UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Harriet Harman

  • Harriet Harman – 2021 Speech on International Women’s Day

    Harriet Harman – 2021 Speech on International Women’s Day

    The speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 11 March 2021.

    I thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for securing the debate, and I agree with every single word that she said in her excellent speech.

    This International Women’s Day debate comes in the shadow of the menace of male violence against women. I am sure we all feel the same as the Home Secretary, who said that she is “deeply saddened” by the developments in the Sarah Everard investigation, and we all hope against hope that we will not hear the news that we all dread. But at the same time as the sadness, there is real anger among women at the threat that they face on a daily basis. That is not to spread alarm; it is to spell out the reality.

    Here we are, in the 21st century, in a country where women and men expect to be equal, but we are not. Women, particularly young women, are terrified of the threat of male violence on the streets—men who try to get them to get in their car, who try to get their number, who follow them, who film them, who will not take no for an answer. Every young woman, every day, walks under this threat, so they adopt myriad strategies just to get home from work in the dark—choosing the busiest route, even if it is longer; keeping their keys in their hand; trying to go with someone rather than alone; getting a friend or their partner to map their location on a phone app; phoning on the way home so that they know they are expected.

    Women will find no reassurance at all in the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s statement that it is

    “incredibly rare for a woman to be abducted from our streets.”

    Women know that abduction and murder is just the worst end of a spectrum of everyday male threat to women. When the police advise women not to go out at night on their own, women ask why they have to be subjected to an informal curfew. It is not women who are the problem here; it is men.

    The criminal justice system fails women and lets men off the hook. Whether it is rape or domestic homicide, women are judged and blamed—“Why was she on a dating app?” “Why was she out late at night?” “Why had she been drinking?” “What are those flirty messages on her phone?”—and men find excuses, raking up her previous sexual history in court to try to tarnish her character and prejudice the jury. Let us hear no more false reassurances; let us have action.

    Next Monday, we will be debating in this House the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. That is the chance for the Government to banish the culture of male excuses from the criminal justice system and, instead of blaming women, start protecting them.

  • Harriet Harman – 2021 Speech on Employment Rights

    Harriet Harman – 2021 Speech on Employment Rights

    The speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 25 January 2021.

    I join the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) in paying tribute to all those who have worked through this covid crisis, and particularly to those in essential services.

    I support the motion, and I agree with everything said from the Labour Front Bench: we must have no watering down of hard-won employment rights. However, a new employment Bill is also an opportunity for new rights, which are sorely needed by families in today’s world of work. The structure of our current rights was based on the notion of the employed male breadwinner, supported by the wife at home looking after their children. Even if she worked, her primary responsibility was to the children, and she would be supported by her own mother, who would most likely be retired. However, most women now work—many are self-employed rather than employed—and grandmothers, who used to be able to be relied on to step in, are still working.

    We have introduced important rights, such as the right to request flexible work, paternity leave and parental leave, but there are glaring omissions, which should be addressed in any future Bill. A man or a woman employee is entitled to paid sick leave, but what if the child is sick? Parents cannot leave a sick child at home on their own. We should back our working parents when their child is sick. Instead, we leave them in the lurch. One parent—usually the mother—has to ring the employer and beg for time off, often to be told she has to take it as holiday or unpaid leave, which is especially hard for low-income families.

    In a future employment Bill, we therefore need to give a parent of a primary school-age or younger child who cannot go to school or nursery when they are sick the right to paid leave. Other countries do that. That also needs to extend to grandparents, in case that is who is best placed to take the time off when the child is sick. Many parents rely hugely on grandparents, especially in the first year of a baby’s life, so we should factor them into parental leave too. Currently, the mother and the father can share 50 weeks’ leave between them. We should make it so that that could be split between, say, the mother, the father and one of the grandparents. The point is to give families the choice.

    The Government mentioned having more employment rights for families in their manifesto. That is encouraging, and there will be strong support for that from the Labour Benches, but also from the Government Benches and, above all, from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I welcome the Secretary of State to his new job. If he wants to do some good and make a difference, I look forward to him agreeing across parties to make progress on this.

  • Harriet Harman – 2010 Speech on the Saville Inquiry and Bloody Sunday

    Harriet Harman – 2010 Speech on the Saville Inquiry and Bloody Sunday

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 15 June 2010.

    May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? As he said, it is more than 12 years since the then Prime Minister Tony Blair set up the Saville inquiry to establish the truth of what happened on what became known as Bloody Sunday. For the 14 families whose loved ones were killed, for the 13 who were injured, for the soldiers and their families, for all those whose lives would never be the same again, the report has been long-awaited. We all recognise how painful this has been, and the Prime Minister has been clear today. He said that there is no ambiguity, that it was wrong; he has apologised and we join him in his apology.

    I also join the Prime Minister in thanking Lord Saville and all those whose work contributed to the report. The report speaks for itself and it speaks powerfully.

