Tag: Alan Johnson

Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, in the House of Commons on 6 July 2016.

The epitaph on Robin Cook’s headstone in the Grange cemetery in Edinburgh reads as follows:

“I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war.”

The Prime Minister is right in saying that, in these circumstances, Parliament cannot be involved in the decision and then simply try to duck responsibility for the ramifications of that decision. Does he agree that the main element in the debate in which Parliament decided, on 13 March 2003, was not the 45-minute claim, which was not mentioned anywhere in those hours of debate, but the fact that Saddam Hussein and his murderous sons had spent 13 years running rings around the United Nations, ignoring 17 UN resolutions, including resolutions calling for all necessary means to stop him? Was that not the main issue in that debate? Has the Prime Minister found any evidence whatever of any lies told to Parliament on that day?

Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson on 22 February 2016.

It’s great to be here in Airbus to see the work you’re doing and to talk about our country’s future. Aerospace is a huge wealth creator for the UK worth around 28 billion pounds a year and supporting 109, 000 highly skilled jobs.

I was the aerospace minister twelve year ago when I learnt a great deal about the importance of countries working together to deliver substantial manufacturing projects. Indeed the original Airbus mission statement described its purpose as “strengthening European co-operation in the field of aviation technology and thereby promoting economic and technological progress in Europe.” You are fulfilling that noble objective magnificently, not just in producing planes but in your work on helicopters and indeed through the European Space Agency which I understand you’ve put ten people into space.

This is a historic week in British politics and it sets us up for the biggest political decision of my lifetime.

Bigger, I think, than the European referendum of 1975.

Now that the theatrics of the Brussels late-night deals, bi-lateral meetings and the constitutional necessity of us to fall out with the French are over, it’s worth considering the scale and size of the decision that faces the British public this June.

I believe this is a more important decision even that a General Election and much wider too than the package that the Prime Minister has negotiated. The referendum will be on one question – do we remain or do we leave the European Union? Bremain or Brexit to use the shorthand.

There is so much at stake for each British family. Their future prosperity, security and well-being will be at the core of the debate over the coming months. But in addition Britain’s place in the world will be on that ballot paper.

Forty one years ago, when the last referendum was held, I was a twenty five year old postman living on a council estate and trying to assess what would be best for my young family.

I voted ‘yes’ as a statement of the kind of country I wanted Britain to be, outward facing, trading with the world and open to new opportunities but mainly I was thinking of my children’s future.

I’ve never regretted that decision. The leave side say that Britain is a successful economy, the fifth biggest in the world and that is of course true. But strangely enough they never equate our success with membership of the EU even though they claim that it has disproportionate influence over our country.

This referendum matters, because ultimately, this is both a personal decision taken in each home and it’s a national decision embracing that wider debate about what kind of country we want to be.

Put bluntly, the question which faces us is what’s best for me and what’s best for my country?

Remarkably, though the world has changed dramatically since 1975, the arguments for staying in Europe, ring just as true as they did then. The Yes leaflet that I had to deliver through every door on my round said that being in Europe:

“offers the best framework for success, the best protection for our standard of living, the best foundation for greater prosperity. If we left, we would not go back to the world as it was, still less to the old days of Britain’s imperial heyday. And the changes that have made things more difficult and more dangerous for this country.”

Those words are just as relevant today except that in 1975 there were only 9 member states, now there are 28. Countries are much more interdependent and in 1975 we didn’t face the rise of militant Islam, the huge global population shifts or the realisation that climate change threatens the very existence of our planet.

Labour’s starting point, in this referendum is jobs and work.

We’re here today in Airbus, one of Europe’s great manufacturers.

An employer that provides jobs and skills to young people, pays good wages, manufactures high quality products, and spends around 2.1 billion with more than 1,000 suppliers in the UK.

For industries like Airbus to survive and thrive, they need collaboration across the European market. You are more aware than anybody of the need to move freely between Britain and the continent, you do it on a regular basis without visas and in the same way that well over a million Brits are able to live and work in other EU states. manufacturers need access to the single market so that they have more customers to sell to.

That single market, now consists of 550 Million consumers and is the largest commercial market in the world, bigger than the US, bigger than China.

