Tag: 2012

  • Alistair Burt – 2012 Speech on the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism

    alistairburt

    The below speech was made by the Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt, on the 1st November 2012 in London.

    Thank you Professor Clary for your kind introduction. And my thanks to the co-chairs of the Global Initiative and our partners in this event, notably Atomic Weapons Establishment, the Ministry of Defence and our colleagues from the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) in the United States.

    I would first like to extend my appreciation to everyone here for taking the time from your busy schedules join us at Lancaster House to discuss one of the most important issues of our time: nuclear terrorism.

    My portfolio as Minister in the Foreign Office covers 32 countries, ranging from the Middle East and North Africa to parts of South Asia. I have responsibility for our Counter-Proliferation, Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Piracy efforts. In the past year I have seen the continuous evolution of security challenges facing the UK; both conventional and non-conventional, domestic and international.

    Regional conflict and instability have potential implications for wider peace and stability, which is why the UK’s National Security Strategy identified nuclear terrorism as a primary danger to Britain.

    Nuclear terrorism is a real and global threat. A successful attack, no matter where in the world it came, would be catastrophic. Catastrophic for the immediate devastation and terrible loss of life, and for the far-reaching consequences – psychological, economic, political, and environmental.

    Such an attack was unthinkable just a generation ago. But it is now a possibility we need to confront with the utmost vigilance.

    Nuclear material is becoming more available – partly because more countries are deciding to adopt the benefits of nuclear energy. That is a sovereign right and a positive choice, and one which the UK will continue to support. We also recognise that some countries have chosen not to go down the path of nuclear energy. But this all means that we need together to ensure that, as nuclear materials and technology spread, we keep our people safe and secure.

    And in today’s world of modern communication, information is spreading faster. Like nuclear energy, this brings huge benefits, but it also brings significant risks. There is more information about nuclear weapons on the internet than there ever has been.

    As is the case in cyberspace, the danger is stateless in geographical space. It is impossible for any national government or police force, no matter how advanced, to contain on its own. Global smuggling networks are thriving. Criminal cells operate across borders and across continents.

    So we are here today to renew our drive for the global response we need. We must prevent access to nuclear devices, materials and expertise by those who would seek to do us harm, while not impeding legitimate peaceful uses. Together we can agree and enforce the rules, secure the cooperation, and develop the capabilities and practices, to ensure that a nuclear terror attack never happens.

    Our determination to tackle this issue head on is the reason why, at the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism Plenary in South Korea last year, we announced that we would host this symposium. It is a clear demonstration of the UK’s commitment to this most important of issues, and our commitment to implementing the founding principles of the Global Initiative.

    Six years ago the UK joined the Global Initiative, along with 12 other countries.  We were brought together through the strong leadership of the United States and Russia. Today the Global Initiative membership counts more than 85 nations and four official observers – all committed to strengthening the global capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to nuclear terrorism.  Gathered at this symposium are some of the world’s leading experts on non-proliferation, counter proliferation and counterterrorism.
    The more I have read about the fight against nuclear material trafficking, the more I have appreciated the real difficulties you are working to address. Detecting the radioactive signature of heavy elements in nuclear contraband is challenging, to say the least.

    Your fight against nuclear terrorism has introduced me to a fascinating – and, I must admit, mysterious – world filled with Muons, Cosmic-rays, and Large Hadron Colliders.

    The technology has come a long way. From its beginning in 1960s, when the Nobel prize winning physicist, Luis Alvarez, set up Muon detectors in a chamber beneath the second pyramid of Chephron in Egypt to look for hidden chambers.  To the development of Drift Tubes at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and on to the creation of the gas electron multipliers.  Now nuclear detection systems are being developed that only take up a cubic meter of space and can produce three-dimensional images. I do not pretend to understand fully the physics behind these technologies. And indeed, when a Muon was explained to me as a “heavy electron” I recall thinking that I did not find that description particularly illuminating!

    But the serious point is that you here turn what sounds to the layperson like science fiction into tangible technologies that will help to prevent nuclear terrorism. Since the issue of illicit trafficking of nuclear material was first recognised the UK has been at the forefront of trying to combat this threat.  And, of course, it was an issue very much at the forefront of our security preparations for our hosting of a successful London Olympics this summer. You will hear more about this, and about the UK’s border monitoring system, Cyclamen, later in this symposium.

    Only six months ago I would not have been able to openly discuss Britain’s work on detection as I am doing with you now. But building on the UK’s commitment to openness in this area and the work that we first revealed at the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit in March, I am especially pleased that I can publicly commend and promote the UK’s Atomic Weapons Establishment, or AWE as they are known, for their work in this area. This is a rare opportunity to publically acknowledge that their work has been central to the defence of the United Kingdom for over 50 years.

    For example, the creation of a broad programme that covers passive detection, active detection and Muon-based detectors is being led by AWE in partnership with the UK’s world-leading academics.

    The programme is delivering a range of prototypes in each area that will allow us to advance our research on this challenging problem. A particular success is the production of a Muon-based detector using novel technologies, providing both a test bed for advanced detection methods and also arms control verification tools. Again, I know you will hear more on this later in the symposium.

    In the nuclear forensics domain we have built on AWE’s excellent resources and created a dedicated world-class nuclear forensics analytical capability that will allow the UK to investigate criminal acts involving nuclear materials.

    This includes the recently-opened Conventional Forensic Analysis Capability, which allows us, for the first time in Britain, to examine traditional forensic evidence, DNA, Fingerprints, and more, that is contaminated with Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive material.

    Let me repeat again that it is a pleasure to be here today. I have learnt a lot in the short time I have had to discuss these fascinating issues.

    Ultimately, we are here to help strengthen, widen and deepen the co-operation between our countries to stop nuclear material trafficking.

    This symposium is an important contribution to this ambition. It is important not only for the security of our nations, but for the partnership that we are forging across the board to make the world a more prosperous, stable and secure place.

  • Alistair Burt – 2012 Speech on the Arab Partnership

    alistairburt

    The below speech was made by the Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt, on the 6th November 2012 at the Foreign Office in London.

    Ladies and gentlemen, how nice to see everybody here to celebrate where we are to date with the Arab Partnership and to see so many friends from around the region; Excellencies, colleagues and friends to celebrate with us and I’m delighted to be joined by Alan [Duncan] as  part of it and of course you’ve got the very special speaker [Nesryn Bouziane] in between who speaks with even greater authority than, than Ministers.

    I want to say that we feel as Ministers we have the privilege of calling many people in this room partners, those from international and local civil society organisations, think tanks, the media, the private sector as well as colleagues from an array of British Government departments. We’re here because the work we’re doing through the Arab Partnership and Conflict Pool is of vital importance.

    The Arab Spring is the beginning of unprecedented change in the Middle East and North African region towards the more open and accountable societies its people so emphatically demand. It’s also of great importance to the United Kingdom. Our security and prosperity on this island are closely linked to the region’s long-term stability but we have never thought that this long-term stability would appear overnight. I don’t agree with those who say the Arab Spring has become a winter. There are challenges: the economic troubles facing some countries in the region, the terrible ongoing violence in Syria – these must be overcome but they’re not the destination of the Arab Spring.

    In Egypt under the former President Mubarak could any of us have conceived of a President elected democratically by popular consent? Could we have imagined, just a short time ago the political debate now common in Tunisia under the former President? And without the Arab Spring would Morocco be in the position of having a Prime Minister selected by Parliament? The answer to each of these questions is of course no.