    I remind the House of what Tony Blair said on the day that the House agreed to establish the Saville inquiry. He said that Bloody Sunday was a day we have all wished “had never happened” and that it was “a tragic day” for everyone. I reiterate his tribute to the dignity of the bereaved families, whose campaign was about searching for the truth. He rightly reminded the House of the thousands of lives that have been lost in Northern Ireland. May I restate our sincere admiration for our security forces’ response to terrorism in Northern Ireland? Many lost their lives. Nothing in today’s report can or should diminish their record of service. They have been outstanding.

    The Prime Minister has acknowledged that the Saville inquiry was necessary to establish the truth and to redress the inadequacy of Lord Widgery’s inquiry, which served only to deepen the sense of grievance, added to the pain of the families of those who died and were injured, outraged the community and prolonged the uncertainty hanging over the soldiers. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for reminding the House that the setting up of the Saville inquiry played a necessary part in the peace process. Does the Prime Minister agree ​that, notwithstanding the considerable cost of this inquiry, its value cannot be overestimated in both seeking the truth and facilitating the peace process? Does he believe that Saville has now established the truth?

    How the Government handle the report is of great importance, so I thank the Prime Minister for committing to seek a full day’s parliamentary debate on it. Will he consider allowing for a period of time between the debate in each House, so that what is said in this House may be considered before the debate in the Lords? When will he be in a position to say what, if any, action will be taken in Government as a result of the findings of the Saville report? What will be the decision-making process, and will the process be as transparent as possible?

    The Prime Minister must recognise that some will no doubt raise the possibility of prosecutions. The prosecution process is independent, but has he been asked to consider the question of immunity from prosecution if we are instead to take things forward by a wider process of reconciliation? Is the time now right to move towards a process for reconciliation, building on the work of the Consultative Group on the Past, chaired by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley? Can there now be a comprehensive process of reconciliation to address the legacy issue of the troubles, such as that proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is what is now necessary?

    The peace process is a great achievement by the people of Northern Ireland as well as by politicians. It is a process built on the value of fairness, equality, truth and justice. This House has played its part, not least in agreeing to the Saville inquiry. The Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement and, of course, this year’s Hillsborough castle agreement are all great milestones on the path to a lasting peace. Does the Prime Minister agree that the completion of devolution just a few weeks ago is relatively new and fragile and still requires great care? Our response to Saville must be as measured as it is proportionate. We have sought the truth; now we must have understanding and reconciliation.

    May I conclude by expressing the hope that while people will never forget what happened on that day, this report will help them find a way of living with the past and looking to the future?

  • Harriet Harman – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Harriet Harman – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    This is a very important Bill, and much needed for tackling the horrific and often hidden crime of domestic violence. I completely agree with all the points that have been made by previous speakers on the Bill. The truth is that a lot of us have pushed for this Bill, but I do not think we would even be debating this today were it not for the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who has just spoken, and I want to acknowledge that.

    I strongly support the Bill, but there is one glaring omission, and that is what I want to speak about this afternoon. We need the Bill to tackle the problem of the defence being used by men who kill women and then say, “It’s a sex game gone wrong”. This is where a man kills a woman by strangling her or by forcing an object up inside her that causes her to bleed to death, and he acknowledges that these injuries killed her and that he caused them, but says it is not his fault—it is her fault; he was only doing what she wanted; it was a sex game gone wrong—and he literally gets away with murder. That is a double injustice. Not only does he kill, but he ​drags her name through the mud. It causes indescribable trauma for the bereaved family, who sit silently in court with the loss of a beloved daughter, sister and mother, to see the man who killed her describe luridly what he alleges are her sexual proclivities. She, of course, is not there to speak for herself. He kills her and then he defines her.

    That is what happened to Natalie Connolly. I see that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) is in his place and will be speaking shortly. He was Natalie’s family’s MP. I urge everybody to listen very carefully to what he says about what happened in that case. Her brutal killer, John Broadhurst, escaped a murder charge by saying that it was what she wanted. We can stop that injustice. We can prohibit the rough sex gone wrong defence. We must do that by saying that if it is his hands on her neck strangling her, if it his hands that are pushing the object up inside her, then he must take responsibility. That is not a sex game gone wrong; that is murder and he cannot blame her for her own death.

    There are two lessons that I think we have learned from previous struggles to improve the law on domestic violence and sexual offences. The first is that it always takes too long. This is the Bill in which this must happen. Secondly, it is never sorted until the law is changed. It will not be sorted by judicial training, by Crown Prosecution Service guidance or by a taskforce, welcome though they are. It will not be sorted by good intentions either; they are never enough. It needs a law change. I fully accept the Government’s good intentions. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) and his team, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), have been very concerned and in listening mode on this issue. However, I say very directly to the Lord Chancellor that he is the man with the power here. He is the Government Minister and this is his Bill. I say to him, “Be the man who listens to what women are saying about this, not the man who knows better than us. Listen to what we are saying and make the change that we are asking for.”