It’s an amazing achievement of European vision and political skill to have built an economic block which started as a steel and coal agreement between France and Germany and has blossomed into the world’s largest trading area.

And Britain has always been a pioneer in opening up that market, because we are a trading and exporting nation and this great European market buys half of Britain’s exports. Eight out of ten of our top export markets are in the EU.

That’s why our manufacturing sector needs Britain to be playing a leading role in the European Union.

Just yesterday the Engineering Employers federation announced that 82 per cent of their members see no sense in the UK cutting itself off from its major market.

For British companies, British GDP and British exports, a decision to leave the European Union would be hugely damaging. It really would be a leap in the dark, at a time when countries should be working more closely together. Britain alone could be walking off into splendid isolation.

All that trade, all those exports, keep people in work. They translate into jobs that rely on a Britain playing its part in Europe.

Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe.

That’s two thirds of our manufacturing base reliant on that single market access and Britain’s membership of the EU.

That’s over one and half million manufacturing jobs here in Britain. If we’re serious about gradually re-focusing our economy more towards making things, upon which there is cross party consensus we need to remain in Europe. Turning specifically to apprentices in the manufacturing sector, and I’m pleased to see some of you here today, around 50,000 apprentices depend on trade linked to our EU membership.

That’s 50 000 manufacturing apprenticeships dependent on our EU membership that leaving the EU could put at risk.

For each one of those apprentices, gaining skills, earning a good wage and working towards a career, this referendum will be crucial. We can’t let them down by turning our back on the world and cutting British manufacturing and industry off from their largest export market.

As well as jobs, Europe provides rights and protections in work places across the EU.

I know you’re a Unite workplace and I look forward to campaigning with your union in the Remain campaign.

When Labour took office in 1997, we opted into something called the Social Chapter, which gave working people decent basic minimum standards, like rights to four weeks paid leave, rights for part-time workers to get the same hourly rate as full-time agency workers to be treated fairly, paid maternity and paternity leave, anti-discrimination laws, and protections when companies change ownership.

There are those who want Britain to leave Europe because they want to destroy those rights. They deride them as “red tape”. They have the fundamentally unpatriotic ambition of turning Britain into an off shore, anything goes, race to the bottom kind of country where workers have few rights and little protection.

That’s why in this campaign, we’ll continue the proud Labour tradition of campaigning for Britain in Europe, because it’s good for British jobs and good for the men and women who work in those jobs.

But what about the alternative, what would a Britain outside the European Union look like?

· A Britain attempting to negotiate its way back into the single market which we helped to create. Spending time and treasure frantically trying to get back to the position we’re in now;

· A Britain still subject to every law that governs that market but without any say;

· A Britain still subject to free movement requirements, if we follow the route Norway and Switzerland;

· A Britain still paying into the EU budget with no say over how it is spent;

· A Britain scrabbling around trying to patch together deals to tackle cross border crime and terrorism.

In 1975 the ‘No’ brigade argued that Britain would be a province in a European super state. Forty years on that claim can be seen as completely inaccurate. The Prime Minister’s deal in Brussels must surely have killed off that major argument of the Eurosceptics. The reality is we are stronger, more prosperous and safer as part of the EU.

Furthermore we’ve seen our values of democracy, free speech and the rule of law applied to European countries that had known nothing but dictatorships military rule in the south and totalitarian regimes in the East.

Our global allies see us as stronger and more powerful inside the European Union. From our nearest neighbours in Ireland, to the USA, to the countries of the Commonwealth, the international community is loud, vocal and clear, they want Britain to stay in the EU. Because it’s better for Britain, because it’s better for Europe and because it’s better for the World.

Now that David Cameron’s deal has been done, the fundamentals are as clear and as compelling as ever.

British manufacturing needs a Britain that is in Europe and millions of British jobs rely on Britain’s EU membership.

That’s why today I can announce that the Labour Party has registered with the Electoral Commission to campaign in this referendum.

We are the first political party to do so and we will be the only significant national party to be making our case to the country.

For peace and prosperity, jobs and growth, protection for workers and action on climate change.

For the security of our nation and Britain’s influence in the world.