    We must take heart in these achievements, not minimise them, but remember that strong institutions like an independent judiciary, a vibrant civil society are the building blocks of democracy. They take generations to build and require constant vigilance to maintain. We must have the strategic patience to partner with the region over the long term to build the institutions needed for the long term stability that will benefit us all.

    In the United Kingdom, we’ve stood by reformers in the region from the outset. Two years ago this week, before the Arab Spring began, we established the Arab Human Development Team, now the Arab Partnership Department, to analyse the drivers of discontent in the region. With this analysis in hand in Kuwait in January 2011 our Prime Minister, David Cameron, stepped out ahead of the international community. He pledged to support reformers as they led the momentous changes in their countries.

    We can be rightly proud that his blueprint for engagement with the region based on our values and our interests, coupled with the sensitivity to the unique context of each country in the region, has been adopted by leaders worldwide. A clear sign of United Kingdom influencing is in multilateral fora such as the G8 and EU and Alan [Duncan] will speak a little further about that.

    In 2011 we committed to add to the United Kingdom Government funds already being spent on conflict prevention in the region, a further one hundred and ten million pounds of Arab Partnership funding over four years to support political and economic reform. I don’t need to make claims about the success of our interventions so far, our partners in the region are already telling us this.

    A leading Tunisian newspaper described an Arab Partnership funded project encouraging political debate on Tunisian TV as, I quote, “a possible solution to save a media that was worn out by dictatorship”. An officer in the Lebanese Army paid tribute to training provided through the Conflict Pool for helping save civilian lives and reducing casualties in recent flash points. And, the Moroccan Minister for Youth and Sports described, unprompted, the Arab Partnership as a wonderful opportunity for Arab youth to voice their opinions.

    So let’s celebrate success but let’s also prepare for the work there is still to do. Our support cannot and will not stand still. In July, I visited an ongoing Arab Partnership funded project training producers and journalists of Algerian TV, and as we speak BBC veteran, Tim Sebastian, is hosting a televised debate in Cairo on the progress of democracy in Egypt as part of the new Arab debates’ series.

    These are just a few examples. Around the room there are those who can speak of many more. We have colleagues from Parliament who are engaged in this work. I see many Ambassadors from the countries with whom we have a close relationship who have been keen partners in this project, who emphasise the way in which this is tailor made to the needs of their own states because that is what we are trying to do.

    I am confident that those in the Department and those we partner with have that sensitivity in mind. We hope this will be a further opportunity for continuing progress in the time to come. We’re confident about the building blocks we’ve laid but most of all I’m confident about all the people we work with, their commitment to a region we all love so much, and to a future in which I’m sure so many of us have a perfect stake.

  • Alistair Burt – 2012 Speech on the Economy of the Maghreb

    alistairburt

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Minister for the Middle East, Alistair Burt, on 11th July 2012 at Wilton Park.

    Thank you Richard for your kind introduction. I am delighted to be back at Wilton Park in support of an initiative in which I hold a strong personal interest. So let me extend my gratitude to the sponsors of this event, Unilever and Shell, whose support and participation are greatly appreciated. Both are major investors in the region and therefore also have a strong interest in its economic development.

    At previous conferences, I have been whisked away immediately after having spoken to return to business in London. For this one, I insisted that my diary was kept clear and I am delighted to join you for the whole afternoon and dinner this evening.

    I have had the pleasure of visiting the Maghreb on several occasions – most recently a week ago. Before going on trips –usually on the plane journey – I swot up both on the current issues and the historical issues. Reading about the lack of trade within the region today alongside the history of North African cities which acted as a trading hub between Africa and Europe was perplexing.

    Every modern day state in the region has an illustrious history of trade and openness, and great cities that act as reminders of this time: Carthage, Casablanca, Misrata, Nouadhibou, and Tlemcen.

    From these thriving organs of trade came the tolerant civilisation of Muslim Spain and the great centres of learning in Fez, Tunis and elsewhere. In the 14th century whilst Europe was still in the Dark Ages, the historian Ibn Khaldun and the great traveller Ibn Battuta personify the intermingling of knowledge and commerce where people freely traded and travelled.

    We live in very different times. But I am convinced that the region, which we now call the Maghreb, can be one of openness, tolerance, trade and prosperity. And that is why we are here today.

    The Big Picture

    This conference takes place in the context of momentous economic change. The world is still reeling from the aftershocks of the 2007 Financial Crisis – the ‘Credit Crunch’.

    In the Eurozone, anxiety about the scale of national debts is plaguing the markets and shaking the very foundations of the European Monetary Union. This is having a chilling affect well beyond Europe, as previously booming economies are slowing down.

    However, there is a much deeper and more profound trend at large: the shift of economic power from established – predominantly Western – economies, to rapidly-developing economies outside the G8.

    These emerging markets are extremely diverse but all have in common one ingredient of success: free trade and investment. They have managed to harness the opportunities of globalisation to catch up with the developed economies. They have imported knowledge, expertise and ideas and have exported manufactured goods, services, and natural resources.

    People talk of the ‘BRICS’, but the phenomenon is far wider than this small grouping. Ethiopia grew at 7.5% last year despite the global economic troubles. Turkey grew at 8.5%. Mongolia at 11.5%. Ghana: 13.5%.

    As wealth becomes more evenly spread across the world, the global balance of power shifts. In my lifetime, I have witnessed the transition from the bipolarity of the Cold War to the unipolarity of the turn of the millennium. And now, we are all witnessing a new transition taking place to a more multipolar world order.

    Different regions are taking these responsibilities on themselves, and are doing so with increasing success. The EU is taking increasing responsibility for stabilisation in the Balkans. The African Union is taking increasing responsibility for stabilisation in Sudan and Somalia. The Arab League has taken the lead in trying to bring stability to Libya and Syria and the GCC has brokered a deal in Yemen. ASEAN has built a prosperous and peaceful community of states in a historically troubled region.

    But regional cooperation has not been limited to security. Having stable environments has presented neighbouring countries with opportunities to exploit their geographic proximity for economic gain through trade and investment.

    There are the obvious examples of the European Single Market, the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and the ASEAN Free Trade Area – to name only a few.

    But all over the world, there are examples of countries lowering tariffs between one another, and encouraging flows of goods and capital; from South Korea and Singapore, through India and Sri Lanka, to Mexico and Colombia.

    And economic links, in turn, reinforce stability among trading partners. This virtuous circle is a means of transcending the first trend that I mentioned – of current global economic stagnation – and amplifying the second trend – of high growth in emerging markets.

    Curiously, there is one conspicuous exception – one region that has not yet opened up to the opportunities of regional trade, investment, and coordination. That is why we are all here today.

    Government’s approach to the wider region

    When this government came to power over two years ago now, our central foreign policy commitment was that we would engage more with the emerging powers and high-potential regions of the world. We wanted to take advantage of the shifts in economic and political power to build new, productive trading partnerships and more diverse political alliances.

    It is in this context that our attention turned to our southern neighbourhood. We assessed that the Middle East and North Africa had huge economic and political potential.

    So in the autumn of 2010 – before the death of Mohammed Bouazizi – we set up a new team in the Foreign Office to plan and implement strategy of re-engagement with the region. Its objective was to work with governments in the region to develop the building blocks of more open, free societies, underpinned by vibrant economies.

    I won’t claim that we predicted the Arab Spring. But in many ways, the movements for political change that erupted at the beginning of 2011 vindicated our approach and caused us to accelerate our engagement.

    Soon after, the British government committed £110 million over four years through our Arab Partnership initiative to support reform in the wider region. This has already underwritten projects to increase political participation, and to equip young people with the skills that they need to get good jobs and contribute to their countries’ development.