  • Harriet Harman – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Harriet Harman – 2019 Tribute to the Speaker of the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2019.

    Mr Speaker, you are my fifth Speaker now, and I can say from that experience that you have been a remarkable Speaker of this House. You have been a champion of Parliament and a reformer. As other hon. and right hon. Members have said, you have thought about opening up this House so that young people all around the country can see that it is their Parliament that is here for them. You have been a great champion of the Youth Parliament. The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House were right to say that everybody agrees with that now and recognises that it is a thoroughly good thing, but you had to fight for it because there were those who resisted change and said, “We cannot have all these children here in the House of Commons. We’ve got work to be done.” You relentlessly, and in a principled way, pushed for it, and I thank you for that.

    You have used the Speaker’s state rooms to give outside organisations a sense that their work is recognised by and valued in this Parliament. As the shadow Leader of the House said, over 1,000 organisations have come into this House, and the grandeur of those state rooms has inspired and encouraged them that their works in communities all around the country are valued here.

    I would like to pay particular tribute to the work that you have done for the women’s movement. Organisations campaigning for equal pay have been in those grand state rooms surrounded by those 20-foot-high portraits of former Speakers. They have had their place there: those championing equal pay; those complaining that we need more childcare; those campaigning against domestic violence. They have been there; you have brought them in and endowed them with a sense of importance.

    You actually turned one of the bars of the House of Commons into a nursery for the children of staff in Whitehall and in the House and of Members. That too is something we can be proud of, but it is something that you had to fight for. We had been fighting for it for decades and had failed; it was not until you were in the Chair that you made it happen. You supported the coming into this Chamber of 100 women MPs from 100 Parliaments from all around the world so that here in the mother of Parliaments we could validate their work in their Parliaments all around the world.

    I think we can fairly say that you are politically correct, but it was not always the case. You have been on what they describe as a political journey. You started off going towards the views of the Monday Club. You are woke now, but my goodness me, you were in the deepest of slumbers.

    You really have made a huge difference in championing us here in the House. Above all, you have been concerned about the role of Parliament in being able to hold the Executive to account. That is not just about Back Benchers and Front Benchers; it is about the role of Parliament. Members who have come here more recently perhaps would not remember this—I thank the Library for getting this information for me—but in the 12 months before you took the Speaker’s Chair, two urgent questions were granted in that whole time. The impact of that was that people outside the House would be discussing issues but they would not be discussed here, and therefore Parliament felt irrelevant. In the past 12 months, you have granted 152 UQs. You have made Parliament relevant. I thank you for that—but again, it has not always made you popular. Ministers would rather sit in their Departments talking to civil servants and junior Ministers who agree with them than come here and face the House. But it is better for Government to be held to account. It is easy to make mistakes when doing things behind closed doors. You have always believed that the minority must have its say in Parliament, and you have championed that, but you have also always believed that the majority must have its way, and that is right.

    Precedent offers less help in unprecedented times, which we have been experiencing, but you have had a profound sense that you are accountable to the House and that you want to enable and facilitate the House, and that is what you have done. You leave the Chair in uncertain and, I would say, even dangerous times. Thank you for your support and recognition of all those Members—men as well as women—who have gone about their business under a hail of threats of violence. Our democracy should not have to experience that. I would like to thank you for being tireless in your work, and I would like to thank your family for their support of you. They can be rightly proud of what you have done, and we are too.

  • Harriet Harman – 2016 Speech in Tribute to Jo Cox

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, in the House of Commons on 20 June 2016.

    I want to add to the very moving tributes to Jo. I got to know Jo after the 2010 general election, when she was elected to chair Labour Women’s Network, which she did for four years. She would regularly burst into my office with that extraordinary energy she had and tell me all that they were doing to help Labour women get elected to Parliament to give women a bigger voice in the party. So many of the Labour women here in this Chamber today who were elected in 2015 and who are so deeply mourning Jo’s loss were women whom, under Jo’s leadership, Labour Women’s Network helped and supported.

    Not long after she had her son, she came to give me one of those regular briefings, and, of course, the baby came too—I remember it because she literally did not stop kissing him all the way through the meeting. When she had her daughter, she was still there for the women who were trying to become candidates—texting them support, phoning to commiserate if they did not make it, urging them to try again. Her feminism—her solidarity with other women—was a thread that ran through her and all her work in her community and for humanitarian causes. She always said to me emphatically that her children were her priority above everything. But there was no dividing line between Jo’s maternal heart and her great political heart. Her children will grow up to know what an amazing woman their mother was. She is such a great loss to our politics; and an irreplaceable loss to her family, to whom we send our heartfelt sympathy.

  • Harriet Harman – 2016 Speech on the EU

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, at Lloyds of London on 13 May 2016.

    Thank you so much for letting me come and talk to you today about women at work and the European Union.

    You work here in the financial services industry, an industry which is crucially important to the economy of this country and for the employment of women.