Today we focused on the case for apprenticeships and jobs for young people. Tomorrow we go to Northern Ireland to stress the importance of the EU to the peace process and to our relationship with the Republic of Ireland.

There is no progressive case for Britain to isolate itself. Of course the EU isn’t perfect; there is no such thing as a perfect institution.

We need to be leading in Europe, not leaving. We need co-operation on our continent not conflict.

Airbus is a magnificent symbol of Europe working together and it’s been a huge pleasure to be with you today.

Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the former Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, at the IPPR Conference on 7th February 2005.

I’m very pleased to be here and grateful to the ippr for organising this afternoon’s event.

The support that we give to help people into work and the security that we provide for those who can’t work is one of the most important responsibilities placed upon Government.

It’s a responsibility that Government can only fulfil in partnership:

– with employers – to fill their vacancies and ensure good occupational health in the workplace.

– with the medical profession – to encourage patients to see work as a route back to good health; and

– with the individuals concerned – and their representative organisations – to understand their problems and learn from their experiences.

Change and reform is necessary for two main reasons.

Firstly because of the position we found ourselves in when we came to office in 1997.

Over the previous 18 years, boom and bust had seen unemployment twice hit 3 million, whilst the numbers on Incapacity Benefits trebled to 2.6 million.

By 1997, one in five families had no-one in work and one in three children were growing up in poverty. Radical measures were necessary to tackle this inheritance.

But more importantly, reform was necessary because the welfare state had to evolve to meet the needs of modern society.

It’s a very different society with very different problems than those which Beveridge tackled so adroitly in 1945. The security provided by the old monolithic state institutions has vanished and the world of work has changed beyond recognition.

That is why, since 1997, we have begun to transform the welfare state from the passive one-size-fits-all inheritance to an active service that tailors help to the individual and enables people to acquire the skills and confidence to move from welfare to work.

There are now more people in jobs than ever before. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 30 years – with long-term youth unemployment 90% lower than in 1997. And with almost three-quarters of the working age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of any of the G8 countries.

But there is more to do. Last week I launched our Five Year Strategy: “Opportunity and security throughout life.” Central to which is a reform of Incapacity Benefit that builds on our investment in the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus and focuses on what people can do rather than what they can’t.

Our goal is genuine inclusion, stamping out the discrimination and disadvantage that prevents people from fulfilling their potential – and denies society the skills and contributions of those who want to work, but who remain outside the labour market.

We know that perhaps a million Incapacity Benefit claimants would like to work if they were given the right help and support. Indeed, nine out of ten people coming onto IB expect to get back to work in due course.

What’s more, there is growing medical evidence that for many conditions working is much healthier than being inactive.

Take back pain for example. We used to think that rest was the best response. But now, as Gordon Waddell’s work has shown, rest might actually delay recovery. In contrast, by advising patients to stay active, they can expect a faster recovery and a speedier return to work.

The same is also true for mental health, where periods of unemployment or inactivity can be even more damaging. Suicide rates are 35 times higher among the long-term unemployed than the employed.

One piece of research from the mid-1990s – found that being unemployed has a higher mortality risk than any occupation – even the most dangerous ones. And it stated that – and I quote – “so heightened is the risk of death, that being unemployed is equivalent to smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day!”

What is clear is that failing to help those on Incapacity Benefit who want and expect to get back to work is not just bad for the economy but bad for the people on IB themselves.

We already know that early active intervention works. The ground-breaking Pathways to Work pilots have achieved extraordinary success and we are now rolling them out to a third of the country.

Already in the pilot areas, we’ve seen six times as many people getting back to work help and twice as many people recorded as entering jobs, compared with the rest of the country.

But the problems with the current Incapacity Benefit have been well documented – not least by our hosts today.

It focuses on what people can’t do and incentivises them to stay on the benefit by increasing it with time. These mixed messages mean confusion, uncertainty and risk aversion for both individuals and potential employers.

What’s more, Incapacity Benefit classifies those receiving it as incapable of working, even before they have had a formal medical examination.

And when they’ve had this examination – the Personal Capability Assessment – those who are entitled get no appraisal of their likely future ability to return to work. It makes no distinction between whether the case is one of terminal cancer or back pain.

