament to debate the new planning policies that the government is bringing forward on, nuclear power, on expansion of airports, on the major infrastructure projects that will design the future of our environment for generations.

    And the government gave us the opportunity to allow us to debate those proposals. So I moved a simple amendment, that when we’ve debated them, can we have a vote. Labour MPs voted against even having a vote. We are voting ourselves virtually into irrelevancy, out of existence.

    And yes, there are issues of morality, but I don’t think we should loose sight of the real morality that’s at stake in government and politics today.

    Yes, be angry at the thousands of pounds that are spent on moats and mortgages and expensive meals. But I tell you, be angrier at the expenditure on immoral wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, where thousands have died.

    And yes, be angry at the expenditure of tax payers money on their extravagant lifestyles, but be even angrier at the extravagance of spending seventy-three billion pounds on trident when there are 3 million children, and 2 million pensioners still living in poverty.

    And yes, be shocked at how much they consume, the food, the allowances, the TV’s and all the rest, but be more shocked that despite all we know now about climate change, despite all that we know, they are still promoting policies like airport expansion that will consume our planet.

    And yes, be angry, at what they are spending on their second homes, but I tell you, be bloody angrier that after twelve years of a Labour government that hasn’t spent the money to house the 80,000 homeless families that we have in our country.

    Be angry at that. And you know, when they wanted to keep their allowances private, I was angry at the privatisation of the jobs that we’ve seen over the last twelve years. The cuts in a 100,000 workers of this union.

    But I say to you now, let’s not waste that anger, lets not waste it. Don’t waste that demand to change, otherwise this anger would be futile.

    And if it’s diverted solely into stringing up a few MPs, enjoyable as that may be, if it is just diverted into that and the Tories are allowed to use it opportunistically to get them into power, or worse still if the revulsion of political practices of Labour and other MPs delivers people into the hands of the BNP, or even UKIP, that anger and that revulsion will be wasted.

    I think our task, and the task of this union now is to link up with all those others who are angry as well.

    Link up with all those others who want change, to channel the anger that people feel, to channel this exasperation into a demand for change, but real change this time.

    We don’t want just a new parliament. That’s not what we are about. We want a new society. A society that’s based on rights. The rights at work, the right to a decent wage, the right to decent working conditions. The right to be safe at work, and yes to have a say and to be represented and yes, in many instances, to have that say through public and common ownership of our services.

    A society that’s based upon rights at home. A right to a decent home. A right to a decent and clean environment, treatment when our children or members of our family are sick. Free education at all levels. A right to be free from poverty and a society which is fifth richest country in the world.

    And yes, rights in our communities. Community institutions which have the power and resources at local level to tackle the problems that we experience. The need for homes, the need for safe areas, the need for a clean and green environment.

    And yes, a local democracy that isn’t just about marking a ballot paper once every four years, but where we can all have a say and continual basis to change our society.

    But it is also about the rights to control the destiny of our country. To own and democratically control our financial institutions so we can plan the future of our economy so that we no longer suffer the risk, the scourge of approaching 3 million unemployed.

    To own and control our public services which are the foundations of any civilised society.

    Ending the rip-offs and the privatisations. And yes, the right to a parliament elected that is truly representative of our country of all classes.

    A government not appointed by patronage through the prime minister but elected by MPs and ministers elected directly by MPs.

    And I say yes, as a Labour party member, a party which is not a degenerate bureaucracy, but a party where members take back the power to select their candidates to determine their policies and their programs and elect the party’s officers. And yes maybe just occasionally to elect the leader of the party in a democratic ballot.

    This is just the start of this debate. The crisis can be exploited and will be exploited by the Tories and the fascists or we can harness the powerful surge of anger and revulsion amongst the people to determine that new society that we want. How do we go forward?

    Well there’s various discussions and proposals. Some like Compass and the Guardian and others are calling for an immediate debate.

    But that debate they want to contain within the political elite.

    The political class, the very people who have corrupted our system so far. They are looking for some form of self-interested rotation within that elite. That sort of discussion, I think, is absolutely meaningless and ineffectual.

    These are the very people who gave us Blair, supported Brown and now deifying Alan Johnson. All of them voted for the same wars, the same privatisations, the same attacks on our civil liberties and yes are now voting for policies that will cut our jobs, our services and yes even attack the poor on benefits.

    And its interesting isn’t it. That there’s a consensus almost across all of them, all the political parties now. It’s a consensus that the economic crisis will be paid for by us, not them. Paid for by cuts in services, cuts in jobs, more unemployment, cuts in wages, and yes, and then they come for your pension.

    We need now new voices. We need new political formations which reflect the breadth of the challenge to the status quo and to these vested interests. The government is talked about, and the prime minister is talked about convening conventions about parliamentary reform.

    My view is that this change will only come about, not through parliament, not through MP’s, not through prime ministers but through us, through the people themselves, and I think PCS has a fundamental role working with others. We set up the trade union co-ordinating group to work with other unions.

    Why don’t we invite other unions with us, to convene our own conventions? Invite other trade unionists from all unions, but also organisations that are campaigning in every policy field for the same changes we demand.

    Why don’t we link up with all those others who are demanding fundamental change, the campaigners on climate change, the groups demanding decent incomes, decent pensions, the families who have got no homes, the asylum seekers, the most oppressed within our society, the cleaners on poverty wages that we mentioned earlier today in the debate.