    Financial services generate over £126 billion for our economy every year and half a million women work in it. Not just here in London but in Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol and throughout the country.

    The work that you do in financial services powers that industry and provides the income for hundreds of thousands of households.

    Your work is important to this sector and I know that it’s also important to you and your family. The fact of the matter is that there are few households, and no regions and no sectors which could manage without women’s work. Our work is vital to household budgets and to our economy. The workforce is now women and men. But despite that we are still not equal at work or at home. We’ve made great strides at work, and you can see that with women’s earning power increasing. But the higher up you get in any workplace the fewer women there are. And there is still not equal sharing of family responsibilities – whether it be for bringing up children or caring for the elderly or disabled. Though men are doing more at home, in the overwhelming majority of households, the responsibility still rests firmly with women.

    So the rights and protections that we have at work remain important- the right to be paid equally, not to be discriminated against, not to be harassed, not to be oppressed because you’re a part-timer, a right to return to work after having a baby, to have a right to take time off to go to ante-natal appointments, the right for fathers to have time off when their children are young.

    One of the great social changes over the last 30 years has been the progress that women have made. Women now have equal educational qualifications to men and expect to be able to work on equal terms with men in whatever field they choose. Womens’ attitudes have changed – we’re no longer prepared to put up with being second-class citizens.

    This is a huge, and quite recent change. When I first started work there was no right to equal pay – job adverts showed the woman’s rate and the man’s rate for the same job. Employers could and did advertise jobs for men, which women couldn’t apply for. And when you got pregnant you usually kept it secret to try and keep your job for as long as possible. When you left work to have a baby your job went. You had to apply to go back to work like a new employee – even to your old job. Most women worked part-time and were completely the poor relations at work – not allowed to be in the workplace pension scheme, first to be made redundant, and denied access to training and promotion.

    For women starting out in 2016 rather than in the 1970s when I started work, all this might seem positively prehistoric. But remember that the changes that we achieved didn’t come through hoping something would turn up – but through action.

    The women’s movement saw women demanding change – prepared to fight against the government, employers and even their own trade unions to assert their rights to work and be equal at work with laws to back them up. And that is what has happened year on year over the decades. And the EU has been a massive ally in this process.

    You may have seen the opinion polls on the EU referendum which will be on June 23rd. The latest show that 42% are for staying and 40% are for leaving. But I’ve met so many people who are undecided, who haven’t made up their mind, who want further information and are still thinking about it. And twice as many women as men haven’t yet decided how to vote in the referendum.

    It doesn’t help anyone make up their mind to see men shouting at each other in speeches. So, rather than joint them, I want to bring some facts into the debate.

    It’s easy to overlook, but it’s impossible to overstate, how important the EU has been in our struggle for women’s rights at work. Some of our rights came directly from the EU, some rights were enhanced because of the EU and our rights as women at work can’t be taken away, as they are guaranteed by our membership of the EU.

    This is a paradox because the EU is every bit as woefully male-dominated as our own political institutions. But despite that, the historical fact is that the EU has led and strengthened our rights as women at work in this country. And we should never take that for granted. Faceless bureaucrats they may be – but the EU has been a strong friend to British women at work.

    The rights that we now have at work did not just arrive out of thin air. They came from a combination of what our governments have done and what the EU has made them do. I would rather we got all of our rights from our own government. Half the population are women and we are a democracy – it doesn’t seem too much to ask for our own government to back us up. It feels odd to get legal rights handed to us from Brussels rather than from Westminster. But if it’s a case of having them coming from Brussels or not at all, let’s not be in any doubt that wherever they come from, these rights are essential for women’s progress in their lives. No government likes a Directive – let alone from abroad – telling them what to do or a Court – and God forbid a foreign court – forcing them to make changes. But EU Directives and European Court judgments have been making our government back women up at work. So if it comes to a choice between Directives or fewer protections for women at work – I’ll take the Directives any day.

    I want Brussels to be there to guarantee these rights. I don’t want our government to have the “sovereignty” to take away those rights. Over the years we fought for those rights and they should be there for you now.

    For most people, what goes on in Parliament is baffling enough, let alone understanding the complex interplay of our Parliament and Brussels. But when people come to vote about whether to stay or leave Europe, it’s important for them to know what Europe has done which has made a difference to their lives. The language might be impenetrable and the institutions baffling, but the fact is that the EU has been a strong friend to women at work.

    Let me explain specifically about women’s rights at work. And these are facts here – not spin, not conjecture, not predictions – plain facts. And although this goes back some decades, it’s not “historical” because I was there fighting for those rights, for the progress which was hard won, inch by inch, and these rights are still important for you now and I don’t want to see them threatened by our leaving the EU.

    Take equal pay for women. The founding treaty of the EU, the Treaty of Rome which everyone has to sign up to when they join the EU, requires that women should be paid equally and get equal treatment. When we signed up to the EU in 1973 that was a right that all women in this country got.