    We pushed last year for a more ambitious EU offer to the region. The EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy Review now offers unprecedented access to the Single Market for the best performers across the Middle East and North Africa through Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas. This could provide a powerful economic boost. I know that groundwork is already being done with Tunisia and Morocco. And we sincerely hope that their neighbours will not be far behind.

    We also inherit the G8 presidency next year. We are already developing ideas to ensure that the Deauville Partnership, and the separate G8-BMENA process, to work together to encouraging more open and inclusive societies in the region, with greater prosperity and economic growth.

    Rationale for our support

    Let me be very clear; our political and financial support is not philanthropy. Our own interests are intertwined with those of the region, especially the Maghreb. It is on the doorstep of Europe, with which it shares intimate ties.

    European security depends on the security and stability of its neighbourhood. The security and stability of its neighbourhood depends on that neighbourhood’s economic prospects.

    But we also have an economic interest ourselves. As I have explained, trade is not a zero sum game. Globalisation means that growth in one region can be shared in other regions. The trend of interconnectedness which I described earlier will only intensify over time.

    Europe’s own growth depends on trading with other fast-growing markets. It is in our interests to have dynamic and developing economies on our doorstep – especially if we already have close cultural and social links to them.

    We see huge potential for success in your region. And we want to support and share that success.

    It is already a region of diverse strengths: some of its countries have an abundance of natural resources, others have an abundance of skilled labour; some have rapidly developing financial and services sectors, others have strong manufacturing bases; some have significant tracts of arable land, and others have significant tracts of land ripe for solar energy generation. All have ambitious and capable youth.

    But it is not just the endowments of the region that are impressive; it is the abundance of opportunities to exploit those endowments further. Some bemoan the fact that that the Maghreb is the least economically integrated region in the world. It is true that trade within the region accounts for less than 4% of the region’s total trade, which is amazingly low.

    But this low base shows just how much potential there is for development. Increased integration would help each country to concentrate on its own areas of strength while benefitting from the strengths of its neighbours in other areas.

    Consumers, producers and providers of services could all benefit. Greater integration would enlarge companies’ markets, allow them to take advantage of economies of scale, and encourage them to become more competitive.

    And I have spoken to companies here in Britain who would be extremely keen to invest in the region if those investments gave them access to a wider market.

    Political reforms have provided the impetus and opportunity for deep and meaningful economic change. And political engagement over the last few months between leaders in the region is encouraging. In particular, the discussions in February between Foreign Ministers at the first Arab Maghreb Union meeting in sixteen years were an important step. As, I am sure, has the meeting held on Monday. The Heads of State summit in October will be a momentous occasion and a real signal of intent.

    The UK and the Maghreb Economy

    I hope that this conference will convince the leaders taking part in the summit that they have the full support of the UK, Europe and the wider international community. I hope too that you all will be able to develop a common understanding of which measures are possible, which are desirable, and how those measures can be implemented.

    This will also be an opportunity for our friends of the Maghreb to explain their region to a wider and more global audience than is often the case. And this is to my knowledge the first time that the British government has held an event on this subject and your region.

    We are here to provide an open-minded and creative environment to discuss the challenges that you wish to discuss. Our hope is that this setting will encourage you to think big; to put issues on the table; to fly kites and see where the wind takes them.

    In keeping with this, I have temporarily given my blog page on the Foreign Office website to Professor Boutheina Cheriet (SHER-I-YE) from the National Graduate School for Political Science, in Algiers, who has written very thought provokingly about some of the themes of this conference.

    I encourage you to read his piece and offer your thoughts and impressions both on the issues being discussed and on the conference more widely – there are copies here as well on the website. I will also be contributing a blog after the event, and am keen to continue our conversation online.

    Your stability and economic success directly affects our security and prosperity. We want to see your young men and women in our universities, we want to see your goods in our shops and we want your entrepreneurs to set up the European headquarters of their companies in our cities.

    And I feel we have a lot to offer. London is the prime world meeting place for global investors. And given our position on the governing bodies of almost all relevant international institutions, we have the power to convene.

    We want to learn: learn about your aspirations; learn about your problems; learn about how we can most effectively support you.

    The Wilton Park Conference

    So, I feel that this conference has some immensely important questions to answer:

    Is everyone agreed that a more integrated approach to the economy of the Maghreb is urgent?

    What steps need to be taken in order to capitalise on current momentum and increase the flow of goods, people and ideas between countries in the region?

    Where might the international community best be able to provide assistance?

    Conclusion

    Integration and cooperation can only be achieved through consultation and dialogue. I am delighted that significant leaders in businesses and politics are here today to stimulate the debate.

    We share a stake in your future. It is a real honour for us to support you as you tell us your hopes and plans.

    I hope that this conference will help to develop shared understandings of the opportunities and challenges of the region. We need a shared vision for the Maghreb.

  • Liam Byrne – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    liambyrne

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Byrne, the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to Labour Party conference (delivered live via Skype from a Jobs Summit at Manchester College) on 1st October 2012.

    Conference, let me apologise for not being with you in the hall right now.

    But sometimes you have to strike a balance between argument and action – and when it comes to youth unemployment what we need right now is action.

    So I’m here with Tony Lloyd at the fantastic Manchester College.

    Where we’ve brought employers, colleges, business with apprenticeships, and hundreds of young people to see what we can do to get young people in this city into jobs.

    And what I’ve heard this morning is just wrong.

    It’s wrong that young women like Nazish have been out of work six months, desperate for a job or apprenticeship.

    It’s wrong that young men like Colm who’s 23 have been out of work since July.

    This is the economics of the madhouse.

    You know our welfare is rising by £29 billion.

    And yet people like Colm and Nazish and a million others just like them and hungry to work and are forced to stand idle.

    Now as some of you know, I represent the constituency in Britain where youth unemployment is highest.

    What I’ve realised is that the anger we feel about youth unemployment is the anger we feel when we see our values under attack.

    We believe in the pride and dignity of work. That’s why we’re called the Labour Party.

    We believe that we’re stronger when we pull together as a country. We don’t believe in the economics of you are on your own.

    We believe in an economy that works for working people.

    And we believe that when you see an injustice, you don’t just walk past it.

    You roll up your sleeves and you do something about it.

    Today every single one of those values is under attack and it’s our young people paying the price.

    So we have to take a stand.

    That’s why Labour are calling for a real jobs guarantee – paid for by sensible tax on bankers bonuses.

    And, we have to organise the fightback.

    We can’t and won’t stand on the sidelines and watch our young people take a kicking.

    So today I’m very proud to launch our Youth Jobs Taskforce.

    Just because we’re not in government doesn’t mean we can’t make a difference.

    We run Wales, and London’s big boroughs and Britain’s big cities.

    Right now it’s our councillors and local leaders who leading the charge for youth jobs: thinking, organising, making a difference to get young people work.

    Today, these local leaders are coming together in a new coalition to galvanise action.

    They are going to join forces with good people from our trade unions, from business, from enterprise, from civil society, and from our youth movement.

    We want to make sure that the best ideas anywhere, become the way we do things everywhere.

    We know how high the stakes have become.

    The young people we serve are good people.

    They don’t dress up in white tie and smash up restaurants.

    And they don’t swear at policemen.

    They are people who want to work hard and get on in life if only someone will let them.

    And today we send an emphatic message: that we are on their side.

    Let me just finish with a story.

    You know Iain Duncan Smith likes to boast that he was once inspired in his reforming zeal to smash up the welfare state by what he saw in Easterhouse in Glasgow’s East End.

    Well last week I too went to Easterhouse, together with the great Margaret Curran.