It was to tackle these problems, that I announced last week that, when we have the extra support of Pathways in place, we will implement a radically reformed version of Incapacity Benefit.

This will provide a basic benefit below which no-one should fall. A speedy medical assessment linked with an employment and support assessment. Increased financial security for the most chronically sick; and more money than now for those who take up the extra help on offer.

For the first time ever we will differentiate between those with the most severe functional limitations – who will get more money without having to do anything extra – and those with potentially more manageable conditions.

We’re not writing anyone off – we’d encourage those on the new Disability and Sickness Allowance to engage in some work-focussed interviews.

But for those who can and want to work these reforms -with conditional payments for engagement in Work Focussed Interviews – and further conditional payments for fulfilling an action plan personally tailored to the circumstances and ambitions of the individual – offer clear support and rewards for seeking the path back to work.

We will need to shape these reforms on the basis of the evidence of what works – with piloting playing an important role. And we will consult carefully and thoroughly with all of you.

We need to work through the detail of linking rules so that people can try out a job safe in the knowledge that if it doesn’t work out they can rapidly go back to benefit on exactly the same terms as they were on before.

We’ve introduced and strengthened Permitted Work Rules to make part-time work an option. For at least the first year individuals can now work up to 16 hours a week on the minimum wage and keep their benefit in full.

And if beyond this year they work just 16 hours a week then the Working Tax Credit guarantees a take-home pay of at least £150 a week.

For many part-time work can be a stepping-stone towards a full-time return to the labour market. And for those for whom full-time work will never be possible but for whom some work would still be good – our reforms to Permitted Work are going to expand the right to part-time working on an ongoing basis to those for whom a return to full time work is least feasible.

Our full package of reforms will transform the experience of new claimants. But we are also determined to help those who have been on IB for some time.

Already in Pathways areas where involvement has only been mandatory for new claimants, over 10% of those taking part and 18% of recorded job entries are for those on IB for longer than 12 months who volunteered to take part.

Today we are extending Pathways to existing customers in seven of the pilot areas.

This means the introduction of mandatory Work Focused Interviews with those existing customers who started their claim in the two years prior to the date the pilots commenced.

As important as the role of Incapacity Benefit itself, is the backdrop against which it operates – the workplaces, the doctor’s surgeries and the society that disabled people have to live within.

We need employers to create healthier workplaces and play a more active role in the rehabilitation of their employees. Early and on-going communication enables employers to support employees who are off sick and to agree a return-to-work plan.

Take for example, the case of a street lighting co-ordinator who had to have his leg amputated because of a long-term medical condition. His employer was quick to consider how to assist him to return to work. They made adjustments to his working environment including altering the height of his desk, allocated him a company car with automatic transmission that enabled him to fulfil his driving duties; and modified his hours to allow a structured return to work 3 months after his operation.

It’s not just a social issue – it’s an economic issue. The benefits to business are very clear: Retaining trained and experienced employees and avoiding unnecessary recruitment and training costs.

So employer involvement in helping individuals to recover is not just socially responsible but actually makes business sense.

With around 120,000 people on average moving from Statutory Sick Pay to Incapacity Benefit each year, I’m interested in whether we might be able to reform SSP to ensure that the information and incentives for employers, the NHS and individuals make this a step back to work, rather than a slide onto benefit.

The role of medical professionals is also crucial. I look forward to hearing Gordon and Roy speak later.

For now, let me say that the success of our whole approach hinges on GPs and other health professionals re-enforcing the message that work is a route back to health – and not something that people need to be protected from. And we see from the success of Tomorrow’s People, how effective the combination of workplace and health advice can be.

We will continue to fight discrimination on all fronts; especially for disabled people. This is the last great emancipation issue of our time. In years to come, I believe that the mis-treatment of disabled people typical of the last century – and still too often the case today – will be seen as the affront to humanity that it is.

Ultimately real social security means more than a benefits system. It comes from the relationships that we have with each other. Working in partnership with employers, the medical profession, and individuals themselves, we can deliver a welfare to work system that enables everyone to fulfil their true potential – with an Incapacity Benefit that is fit for purpose because it offers a tailored route to employment for all those that can work and financial security for those that can’t.

Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development conference on 9th February 2005.

It’s a pleasure to be back here again at the CIPD for this Annual Reward Conference. Now in its sixteenth year, it’s a tremendous forum for all those involved in managing and developing people, and I’m delighted to have this opportunity to talk to you today.

Over the past seven years welfare to work policies have driven a transformation in the UK’s employment market.

In 1997, one in five families had no-one in work and one in three children were growing up in poverty. And over the previous 18 years, unemployment had twice hit 3 million, whilst the numbers on Incapacity Benefits trebled to 2.6 million.

But since 1997, we have begun to transform the welfare state from a passive one-size-fits-all system to an active service that tailors help to the individual and enables people to acquire the skills and confidence to move from welfare to work.

Thanks to a stable economy, and our investment in the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus, there are now more people in jobs than ever before. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 30 years – with long-term youth unemployment 90% lower than in 1997. And with almost three-quarters of the working age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of any of the G8 countries.

But we can and will go further. Today we face the welcome challenge of a healthier population that is living for longer.

As the baby boomers of yesterday become the pensioner plethora of tomorrow, it will produce dramatic changes in the dependency ratio.

In two years from now the number of people over State Pension Age will overtake the number of children. In just over 30 years, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over will have increased by 50% while the number of pensioners aged 80 and over will have doubled.

Society’s ability to meet this ageing challenge will hinge crucially on our ability to develop and deliver an evolving welfare state that supports ever greater numbers of people into work for longer.

Last week the DWP published its Five Year Strategy. At its heart is a new long-term aspiration of moving towards an employment rate equivalent to 80% of the working age population.

This takes us beyond just helping the unemployed to helping those who are further away from the labour market – who have more complex and substantial barriers to overcome.

Our goal is genuine inclusion – stamping out the discrimination and disadvantage that prevents people from fulfilling their true potential.

To reach our 80% aspiration could mean helping as many as 1 million people on Incapacity Benefit into work, as well as an extra 300,000 lone parents – and having a million more older workers in the labour force, including many who will choose to work beyond the traditional retirement age.

At the heart of our Five Year Plan is our proposed reform of Incapacity Benefit. These reforms will build on our investment in Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal.

Already our Pathways to Work pilots – which combine financial incentives to seek work, compulsory interviews with skilled personal advisers, and access to groundbreaking NHS rehabilitation support – are achieving startling results.

In the pilot areas we’re seeing six times as many people getting back to work help and twice as many people recorded as entering jobs, compared with the rest of the country.

And our reforms of IB will build on this platform with a new basic benefit below which no-one should fall.

There will also be a speedy medical assessment linked with an employment and support appraisal and increased financial security for the most chronically sick. Our reforms will mean more money than now for those who take up the extra help on offer; but less money for those who decline to co-operate.

For the first time ever we will differentiate between those with the most severe conditions – who will get more money without having to do anything extra – and those with potentially more manageable conditions who will receive tailored support and clear rewards for seeking a path back to work.

But this all needs to be accompanied by wider change – and employers have a key role to play in creating healthier workplaces and playing a more active role in the rehabilitation of their employees.

The benefits to business are very clear: Retaining skilled and experienced employees and avoiding unnecessary recruitment and training costs. Employer involvement in helping individuals to recover is not just socially responsible but is also good business sense.

As we move towards full employment, we can not afford to be denied the skills and contributions of those who can and want to work, but who remain outside the labour market.

And this goes beyond simply breaking down the barriers to getting a job – it means equality of opportunity within the workplace.

The role of HR professionals is crucial in helping employers to benefit fully from the skills of disadvantaged groups – but ultimately the progression of these workers can no longer be an issue solely for HR or any other individual part of a business. Instead, it must be mainstreamed into the heart of each organisation.

Together we must build on our progress in fighting discrimination, moving to a world where opportunity and security are not dependent on disability, ethnic background or age.

A key part of our framework for helping those on Incapacity Benefit is to stamp out discrimination against disabled people.

These are exciting times for Disability Rights. Last October saw the extension of full discrimination protection to 600,000 existing disabled workers. And it brought an additional 7 million jobs and 1 million employers within the scope of the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. And our new Disability Discrimination Bill currently going through Parliament will take us even further.