    In 1970 the Equal Pay Act came into force and said that you could get equal pay but only if there was a man doing the same job that you could compare with. Because we were in the EU our government was required, in 1976, to extend that to where women were doing work which was not the same as a man but where they could show their work was of “equal value”. This gave hundreds of thousands of women better pay. Like the women at Ford, who in 1984 got a pay increase claiming their work as machinists was of equal value to the higher paid men.

    Like low paid women council cleaners who claimed the same pay and bonuses as the higher paid men in refuse collection. I was there in Cabinet Committees when my colleagues gnashed their teeth at the European Court for telling our councils that the agreement they’d reached with the unions would have to be changed. They said it wasn’t the right time for the women to get the same pay as the men. But it’s never “the right time” for government or employers to be able to afford equality for women. And this is not a luxury, its basic fairness.

    Take the situation for part-timers. Our Equal Pay Act covered pay, but didn’t cover pensions – nor did the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. Most part-timers were women – they still are. And part-timers were excluded from companies’ workplace pension schemes, making certain that women would be worse off in retirement than men. In 1986, an EU ruling said that excluding part-timers from occupational pension schemes was sex discrimination, that pensions were “deferred pay” and should be covered by the Equal Pay Act. This meant that hundreds of thousands of part-time women got access to pension schemes for the first time, and part-timers were still protected.

    The EU is full of guarantees for working women as we have our babies. The EU guarantees that women have to get some maternity pay. The 1992 Pregnant Workers Directive required that women who were off work on maternity leave had to be paid an “adequate allowance” not less than sick pay.

    The EU guarantees that women have a right to return to work after they’ve had a baby. The Pregnant Workers Directive guarantees women at least 14 weeks’ maternity leave and a right to return to their old job. Our government gives women more than that – extending maternity leave to a year – but the EU Directive guarantees that women can never have their right to return to work abolished.

    The EU gave, for the first time, a right to fathers to take time off when they have a baby. In 1996 the EU issued the Parental Leave Directive which requires EU members to give fathers as well as mothers four months leave in the first eight years of their child’s life. This was the first time fathers got rights in law and that’s important not just for the child and the father, but also for the mother.

    EU Directives and court rulings mean that our government has to ensure that employers give women time off work to go to ante-natal appointments. They have to protect breast-feeding women, and they have to give parents a right to time off for urgent family reasons – like a child falling ill.

    The EU has waded in against sexual harassment at work. The 1975 Sex Discrimination Act made it illegal for a woman to be harassed at work. And that can’t be repealed because it’s guaranteed by the 2006 EU Equal Opportunities Directive which ruled that sexual harassment is unlawful discrimination

    “Those rights are now secure”

    We fought hard for those rights, in Brussels and in Westminster. That’s a fact. If we leave the EU, the guarantees of those rights will be gone. That’s a fact too.

    Some people will say, “OK the EU helped us to get those rights, and guaranteed them, but we don’t need Europe anymore because those rights are accepted by everyone now. We don’t need the guarantee anymore.”

    Would that it were the case that everyone now agrees that women’s rights at work are paramount. But they don’t.

    Every time any new right for women has been introduced, whether it’s come from Westminster, our courts, or Brussels – it’s been bitterly opposed. There was opposition to the Equal Pay and the Sex Discrimination Acts. The Tories voted against the Equality Act as recently as 2010. In the past, even unions opposed equal rights for their part-timer women members. The CBI and the Chambers of Commerce oppose new rights. Even the Labour government which I was part of complained about European Court of Justice rulings on women’s rights. It’s naive to suppose that everyone now suddenly agrees with them. Women’s rights are in the firing line whenever there’s a call for deregulation or “cutting red tape”. Bright ideas pop up to give businesses “greater freedom” in this sector or that region. Right now, though few will say they oppose women’s rights, given half the chance, the covert hostility to these rights would soon rear its ugly head. They argue that it’s about saving government money or cutting red tape on business, but women’s rights would be sacrificed.

    And why should we trust the likes of Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan-Smith or Nigel Farage with our rights as women? And even if they say they’d guarantee not to go below the rights for women that the EU guarantees, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. It’s your rights which are at stake here – so nor should you.

    We need more rights for women – not fewer

    Instead of fighting to stop us going backwards, we should be pressing for more rights for women at work. I want to see the laws on preventing discrimination against older women brought into force. I want to see rights for carers to take time off. I want to see mothers able to share their maternity leave with the child’s grandparents as they can now share their maternity leave with the child’s father. I want maternity leave to be longer and maternity pay to be better.

    We’ve made huge progress over the years but we are still far from equal. The last thing we need now is to have to fight to defend and protect the rights we’ve already got. But that is what would happen if we left the EU. We’ve got used to being able to rely on the EU to underpin those rights. Let’s not take them for granted and find that we have to fight for them all over again. We need our energy to be going forward, not to prevent ourselves going backwards.

    So if you think it’s important that women at work have rights at work, to equal pay, to opportunity, as parents, stand up for those rights and vote to stay in the EU. Don’t be complacent about those rights. Protect them by voting to stay in.