    To meet a group of young people to talk about the future.

    What they say inspires them, isn’t yet another Tory attack.

    It’s investment in skills. In jobs. In chances.

    Those young people are just like people we’re here with today.

    They’re people who want to rebuild Britain.

    And Labour is going to help them.

    Because we’re the party that knows how futures are really built.

    It’s built by people like those behind me here in Manchester today – and a million more like them all over the United Kingdom.

    They might have a do-nothing Government.

    But they’re going to have a do-what-it-takes Labour Party.

    So thanks for listening.

    I’ll let you know how we get on a bit later.

    If you’d like to get involved in the taskforce, drop me a line: we’d love to have your help.

    And I’ll catch up with you later this afternoon.

  • Andy Burnham – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    andyburnham

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andy Burnham to the 2012 Labour Party conference.

    Conference, my thanks to everyone who has spoken so passionately today and I take note of the composite.

    A year ago, I asked for your help.

    To join the fight to defend the NHS – the ultimate symbol of Ed’s One Nation Britain.

    You couldn’t have done more.

    You helped me mount a Drop the Bill campaign that shook this Coalition to its core.

    Dave’s NHS Break-Up Bill was dead in the water until Nick gave it the kiss of life.

    NHS privatisation – courtesy of the Lib Dems. Don’t ever let them forget that.

    We didn’t win, but all was not lost.

    We reminded people of the strength there still is in this Labour movement of ours when we fight as one, unions and Party together, for the things we hold in common.

    We stood up for thousands of NHS staff like those with us today who saw Labour defending the values to which they have devoted their working lives.

    And we spoke for the country – for patients and people everywhere who truly value the health service Labour created and don’t want to see it broken down.

    Conference, our job now is to give them hope.

    To put Labour at the heart of a new coalition for the NHS.

    To set out a Labour alternative to Cameron’s market.

    To make the next election a choice between two futures for our NHS.

    They inherited from us a self-confident and successful NHS.

    In just two years, they have reduced it to a service demoralised, destabilised, fearful of the future.

    The N in NHS under sustained attack.

    A postcode lottery running riot – older people denied cataract and hip operations.

    NHS privatisation at a pace and scale never seen before.

    Be warned – Cameron’s Great NHS Carve-Up is coming to your community.

    As we speak, contracts are being signed in the single biggest act of privatisation the NHS has ever seen.

    398 NHS community services all over England – worth over a quarter of a billion pounds – out to open tender.

    At least 37 private bidders – and yes, friends of Dave amongst the winners.

    Not the choice of GPs, who we were told would be in control.

    But a forced privatisation ordered from the top.

    And a secret privatisation – details hidden under “commercial confidentiality” – but exposed today in Labour’s NHS Check.

    Our country’s most-valued institution broken up, sold off, sold out – all under a news black-out.

    It’s not just community services.

    From this week, hospitals can earn up to half their income from treating private patients. Already, plans emerging for a massive expansion in private work, meaning longer waits for NHS patients.

    And here in Greater Manchester – Arriva, a private bus company, now in charge of your ambulances.

    When you said three letters would be your priority, Mr Cameron, people didn’t realise you meant a business priority for your friends.

    Conference, I now have a huge responsibility to you all to challenge it.

    Every single month until the Election, Jamie Reed will use NHS Check to expose the reality.

    I know you want us to hit them even harder – and we will.

    But, Conference, I have to tell you this: it’s hard to be a Shadow when you’re up against the Invisible Man.

    Hunt Jeremy – the search is on for the missing Health Secretary.

    A month in the job but not a word about thousands of nursing jobs lost.

    Not one word about crude rationing, older people left without essential treatment.

    Not a word about moves in the South West to break national pay.

    Jeremy Hunt might be happy hiding behind trees while the front-line of the NHS takes a battering.

    But, Conference, for as long as I do this job, I will support front-line staff and defend national pay in the NHS to the hilt.

    Lightweight Jeremy might look harmless. But don’t be conned.

    This is the man who said the NHS should be replaced with an insurance system.

    The man who loves the NHS so much he tried to remove the tribute to it from the Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games.

    Can you imagine the conversation with Danny Boyle?

    “Danny, if you really must spell NHS with the beds, at least can we have a Virgin Health logo on the uniforms?”

    Never before has the NHS been lumbered with a Secretary of State with so little belief in it.

    It’s almost enough to say “come back Lansley.”

    But no. He’s guilty too.

    Lansley smashed it up for Hunt to sell it off with a smile.

    But let me say this to you, Mr Hunt. If you promise to stop privatising the NHS, I promise never to mispronounce your name.

    So, Conference, we’re the NHS’s best hope. Its only hope.

    It’s counting on us.

    We can’t let it down.

    So let’s defend it on the ground in every community in England.

    Andrew Gwynne is building an NHS Pledge with our councillors so, come May, our message will be: Labour councils, last line of defence for your NHS.

    But we need to do more.

    People across the political spectrum oppose NHS privatisation.

    We need to reach out to them, build a new coalition for the NHS.

    I want Labour at its heart, but that means saying more about what we would do.

    We know working in the NHS is hard right now, when everything you care about is being pulled down around you.

    I want all the staff to know you have the thanks of this Conference for what you do.

    But thanks are not enough. You need hope.

    To all patients and staff worried about the future, hear me today: the next Labour Government will repeal Cameron’s Act.

    We will stop the sell-off, put patients before profits, restore the N in NHS.

    Conference, put it on every leaflet you write. Mention it on every doorstep.

    Make the next election a referendum on Cameron’s NHS betrayal.

    On the man who cynically posed as a friend of the NHS to rebrand the Tories but who has sold it down the river.

    In 2015, a vote for Labour will be a vote for the NHS.

    Labour – the best hope of the NHS. Its only hope.

    And we can save it without another structural re-organisation.

    I’ve never had any objection to involving doctors in commissioning. It’s the creation of a full-blown market I can’t accept.

    So I don’t need new organisations. I will simply ask those I inherit to work differently.

    Not hospital against hospital or doctor against doctor.

    But working together, putting patients before profits.

    For that to happen, I must repeal Cameron’s market and restore the legal basis of a national, democratically-accountable, collaborative health service.

    But that’s just the start.

    Now I need your help to build a Labour vision for 21st century health and care, reflecting on our time in Government.

    We left an NHS with the lowest-ever waiting lists, highest-ever patient satisfaction.

    Conference, always take pride in that.

    But where we got it wrong, let’s say so.

    So while we rebuilt the crumbling, damp hospitals we inherited, providing world-class facilities for patients and staff, some PFI deals were poor value for money.

    At times, care of older people simply wasn’t good enough. So we owe it to the people of Stafford to reflect carefully on the Francis report into the failure at Mid-Staffordshire Foundation NHS Trust.

    And while we brought waiting lists down to record lows, with the help of the private sector, at times we let the market in too far.

    Some tell me markets are the only way forward.

    My answer is simple: markets deliver fragmentation; the future demands integration.

    As we get older, our needs become a mix of the social, mental and physical.

    But, today, we meet them through three separate, fragmented systems.

    In this century of the ageing society, that won’t do.

    Older people failed, struggling at home, falling between the gaps.

    Families never getting the peace of mind they are looking for, being passed from pillar to post, facing an ever-increasing number of providers.

    Too many older people suffering in hospital, disorientated and dehydrated.

    When I shadowed a nurse at the Royal Derby, I asked her why this happens.

    Her answer made an impression.

    It’s not that modern nurses are callous, she said. Far from it. It’s simply that frail people in their 80s and 90s are in hospitals in ever greater numbers and the NHS front-line, designed for a different age, is in danger of being overwhelmed.