The New Deal for Disabled People has seen over 45,000 job entries since its launch in 2001. And our other New Deal initiatives – for lone parents and young people for instance – have also been effective.

Altogether, nearly 195,000 disabled people have been helped into work through the totality of our New Deal programmes.

All of this has contributed to the rise in the employment rate of disabled people – up 5 percentage points since 1998 and now crossing the rubicon of 50%. This really challenges the old preconceptions because now the majority of disabled people work.

Ethnic Minorities are another key group. We’ve already seen the Ethnic Minority employment gap fall from just under 17% to 15.4% – that’s around 50,000 more individuals of ethnic minority origin in employment.

But despite this progress, ethnic minorities are still twice as likely to be unemployed and one and a half times as likely to be economically inactive as the overall working age population.

And it’s not just in securing employment, that this differential exists. Ethnic minority staff earn an average of 7% less than other staff. And this in itself masks wide variations within ethnic minorities: For some groups – such as Bangladeshis – the average salary is as much as £7000 a year lower than the average for white employees.

So there is much further to go in this area and our Fair Cities initiative – working with employers in London, Bradford and Birmingham – will help us to understand what more we need to do.

A crucial part of the response to longer lives must be enabling people to choose to work for longer.

Some have suggested that we should raise the State Pension Age but part of the challenge that we face in the UK, is to help people to work up to the current State Pension Age rather than setting a higher one. For example, over 1/3 of men have left the labour market by the age of 60; 2/3 before age 65.

Our State Pension Deferral policy increases the rewards for choosing to work for longer – introducing an enhanced pension or a lump sum of up to £30,000 for people who decide to take their State Pension at 70 rather than 65.

And our tax simplification measures also mean that, for the first time, it’s possible to carry on working for the same employer whilst drawing an occupational pension.

The announcement we made on age equality at the end of last year also moved us further towards a culture where a single retirement age is no longer relevant.

We’re sweeping them away entirely for people under 65, and we’re giving those above that age a Right to Request which their employers will have to engage with seriously.

And the review in 2011 – which will look at whether to end the default retirement age – is to be tied to evidence on specific social trends all of which are showing a retirement age is increasingly outmoded.

Of course, the option of longer working is one part of the pensions equation. The other is saving more.

Here the role of the employer is even more crucial and we are very grateful to the CIPD for their work with our Employer Task Force.

In particular for publishing a “Good Practice Guide” focused on communications – alongside the Employer Task Force Report last December.

Next month, we will build on this guide by launching a single Government-sponsored website on Good Practice – which will draw together the CIPD’s work with similar material from other organisations.

Employer contributions will be crucial. ABI research shows what a difference this can make – where there is no employer contribution, pension take up stands at just 13%, but with a contribution of at least 5% it rockets to 69%.

But communicating the benefits of this pension provision is equally crucial – particularly against the backdrop of the increased security afforded by the Pension Protection Fund and other measures in our Pensions Act.

Last October’s Interim report by the Pensions Commission, shows that for the earnings bracket with the most people in it – namely those on £10,000 – £20,000 – there are more people with no pension working for employers that have a contributory scheme that they haven’t joined than there are workers who have no pension and no access to a scheme. Indeed there are some 4.6 million workers who are not taking advantage of contributory schemes that their employer provides.

If we could tackle this, we would go a long way towards meeting the pensions challenge. Effectively these workers are turning down the equivalent of a pay rise – and the evidence suggests that this isn’t an informed decision. Which is why an idea like auto-enrolement is so important. So instead of having to opt-in – people are automatically enrolled into the scheme but have the information they need to take an informed decision to opt-out.

I pay tribute to the CIPD’s commitment to creating a modern working environment. This no longer means simply equality of opportunity in the workplace – though this is crucial – now it also means meeting the challenge of an ageing society.

Neither individual employers nor society as a whole can afford to be without the skills and contributions of all those who are willing and able to work.

The failure to meet this challenge could threaten the future sustainability of our welfare system as well as the economic prosperity of British business.

But the success which is within our grasp will ensure that Britain remains a world leader – not just economically – but as a truly integrated and socially cohesive society, which is all the richer for its diversity.