    Jobs as well as rights.

    It’s not just your rights at work which Europe is important for, it’s also those jobs themselves.

    Women are now working in every sector, in every region. Those sectors are bolstered by our membership of the EU because the EU helps our economy generally. It’s our biggest trading partner, with EU countries buying nearly half of everything we sell abroad.

    We’re here in the City of London at the heart of our financial services sector. If you look at the people at the top of financial services, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it’s all men. But that is far from the case. Half a million women work in financial services – women like you who work hard, do well and are ambitious – and 41% of those financial services we sell abroad go to Europe. If we weren’t in the EU, Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin would be looking to hoover up those jobs. A study by City Link and PWC estimates that around 50,000 women working in financial services would lose their jobs if we left the EU.

    And what about other sectors where women work?

    Over half of the chemicals and pharmaceuticals we export go to Europe. Over half our food exports go to the EU. What would happen to the 1 million jobs of women who work in that sector if we leave?

    My decision to vote to remain is based on a whole range of issues:

    – Jobs and investment.

    – UK influence in Europe.

    – UK influence through the EU in the rest of the world.

    – The EU as a body of countries committed to human rights.

    And my general belief that it’s best to look forward and outward rather than backward and inward – especially in a globalised world.

    Opting out for a quiet life was never a way to make progress on anything. And outside the EU it wouldn’t be a quiet life but one of frustration and ineffectiveness. A quick adrenaline boost of “going it alone” followed by long endurance of problems and marginalisation.

    I think we should have the confidence to recognise that we make a big impact in the EU. Why wouldn’t we want to continue to do that when they are our nearest neighbours and our biggest trading partners? Our history has been about being a leading country in Europe, not cutting and running.

    Over the last few decades there’s been a transformation in women’s lives, with women going out to work as well as caring for children and elderly. Regarding ourselves as equal citizens whose contribution in the world outside the home is important and should not be undervalued.

    Over the last three decades (when I’ve been an MP) we’ve struggled to make our way forward towards equality at work. The objective fact is that through those decades the EU has been a friend to women in this country. Let’s stick with them and let’s work to make further progress.

  • Harriet Harman – 1982 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Harriet Harman to the House of Commons on 5 November 1982.

    I know that hon. Members sadly miss Harry Lamborn, who died this summer. It is a great privilege to represent the people of Peckham, but I regret that I have come here as result of a by-election following Harry Lamborn’s death. I should have preferred to come here after a general election, knowing that he and his wife Lil were enjoying a well-earned retirement. Harry will be long remembered in Peckham not only for the 10 years that he served in the House as Member of Parliament but for the many years before that when he was a Southwark councillor. His contribution to the area is warmly remembered and he will be sadly missed.

    Peckham is not faring well under the Government’s policies. Since 1979 unemployment has more than doubled and more than 80 young people chase each job at the Peckham careers office. More than 9,000 families are on the housing waiting list, at a time when more than 1,000 skilled building workers are on the dole and the council owns land on which it would build but for the fact that Government cuts have almost put an end to new council building.

    For those in council homes—nearly 80 per cent. of homes in Southwark are rented from the council—the Government have forced up rents and plan to do so again. Under the Government’s housing policy, the home owner in Chelsea receives nearly twice as much public subsidy as the council tenant in Peckham. Despite the fact that rents are increasing, repairs take much longer because of cuts in the budget for major maintenance. I am not talking simply about a lick of paint; I am talking about major maintenance and vital repairs. Living standards for those in work are falling.

    I wish to mention the case of one constituent. I should not call her a “case” but, unfortunately, she is a welfare case. She works a six-day week for 47½ hours in the catering department of St. Thomas’s hospital. She receives only £58 take-home pay and her rent is £45 a week. That is why she is a welfare case. It is a scandal that someone who works so hard in the public service must fight her way through a web of rent and rate rebates just to be able to live. For the increasing number of those who are out of work, living standards are falling even faster and their lot is to stand around on street corners with nothing to do.

    Vital public services have been hit badly. Southwark council can provide only about 500 nursery places for the borough’s 13,500 under-fives. Even when the Inner London Education Authority has the money to build schools and provide nursery places it is not allowed to do so. The Government prevent ILEA from providing more nursery places.

    The Government are directly responsible for something which people in Peckham are extremely concerned about, and that is the increase in crime. We do not know very much about the causes of crime, but we know that as youth unemployment increases so juvenile crime increases. Therefore, the Government’s responsibility for directly increasing unemployment, especially among young people, gives them a direct responsibility for the increase in juvenile crime. This is not to excuse crime, but if we are to solve the problem we must understand its causes and tackle them.

    We know also—Government reports have borne this out—that dark corners of rundown ill-lit estates attract muggers and vandalism. The Government’s cuts in housing have a direct effect on crime in our inner cities.