    Our hospitals are simply not geared to meet people’s social or mental care needs.

    They can take too much of a production-line approach, seeing the isolated problem – the stroke, the broken hip – but not the whole person behind it.

    And the sadness is they are paid by how many older people they admit, not by how many they keep out.

    If we don’t change that, we won’t deliver the care people need in an era when there’s less money around.

    It’s not about new money.

    We can get better results for people if we think of one budget, one system caring for the whole person – with councils and the NHS working closely together.

    All options must be considered – including full integration of health and social care.

    We don’t have all the answers. But we have the ambition. So help us build that alternative as Liz Kendall leads our health service policy review.

    It means ending the care lottery and setting a clear a national entitlement to what physical, mental and social care we can afford – so people can see what’s free and what must be paid for.

    It means councils developing a more ambitious vision for local people’s health: matching housing with health and care need; getting people active, less dependent on care services, by linking health with leisure and libraries; prioritising cycling and walking.

    A 21st century public health policy that Diane Abbott will lead.

    If we are prepared to accept changes to our hospitals, more care could be provided in the home for free for those with the greatest needs and for those reaching the end of their lives.

    To the district general hospitals that are struggling, I don’t say close or privatise.

    I say let’s help you develop into different organisations – moving into the community and the home meeting physical, social and mental needs.

    Whole-person care – the best route to an NHS with mental health at its heart, not relegated to the fringes, but ready to help people deal with the pressure of modern living.

    Imagine what a step forward this could be.

    Carers today at their wits end with worry, battling the system, in future able to rely on one point of contact to look after all of their loved-one’s needs.

    The older person with advanced dementia supported by one team at home, not lost on a hospital ward.

    The devoted people who look after our grans and grand-dads, mums and dads, brothers and sisters – today exploited in a cut-price, minimum wage business – held in the same regard as NHS staff.

    And, if we can find a better solution to paying for care, one day we might be able to replace the cruel ‘dementia taxes’ we have at the moment and build a system meeting all of a person’s needs – mental, physical, social – rooted in NHS values.

    In the century of the ageing society, just imagine what a step forward that could be.

    Families with peace of mind, able to work and balance the pressures of caring – the best way to help people work longer and support a productive economy in the 21st century.

    True human progress of the kind only this Party can deliver.

    So, in this century, let’s be as bold as Bevan was in the last.

    Conference, the NHS is at a fork in the road.

    Two directions: integration or fragmentation.

    We have chosen our path.

    Not Cameron’s fast-track to fragmentation.

    But whole-person care.

    A One Nation system built on NHS values, putting people before profits.

    A Labour vision to give people the hope they need, to unite a new coalition for the NHS.

    The NHS desperately needs a Labour win in 2015.

    You, me, we are its best hope. It’s only real hope.

    It won’t last another term of Cameron.

    NHS.

    Three letters. Not Here Soon.

    The man who promised to protect it is privatising it.

    The man who cut the NHS not the deficit.

    Cameron. NHS Conman.

    Now more than ever, it needs folk with the faith to fight for it.

    You’re its best hope. It’s only hope.

    You’ve kept the faith

    Now fight for it – and we will win.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2012 Speech in Hong Kong

    jeremybrown

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Browne in Hong Kong on 6th July 2012.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and for such a generous breakfast!

    I am absolutely thrilled to be back in Hong Kong and, in particular, to be speaking again at an event organised by the British Chamber of Commerce.

    This is my third visit to Hong Kong as a Foreign Office Minister. It is no accident that I am such a regular visitor: today, Britain is looking East like never before. As I mentioned last time I was here, we are setting our country firmly on a path to far closer ties with countries across Asia over the next twenty years. We want Britain to be a leading partner with Asia in developing a prosperous future, in trade and commerce, in culture, education and development and in foreign policy and security.

    And we are serious about this, which is why we are adding sixty new jobs to our diplomatic network in China, and targeting a 40% increase in the number of Chinese speakers in the Foreign Office by 2015. I think there is a real opportunity this year, as we inherit the Olympic Baton, to drive forward the UK’s relationship with China. We look forward not only to welcoming Chinese athletes to the UK, but also Chinese businesses and spectators. We will also host a special event at the British Business Embassy during the London Games focused specifically on China – one of only two such events. China’s economic development will see more demand for the advanced services the UK is well-placed to provide. In return, there are significant opportunities for Chinese companies to invest in the UK.

    So China remains a top priority for Britain. And Hong Kong is a uniquely important partner for us – as a place where we enjoy such special connections, and such strong ties in business, education and culture. It is particularly exciting to be here during the first week of the new Administration under Chief Executive C Y Leung. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have congratulated him on his appointment. And there is clearly lots we can work on together. I am looking forward to discussing this with the new Secretary for the Administration when I see her later today.

    When I was here last year, I spoke about Britain’s relationship with China and how Hong Kong fitted into this, particularly in terms of our business links.

    But I thought we could take a slightly different approach this time around. I want us to talk this morning about how my Government is aligning its commitments to business and human rights. So I hope over the next fifteen minutes or so to answer the following questions: do human rights matter to business?; and, if you agree with me that they do, what does that mean for businesses?

    Business and human rights

    There is, I will not deny, a lot of scepticism around the commitment of governments and businesses to human rights. I understand that scepticism. But I don’t buy it. Simply put, respecting human rights, and promoting respect for human rights, is a win-win-win. It’s good for people, it’s good for business, and it’s good for governments.

    Let me first consider the perspective of my own Government. Why have we put values like human rights at the heart of our foreign policy? There’s the obvious moral argument – that it is the Right Thing To Do. As the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has said: “The belief in political and economic freedom, in human rights and in the rule of law, are part of our national DNA.”

    But it’s also in Britain’s national interest. In the long run, states that respect human rights are more stable, less prone to conflict. In the long run, states with transparency and the rule of law are likely to be more prosperous; to provide more innovative, entrepreneurial markets for us to operate in. So it helps our security, and our prosperity. Just take North and South Korea as an example: the North is a security threat to the region and offers few trade prospects; the South is stable, and an important global trading partner with states all around the globe, not least the UK. We would rather inhabit a world of South Koreas than North Koreas.

    This analogy works for business too. There is, first and foremost, a clear moral imperative that businesses feel as much as states do. But it is also a question of what is in your interests: in which world would you prefer to work? Surely it is easier and less risky for you to operate in countries with transparent regulation, freedom of expression, the rule of law and good governance.

    And it is precisely those qualities that make Hong Kong such a good place to do business. Stability and freedom increase the chances of dispute resolution and protection for capital and intellectual assets. They breed creative, free-thinking individuals that can grow businesses – the sort of people that many of you here today will work alongside, or strive to work alongside. It is in the interest of businesses to have more liberal markets in which to operate.

    That may seem to some of you to be a rather long-term argument. So let us consider too some of the more immediate benefits for companies that take human rights seriously.

    For one, consumers – your customers – increasingly expect it. I believe we are seeing a shift towards a more ethically aware and discerning consumer, a shift we have seen over the past two decades or so on environmental policy. And no-one knows better than you how important human rights issues are to the people of Hong Kong.

    This is one of the reasons why many companies in the clothing industry, for instance, have modified their supply chains to guard against the use of child labour. Reputational damage is a real risk in the modern market of ethically discerning consumers, and companies have been slammed in the past by allegations of complicity in human rights abuses (Nestle, Nike, Gap, Primark).