    The teachers, the public sector workers, the ones who are facing the cuts in privatisation, the people at the sharp end. They are the ones who should determine the new society that we want to create.

    And it will mean new structures, new alliances, new formations, new methods for mobilising the demand for change. That’s what we need.

    And you know it isn’t just about electoral politics. I tell you wherever necessary, wherever it is needed, it may mean direct action if parliament fails to give us a choice we have to relocate democracy from parliament onto the picket line and onto the streets.

    If it comes to it, we have to seize the power again that the MPs themselves have so distorted. We can’t be spectators as party leaders and media commentators try to prop up this system which is so degenerate.

    It’s time for us to seize the moment. Its time for us to seize the moment for change, and it takes courage, it takes courage to stand against the stream.

    But if we don’t unite, if we don’t call upon others, if we don’t unite with all of those who are angry like us, all those who are coming under attack, all those who are entering into struggle already, if we don’t do that, they’ll simply reform the system, tidy up the expenses, give themselves all a wage rise, stuff their pockets yet again and carry on as before.

    That’s not acceptable to our members, it shouldn’t be acceptable to us, so the demand we want now is change led by the people.

    It’s about restoring democracy to the people themselves, it’s about getting rid of this degenerate bureaucratic system that we have, and restoring the rights that people demand.

    Real rights to a decent home, a decent environment, a decent job, a decent education, a decent health service and security in the long term.

    We as a union have always demonstrated that we are capable of leading that demand for change. From this conference, let’s put out that call to all those other unions and all those other organisations that want change like us to unite with us for this creation, not of a new parliament, but of new politics and a new society. That’s the challenge, let’s seize it. Solidarity.

  • Ian McCartney – 2000 Speech to TUC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian McCartney to the 2000 TUC Conference in Glasgow.

    On the quay, just opposite, which you will see, that was where I, at the age of 15, joined my first iron ore carrier and went to sea as a member of the National Union of Seamen. After three weeks I thought I had better have a career change when I came back. But it was an all too short visit to look at places far and wide.

    Last year, a few days after we presented these awards, my son died. It was the strength and support of the letters, phone calls and the friendship from trade unions and trade unionists across Britain which helped me and my family through the past difficult year. With your generosity of spirit and also your generosity in financial terms, in this City today, there are four projects up and running now to assess young people who have got a drug, alcohol or abuse problem. With your generosity, there will be young people who will be alive today who may not have been. I want to thank you on behalf of my family for that generosity.

    Colleagues, I am known for my diplomatic skills. When I was in the DTI I had to go to Japan to meet our colleagues there, and I went to a factory which made robots. The Japanese are very proud of their robots. In front of the assembled workforce was the president of the company, and I was asked to watch robots playing traditional Japanese drums. I just knew that at the end of it he was going to ask me what I thought of this, and being a diplomat, at the end of it when we all cheered and clapped the robots, I said to him, “When they can play the bagpipes, come back and see us”.

    Colleagues, I hope this morning is going to be as much a credit as it was last year. There are three awards; the Women’s Gold Badge, the Men’s Gold Badge and the Youth Award. The recipients are the embodiment of all that is good in the labour movement, representing without fear or favour their fellow workers. Day in, day out, month in, month out, year after year, they have represented workers in their place of work, promoting good practice, promoting the cause of trade unionism and promoting the skills and abilities of their fellow workers, and sometimes they do it at their personal cost. So the awards today to the three people concerned are not just personal awards to them but a recognition to the tens of thousands of men and women who each and every day go about their jobs on behalf of our movement, without whom we would not have the strong, vibrant movement that we have today. So it is a recognition to both them and to the movement as a whole.

    Being a trade union representative is not an easy task. Yes, it has been a bit easier in the past year as trade union membership has increased and employers are recognising more the worth of the trade unions in the workplace, but there will never be a day when every employer will be on board for collective representation in the workplace. It is like painting the Fourth Bridge – when you get to the end you have to start again. That is why it is important that we recognise the worth of our members, because it is our members who gather the strength of the Movement, year in and year out, with employers large and small across the country. So, it is a privilege for someone like me to be asked to come and preside over these awards.

    The words which I have been given this morning, are about three very special people. They are not my words but the words of their fellow representatives from the T&G, the GMB and the MSF. It is what their fellow workers, their fellow trade unionists, think about their contribution, and that is why these words are most powerful.

    Let me tell you, John and Rita, that I have been head-hunted by the CBI. They have offered me a full-time job. At the last meeting of the CBI, Digby Jones said, “I think it is time you came and worked here full-time”. Thompson raised a finger, and he said, “Perhaps we should ask someone to give us a resum’e of this man’s career. Perhaps we should ask someone to give him a reference”. This was agreed. Somebody leaked it to John Monks and John Monks passed it to me last night. I will read it to you. This is a letter to Digby Jones. “I saw Ian on Question Time last night. He is a most ignorant, arrogant, lying, uncaring, hypocritical, bombastic, thieving little sod this nation has ever seen.” This is a reference for a job at the CBI. “I would not trust him with my dog. A disgusted Peter Mandelson.” So I will stick with my day job in the Cabinet Office at the moment and work part-time for the TUC at weekends.