    Increasing the powers of the police, especially their powers randomly to stop and search—it seems that what the Government will be providing in their police Bill will amount to random stop and search—will do nothing to attack the causes of crime. However, what it will do—and we know this to be so—is to strain further the relations between the police and the public. It will alienate further the police from the public they are supposed to serve and make it harder for the police to do their job. If the Government are serious about wanting to improve the relationship between the police and the public, they should bring London’s police under the control of locally and democratically elected people. Statutory consultation will not do. The police will consult, but having done so they can and will be able to go their own way.

    The effect of Government policies on Peckham is no accident. It is not the effect of the mismanagement of a Government who have got their sums wrong but the politics of inequality. There is no need for the tragic waste of talent of the young person in Peckham who would make an excellent electrician or carpenter but who cannot find an apprenticeship, let alone a job. There is no need for people to remain homeless while building workers are on the dole and while land becomes a blight because it is empty and becomes an eyesore. There is no need for pensioners to go to bed halfway through the afternoon as the winter approaches because they cannot afford to pay their heating bills, let alone the standing charges. There is no need for young mothers to become depressed as they struggle to bring up children in small flats with no nursery facilities and no play facilities in the area.

    There is no need for any of that because we are a wealthy nation. We are rich in oil and natural gas and rich in the skills of the work force. But we must plan to use this wealth to put people back to work, to build homes and hospitals and to provide the schools and services that millions need. We must increase the wages of the low paid to stop the gulf of inequality that is opening up and to put spending power back in people’s pockets to regenerate the economy. During the recent by-election some reports painted Peckham as little better than a dump. It is not a dump, and such reports and such descriptions have been deeply offensive to the people of Peckham, who are struggling to make their area a decent place in which to live, to work and to bring up their children. This Government are making that struggle much harder.

    The Government have taken to talking about “the inner city problem”. They point to places such as Peckham and talk about “this problem”. That is completely the wrong way round. The Government do not have an inner city problem; but the inner cities have a Government problem. It is not the people of Peckham who are the problem. The problem lies with those on the Government Benches who are deciding Government policies. It is about time that we stopped criticising the inner city areas and started criticising the Government.

     

  • Harriet Harman – 2013 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, to the 2013 Labour Party conference.

    Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, speaking to Labour Party Annual Conference 2013 in Brighton, said:

    Conference, this week, we’ve packed in hours of debate; hundreds of fringe meetings; and most importantly delivered a One Nation fiscal stimulus for the bars of Brighton.

    We began on Saturday at our fantastic Labour Women’s Conference – with 1,000 women. The biggest political gathering of women at any party conference, ever.

    Proving, once again, Labour is the only party for women.

    And what a contrast with the other parties.

    David Cameron believes that women should be seen and not heard – and that’s especially when it comes to his Cabinet.

    And as for the UKIP conference – where to begin?

    What can you say about the human car crash that is Godfrey Bloom? A man so unreconstructed, he makes Jeremy Clarkson look like a Fabian.

    But Godfrey, all is not lost.

    You’ve got some time on your hands now – so we’ve arranged a special emergency session for you.

    At the “Harriet Harperson Institute of Political Correctness”.

    And Godfrey, the good news is that I, myself, will be there to give you some advanced ‘one to one’ training.

    And we’ll start with you whisking that Dyson round the back of my fridge.

    And as for the Liberal Democrats – Lib Dem women are an endangered species.

    Our Women’s Conference was a women-only event. But Yvette and I decided we would do a bit of positive action and let one man in – our leader Ed Miliband and he got a fantastic reception.

    The Shadow Chancellor wanted to come too – but we had to say to him “sorry we’ve already got a man on the platform – and he’s called Ed.”

    Conference, in Ed Miliband we have a great leader.

    Ed, we hoped you’d do a good speech yesterday, but you gave an amazing speech.

    Ed has an unerring ability to understand the concerns that people have in their everyday lives.

    It was Ed who warned that we are seeing, for the first time, a generation who won’t do as well as the one that went before. That’s something every parent worries about.

    Then while Cameron and Clegg wallowed in complacency, Ed was the one who spoke up about the cost of living crisis.

    And when Ed sees something’s wrong, he will not shrink from the challenge.

    He will never say:

    – it’s just too difficult;

    – or the odds are stacked against us

    – or you’ll have to put up with it – because the energy companies are just too powerful.

    Ed fights for what’s right. People often feel that in this day and age there are forces which are just too big and powerful for politics to make a difference.

    But Ed has shown – even from opposition – the ability to make change.

    He stood up against phone hacking.

    He averted David Cameron’s rush to war in Syria.

    And he has shown that politics can make a difference.

    But Ed is about a new kind of politics. And that shines through in everything he does. Like when he got egged.

    You can really see the change.

    When John Prescott got egged, he was massively angry and threw a punch.

    When Ed Miliband got egged, his immediate thought was ‘Oh God – I really hope this is free range’ That’s just the kind of guy he is.