    Nor is it just consumers. Institutional investors such as pension funds and mutual wealth funds are increasingly taking companies’ ethical standards into account when making investment decisions. The same can be said of shareholders. Employees are more likely to be motivated to work for ethical companies. And by taking a human rights-conscious approach to business, you are reducing the risk of costly and damaging litigation.

    All of this is more relevant than ever. In a world of Facebooks, YouTubes and Googles – of social media and 24 hour news – companies are under the spotlight as never before. Just think of executive pay, which has been in the UK headlines – and which has led to the resignation of leaders of some of our biggest businesses, in the face of moral outcry over the size of salaries and bonuses.

    So it makes sense, then, for governments and businesses to work together not only to respect human rights and ethical ideals, but to also spread respect for human rights.

    And I think I can say with some confidence that, actually, business wants to do this. Today, there are countless examples of good practice across the business spectrum – half of the companies in the FTSE 100 already have human rights policies in place. And I know that your own Chamber is taking a growing interest in these issues.

    The Guiding Principles

    Indeed, it would surprise some if I were to tell them that businesses have been asking, like civil society, for guidance on where and how human rights fit in with the work they do.

    This is why the adoption of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in June last year is so important. Some of you may have heard of these already – but for the benefit of those who haven’t, the Guiding Principles have created a new common standard for business activity.

    They help you to raise human rights standards in the countries you operate in – which benefits all of us. They provide guidance so you can demonstrate to consumers and investors that you are behaving in an ethical way. They remind you of your legal obligations as businesses, to help mitigate litigation and reputational risks. And by complying – and showing that you are complying – with recognised standards, they help you to attract and retain good staff, increase their motivation, and limit staff turnover and sickness absence.

    So this is not about clogging up or constraining businesses, which are central to our prosperity. It is about levelling the playing field for businesses; mitigating against companies undercutting others by using unethical practices. It is about helping businesses to be aware of their legal obligations; helping them to demonstrate their ethical standards, to their reputational benefit.

    What the UK is doing to help

    The Guiding Principles are here to stay. They will be widely accepted, implemented and maintained. With that in mind, we are about to introduce a Government strategy on business and human rights – in part to ensure that we can more effectively examine our own record. And through working with other like-minded countries, including our EU partners, we are pushing for the wider international community to do more. It is important that we encourage other states to do what we are doing. It is, after all, ultimately for states to protect the human rights of people within their territory. This is not just an initiative that puts the onus only on businesses.

    That being said, we are also doing what we can to support British companies like yours to ensure that you are aware of the Principles and understand what they mean for you.

    As a first step, we are ensuring that our staff across the globe – including Andrew’s team here at the Consulate-General in Hong Kong – will be able to provide you with the guidance you need. We are updating our Overseas Business Risk Service, the joint FCO-UK Trade and Investment website that some of you may already be familiar with. And we are improving the way we signpost businesses to other resources.

    I am confident that in taking these steps we will do our part – and help you do yours – to mainstream the Guiding Principles.

    So it’s clear, I think, that respect for human rights is as crucial in the business world as it is outside of it. I believe that we are seeing a new trend emerging globally, with greater expectations of businesses on human rights. It may seem a long way off in some parts of the world, including in China. But if we can work together – as governments, businesses and indeed civil society – we can create a better environment that benefits all of us.

    I have explained to you this morning why I think all of this is important, and what the British Government is doing about it. But now over to you: I’m interested in hearing your own views on the opportunities to take forward this agenda here in Hong Kong.

  • Jeremy Browne – 2012 Speech on Human Rights and the Olympics

    jeremybrown

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Browne, the Foreign Office Minister, in London on 29th August 2012.

    I would like to welcome you all to this event today.

    I should welcome in particular our keynote speaker, Tara Flood, Chief Executive of the Alliance for Inclusive Education, and gold medallist in the 50-metre breaststroke at the 1992 Paralympics in Barcelona. As well as an outstanding Paralympic athlete, Tara is a tireless campaigner for disability rights, so it is a privilege to have her with us today.

    I am also pleased to welcome the Brazilian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Mr Roberto Jaguaribe; the Vice Minister of Culture from Korea, Mr KIM Yong-hwan; and the Federal Ombudsman (also President of the National Paralympic Committee) from Russia, Mr Vladimir Lukin.

    We are gathered here in the Durbar Court to announce a Joint Communique agreed by the United Kingdom, Brazil, Russia and South Korea. The Communique commits each of us to harness the vast potential of sport, through the Olympic and Paralympic Games, to promote respect for human rights internationally.

    Sport can be a hugely effective driver for change. It promotes inclusivity, bringing people together to interact, co-operate and strive to achieve common goals. It can reach out to a diverse cross-section of society and connect and integrate people, regardless of background.

    Just think of how football has changed attitudes towards race in Britain over the last few decades. Talented players from black and other ethnic communities, and work by football authorities, clubs and campaigns like ‘Kick It Out’ and ‘Show Racism the Red Card’, have made a huge contribution to tackling discrimination. Think of how the Paralympic Games have showcased to a global audience the achievements of disabled people – demonstrating that we should all be judged not by what we cannot do, but what we can.

    Sport can transform the lives of girls and women. It can encourage women’s equal participation in society, build strong leadership and decision-making skills and help to change social attitudes.

    These Games have been the first Olympics at which women from all participating countries had the opportunity to take part. It was truly inspiring to see Sarah Attar being cheered home in the 800 metres, the first woman from Saudi Arabia to compete in Olympic track and field. And we will never forget Nicola Adams of Team GB, who became the first woman to win Olympic gold in boxing – from which women had been excluded previously.

    But sport can do even more. It can help to revitalise disadvantaged areas. It helps foster development and education for young people. It promotes good health.

    And, of course, sport encourages the principles of fair play, teamwork and hard work. It creates role models. Think of Mo Farah crossing the finish line in the 5,000 metres final, surely one of the most enduring images of London 2012. After completing his double gold victory, the Somali-born athlete said: “Anything is possible – it’s just hard work and grafting”.

    It is in all our interests to take advantage of these powerful traits, which the Olympics only intensify. So we are working hard to achieve a global legacy for the London Games.

    Our International Inspiration programme is enriching the lives of millions of young people across the world by providing access to high-quality physical education, sport and play. The programme not only engages children in sport itself. It also targets lasting change by working with governments on school curricula and national policies, and by training tens of thousands of Young Leaders, teachers and coaches in inclusive sport.

    The amount of work we have done on the Olympic Truce has been unprecedented, delivering a UN Resolution co-sponsored by all 193 UN Members and an array of projects overseas to promote conflict resolution and peace.

    We have sought to make London 2012 the most accessible Games ever to disabled people, including through improving transport facilities.

    And with almost all 2.5 million tickets sold, we are setting a new global standard for the Paralympics.

    But this work does not end when the curtain falls on the Paralympics on 9 September. There is more to do.

    So we have joined forces with future host nations – with Brazil, hosts of Rio 2016, and with Russia and South Korea, hosts of the Winter Games in 2014 and 2018 – in a pledge to use the Games to promote and embed respect for human rights across the world.

    The Communique we are announcing today commits us to promote awareness and the application of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It states that we will seek to educate people to respect diversity; to empower girls and women through sport; and to promote the rights and freedoms of disabled people

    And it is apt that we are making this commitment during a London Games. Because it was the year the Games were last held here – 1948 – that saw the origins of the Paralympics and the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

    Britain’s aim, as hosts of the 2012 Olympiad, is to “inspire a generation”. 205 countries took part this year, and around four billion people – more than half the global population – had their eyes on London. So we have an unrivalled opportunity to reach out to the world. To show them this fantastic celebration of sport, and the principles of non-discrimination, equality and mutual understanding under which it was founded.

    This is not just about creating the Jessica Ennises of tomorrow. It is about inspiring people all over the world to experience the joy of participation in sport, and – even more than that – to work hard in pursuit of their ambitions, to work with people of different backgrounds and beliefs, and to respect the diversity of humankind.

  • John Bercow – 2012 Speech at University of Cape Town

    JohnBercow

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, to the University of Cape Town on 16th August 2012.

    Thank you very much indeed for that introduction. It is an enormous pleasure to be here in South Africa and at this institution in particular. There are two reasons for this. First, the role of the university sector in the transition from apartheid to the democracy which this country enjoys today is underappreciated, perhaps within South Africa as well as beyond it. More particularly, however, the University of Cape Town deserves recognition as a beacon of liberal and progressive resistance during the dark days of the ascendancy of apartheid. When the mass of South Africans were oppressed by one of the most objectionable regimes on the face of the planet, this University was an eloquent voice for enlightenment, for fairness and for progress. I am touched to have the chance to salute that role.

    Secondly, I am delighted to address you in the company of my friend and invaluable advisor, the former Clerk of the House of Commons, the one and only Sir Malcolm Jack. When I was elected to the Chair three years ago Malcolm was the incumbent Clerk who offered me dispassionate procedural advice, and much other shrewd counsel, for which I have always been grateful. He is a long standing friend of South Africa and I am delighted that the University is drawing upon the knowledge, wisdom and experience which he acquired in four decades of distinguished service to the House of Commons. I have had the pleasure of meeting your Speaker of the National Assembly, Max Sisulu, a number of times now and it is hugely instructive to see him at work. As I will set out this afternoon, we have similar titles but quite distinct challenges which come with the role.

    For I want to talk today about the office which I have the honour of holding – Speaker of the House of Commons – which certainly has been around for a very long time indeed and how it has evolved quite dramatically over the past few years. I am the 157th Speaker of the House of Commons yet in another sense the first in a different form of that office. The role of the British Speaker, as many of you know, has some significant similarities with that of my South African counterpart. In each case, the person concerned is expected to be a “referee” or “umpire” within his or her chamber, not a partisan political figure who controls the flow of legislation in the manner of, for example, the US Speaker of the House of Representatives. In both cases, the Speaker also exercises some very important, if largely unseen, managerial functions to ensure that Parliament as a building and an organisation operates smoothly. There are, however, also some subtle but important cultural differences between the two institutions.

    The Speaker of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, while having been a practising party politician before election to the Chair, is obliged to shed his or her partisan colours and become strictly neutral after elevation, rendering the Speaker if not a political eunuch then certainly politically celibate. As I was the most liberal member of the Conservative Party at the time that I was fortunate enough to secure my current office, this was perhaps less of a sacrifice for me than for others. As I will explain, I was also chosen after the introduction of a new and very different electoral system and in the aftermath of an enormous scandal concerning the extent to which Members of Parliament were submitting and being compensated for expense claims which were, to put it mildly, highly imaginative if improbable in character. The essence of the role of the Speaker remains unchanged – he or she must be absolutely impartial and has a very modest influence over the legislative schedule – yet changing the rules has, as it so often does in politics, changed the game. This means the Speaker of the House has acquired more indirect authority and is no longer, at least in my view, obliged to act as a sort of political recluse, rarely venturing from, let alone speaking beyond, the Palace of Westminster, the proof of which is that I am here and ready not only to talk today but also to answer your questions. This outward-facing role is not new for you but it is for us and I shall return to the subject later in my remarks.

    To set the scene, however, I need briefly to outline the history of the office. There have been presiding figures in Parliament for many centuries indeed. Some of them might be viewed as “pre-Speakers” as the office itself had not yet assumed consistent form. The first of these, known by contemporaries as a Parlour or Prolocutor, was Peter de Montford who presided over the so-called “Mad Parliament” held at Oxford in 1258. Some time later Sir Peter de la Mare performed similar duties during the “Good Parliament” of 1376. He was followed, in a swift change of political tack, by Thomas Hungerford, one year later, the figure whom most historians identify as the first Speaker, who was at the head of the alleged “Bad Parliament” of 1377. So we have had “Mad” and “Bad” and probably lots of “dangerous to know” as well.

    The role of Speaker was a precarious one for many centuries. At first, the Speaker was seen as the King’s man in Parliament and thus he bore the brunt of the unpopularity of monarchs. As a consequence, no fewer than nine of my predecessors met unfortunate violent deaths, seven of which involved public execution, two of them on the same day. Even the modern media cannot hand out that sort of treatment. By the seventeenth century, and with the approach of the English Civil War, perceptions of the post had evolved entirely and the Speaker was viewed as Parliament’s representative to the King, a switch in role which generally improved the popularity of the Speaker everywhere, with the exception of the Royal Household. Until the nineteenth century there was no real conformity in the age, background or tenure of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Indeed, two former Speakers became Prime Minister, a fate that is unlikely to trouble me. By the beginning of the last century, however, a norm had been established by which the Speaker was assumed to be a senior parliamentarian, at the older end of the age spectrum, therefore, entirely acceptable to the government of the day and at least tolerable to the main opposition party, a figure whose duties did not extend much beyond the oversight of questions and debates in the chamber of the House of Commons itself. If not quite an exclusively ceremonial figure, he, or in one instance in the 1990s she, was a constrained one.

    This history continues to cast considerable influence over the office. By tradition, when a Speaker is elected he or she is dragged to the chair by fellow MPs reflecting the fact that this was once an office which came with considerable personal peril attached to it. Political neutrality remains, as I have remarked, fundamental to it. This means that at general elections the Speaker stands in a constituency or district, just like every other MP, but not as a party candidate but instead as a de facto independent called “The Speaker Seeking Re-election” and the three main political parties do not put up rival contenders against him or her, although all sorts of other individuals are more than welcome to stand and have done so. When the Speaker chooses to leave office the very strong convention is that he or she resigns from the House of Commons at the same time and enters the House of Lords. The retiring Speaker cannot revert to the status of a party politician or even remain in the chamber as an unaligned member. It is thought, and there is much logic to this argument, that it would be very awkward indeed for a new Speaker of the House to attempt to oversee MPs and make what are occasionally contentious procedural decisions with his or her predecessor sitting in the House of Commons. The Speaker also lives in Parliament itself such are the strange hours that the House meets, although we voted only a month ago to modernize them. While some of these informal but revered rules may seem strange they are largely sensible.

    They have, nonetheless, limited the Speaker in a number of respects. This might not have mattered much, in truth, were it not for the perception that the House of Commons, like many legislatures throughout the democratic world, although not the United States, was struggling in its attempts to scrutinise and hold the executive to account and at risk of being regarded by elite commentators and the broader public alike, as a marginalised institution. And it has to be conceded that the pressures of party discipline, the challenge of seeking to oversee a much larger government machine, and the emergence of a mass media which in many respects is a rival to legislatures, has been a real challenge for the House of Commons. The capacity of any Speaker to be a counterbalance to this is distinctly finite, but the formal and informal understandings surrounding the office reduced even this small space further. The Speaker was thus in the ironic situation of having a voice within the chamber but being an almost mute figure outside of it. He or she could become a notable national personality through Parliament, as a number of my recent predecessors have, with specialist news and cable channels adding an international dimension to this, but could not be an active public advocate for Parliament.

    By a combination of accident and design this started to change about a dozen years ago. As I alluded to earlier, it had become the norm for Speakers to be selected by a private, secret, understanding between the two major political parties in Britain, rather than properly elected to their office. This did not prove to be a sustainable arrangement. In 1992, the seemingly “establishment” candidate to be Speaker was challenged and defeated by another figure, Betty Boothroyd, the first female Speaker. When she retired in 2000, no fewer than a dozen contenders put their hats into the ring, although there were no clear rules as to how the contest should take place and utterly overt campaigning for the post was still deemed improper. In the aftermath of the election of my immediate predecessor, a comprehensive review of the system for electing the Speaker took place and a much broader and more conventionally democratic set of regulations, including a secret ballot, were adopted. Once again, I appreciate that my South African counterpart has long been elected by secret ballot but the House of Commons decided only in 2001 that such an approach would in future apply. This meant that when I stood for Speaker in May/June 2009, I did so with a formal system of nominations, open hustings and personal manifestos, and a set of rounds of balloting before a Speaker was elected and then, as per the tradition that I mentioned, dragged to the chair.

    I do not want to overstate the extent of this transformation. The technical powers of the Speaker were not changed by the democratisation of the process of his selection. That a candidate might have stated personal preferences for how the procedures of the House should be changed did not of itself allow his or her personal mandate to impose those innovations. There may have been a number of individual MPs who voted for me, for example, without agreeing with everything that I had suggested in my personal platform regarding the functioning of Parliament. The need to be seen as politically neutral also restricts the ability of Speakers to launch campaigns to realise their institutional preferences. Despite all this, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the democratisation of the selection process for Speaker has increased the moral authority of the office in pursuing a certain path and enhanced his self-confidence within the system. When combined with the dramatic sense of crisis that the expenses scandal had created at Westminster in 2009, the space for exercising a degree of leadership had been opened. While I am sure my successors will do many things differently to me, I would be surprised if they would be content to retreat to an exclusively ceremonial existence. As General de Gaulle said in 1962, when asked why he wanted the French people to support, as they were to do so, a directly elected presidency in a referendum, “you do not elect a man to open flower shows”.

    So how have I sought to secure the Speaker a voice and modernise a very traditional role? I would not want to exaggerate the change but I have sought to make progress in three areas.

    The first is to innovate within the scope of the office. The main example of this is a device in the parliamentary arsenal known as the Urgent Question. The Urgent Question allows for any Member of Parliament to petition me to insist that a government department sends one of its ministers to address the House of Commons on an issue of importance which has arisen suddenly or since the House last had the opportunity to consider it and with at most three or four hours’ notice for the minister. It is the rough equivalent of the South African National Assembly being able to demand that a senior minister here appear to address an issue, upending whatever else might be in the diary. This is precisely what happened to our own Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, the four most important offices of state in the UK, since they assumed their positions in May 2010. It is a weapon which I suspect few other legislatures have to hand.

    It is also, however, one which had fallen into disuse. In the year before I was elected Speaker, precisely two Urgent Questions were accepted. MPs could have been forgiven for thinking that the Urgent Question had been abolished or was to be reserved for only very special moments. Since I became Speaker I have awarded more than 100 Urgent Questions or roughly one every sitting week. The impact of this change has been positive in a number of respects. Ministers now know that Urgent Questions are being granted and are hence more inclined to offer statements to the House voluntarily rather than risk the relative indignity of being summoned to the House of Commons. The media have been obliged to report that a political statement has been made to MPs in Parliament and not on some television channel. MPs feel empowered that they can make an immediate impact on ministers.

    This is one of several areas where I have sought to test the elasticity of the office, observing the maxim of party neutrality vigorously but nevertheless holding the executive to account. I have also sought to use the influence over business in the chamber that I have to speed up proceedings, to ensure that more MPs have the opportunity to speak and to stand up for those MPs who are neither ministers nor shadow ministers on the other side of the House – the “backbenchers” in the language of Westminster – making sure that they fully participate. I am a strong believer in the importance of topicality of subject and inclusion of all Members in all we do.

    Second, there are numerous areas where the Speaker can exercise informal influence. It was no secret at the time of my election that I favoured sweeping reforms in the procedures of the House of Commons and while I certainly could not and would not force my fellow MPs to vote for such a programme of change I could and did press ministers to ensure that the House would have the chance to vote on such a prospectus, which it duly did in March 2010. The result was agreement that in future all Select Committee chairs would be elected by the whole House of Commons with individual members chosen in a secret ballot within their party caucuses, that a House Backbench Business Committee would be created and elected to oversee that section of the parliamentary timetable which belongs to ordinary MPs, to be followed in the near future by the introduction of a House Business Committee to examine how that share of the schedule currently dominated by the government should be organised. The House also voted to extend the democratisation of the speakership by adopting the direct election of the three Deputy Speakers who assist me in the running of the Commons. I have also been a staunch advocate of the House adopting new technology to make our proceedings easier for outsiders to follow and to encourage public participation in our work.

    Thirdly, I have fundamentally changed the external role of the Speaker of the House of Commons. As I have hinted previously, the Speaker has historically been seen as an internal figure within Westminster with no significant exposure to the rest of the world at all until first radio microphones and then television cameras were allowed into the chamber. I have no desire to be a prisoner of Parliament. I have seen public advocacy as crucial to my functions. This is partly achieved by a higher media profile but mostly through an intense round of talks and visits throughout the United Kingdom with a particular personal focus on addressing disadvantaged groups within society and those who feel marginalised from politics. I also strive to address universities. This occasion is one of what will probably be ten or more such university engagements in 2012 and I always invite and even attempt to answer questions. As I indicated earlier, I recognise that in this respect the UK is belatedly following South Africa’s good example. After all, your country’s Guide to Procedure stipulates that the Speaker shall act as representative and spokesman for the Assembly and for Parliament to the outside world.

    It is my absolute passion that the Speaker should be an Ambassador for Parliament and an Ambassador for Democracy internationally, condemning the abuse of human rights in places such as Darfur and Zimbabwe and encouraging free and fair elections in Burma. I was absolutely delighted that Aung Sang Suu Kyi, for years a heroine of mine whom I had never met, chose to make a historic address in the Westminster Hall section of Parliament in June. This is certainly not the traditional part which my office has played but I believe it to be essential. The Speaker of the House should be neutral within Parliament but he should not be neutral about the value of parliamentary democracy be it within the UK or anywhere in the world.

    I am, I concede, an unusual Speaker of the House in a number of respects. I was elected at a comparatively young age (46), after by historic standards a modest number of years as a member of the House of Commons (12) and by a completely new method of selection. The differences between our offices, though, are fundamental and they rightly reflect our quite different histories. We still have much to share and to compare. I am a strong enthusiast for the argument that modern parliaments, whether they be, for instance, the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom or the South African one beyond it, have much that should interest and intrigue us. To that end, in another innovation, I now sponsor a series of lectures in Speaker’s House annually where MPs and peers speak to a common and important theme. In 2013 I am organising a set entitled “Parliamentarians on Parliaments” which will allow MPs and peers with a specialist appreciation of other legislatures around the world to set out their thinking on them. South Africa will certainly be on that list of parliaments.

    Both of our democratic assemblies are prominent players in the Commonwealth family of Parliaments where there is constant exchange of ideas and learning from each other. We clearly have many lessons to learn from you and the capacity of the House of Commons to combine continuity with change is perhaps an invaluable lesson we can export to others. The evolution of the office of Speaker is, I think, an interesting recent example of this and one worthy of reflection. Political reinvention is often the effective secret of political relevance. I hope that I have made the case for it. It has been an honour to address this esteemed audience. Thank you for listening to me and I look forward to your questions.