    And Ed is a leader who listens. To the people he meets and the party he leads.

    And that’s why yesterday on this stage, he moved Labour from being a party of protest which understands people’s concerns – to a party of policies which will address those concerns.

    Better childcare – for mothers who tear their hair out trying to balance work and home.

    Freezing fuel bills – how can you feel the warm glow of recovery if you can’t turn your heating on.

    And helping the next generation get their first home by putting housing at the heart of our mission and getting Britain building again.

    So now – every single one of us – our shadow cabinet, MPs, MEPs, Peers, Councillors, our great parliamentary candidates, representatives from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, trade unionists, our members and supporters.

    Our whole Labour team in every part of this country, will get out on the doorstep and give people hope that their lives can be better than this. Britain can do better than this.

    Our momentum comes not just from our policies – but from the people in our party – the whole Labour team. We are a party that has grown.

    Just look at the membership.

    Since the General Election, our membership is up by 17 per cent.

    Since David Cameron became leader of the Tories their membership is down 40 per cent.

    We now have more members than the Tories and the Lib Dems put together.

    We are working hard and campaigning in communities all around the country.

    But we all know that we could be doing more – particularly to reach out to and involve people at work. After all, Labour is the party of people at work.

    The plan for party reform that Ed is proposing is not to weaken the relationship between Labour and trade union members – it is to make it a reality – especially at local level.

    And I want to spell out what is obvious and what is true but needs saying.

    We are fiercely proud of the link between our party and trade unionists. That link is at the heart of our history and will be an essential part of our future.

    Because while the Tories are bankrolled by a handful of millionaires – we are a movement of millions of working people.

    But these men and women are under attack.

    And so when David Cameron attacks trade unionists and stokes up hatred against them we will stand up for them.

    Because we know with the Tories – it’s one rule for them and their privileged friends – and another for everyone else.

    The rich will work harder if you cut their taxes.

    Make the poor work harder by slashing their benefits.

    Under – occupy a mansion – well you need protecting – so of course we can’t have a Mansion Tax.

    Under occupy a council home – tough – pay the bedroom tax or face eviction.

    Well, not under a Labour Government. We will axe this cruel, useless, hated tax.

    And speaking of cruel, useless and hated, let’s spend a moment thinking about how good it will feel to kick out this miserable government.

    When it came to austerity, they said “we’re all in it together”.

    But they’re not saying that about the recovery.

    It cannot be a recovery that’s only for the rich and not the rest.

    And what about the Lib Dems?

    They say they are in coalition. But look what they do in Westminster?

    Week in week out – the Tories bring forward their nasty policies and the Lib Dems – they vote them through.

    They call it coalition – we call it collusion.

    And then Nick Clegg had the nerve to stand up at his conference and claim that he had been a brake on the Tories.

    With the Lib Dems, it’s not just collusion – it’s delusion.

    Here’s a little reminder of just some of the things the Lib Dems voted for.

    – putting up VAT,

    – slashing tax credits,

    – cutting police,

    – trebling tuition fees,

    – tax cuts for the richest

    – the bedroom tax and

    – let’s not forget the top down reorganisation of our NHS – which no-one wanted and no-one voted for.

    One thing they did announce last week at their conference was they were going to bring in free school meals.

    But when Southwark Labour Council did exactly that last year – the Lib Dems bitterly opposed it.

    So, Nick Clegg, come to Southwark for a free school meal – and I’ll serve you a very large portion of humble pie.

    But it’s just not fair to say that Clegg has got no principles at all.

    He has got one principle – one that means a lot to him.

    That is, regardless of who’s in government, Nick Clegg must be Deputy Prime Minister.

    He wants to go on and on and on.

    No wonder Vince Cable looks so miserable – you almost have to feel sorry for him.

    So Conference – let’s have no talk about us being in coalition.

    Labour is not fighting for a draw.

    Labour is fighting to win.

    Conference, we know we face a huge task.

    It’s barely three years since we were kicked out of government.

    The Tories will fight a dirty, vicious campaign.

    And Lynton Crosby will be the ring-master for the right wing press.

    But remember – this is not a popular government.

    They stand up for the wrong people.

    They’ve failed on the economy.

    They’re ruining the NHS.

    And people know it.

    So yes – it is tough.

    We will not lose our nerve.

    Because the polls which are most important, are the ones where people actually vote.

    And in local councils up and down this country, the Tories are losing seats, the Lib Dems are losing seats and it is Labour who is making gains.

    Since Ed Miliband became leader, we have gained 1,950 new Labour Councillors.

    Conference – those are the polls you won’t read about in the newspapers but those are the polls that count.

    So it is tough – but we can do it.

    The General Election is there for the taking.

    So, Conference, while we are in no doubt about the scale of our task, we leave here determined to do whatever it takes to kick out this miserable coalition and fight for a Labour government.

  • Harriet Harman – 2013 Speech to Labour Arts Policy Event

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, to the Labour Arts Policy Event held on 12th February 2013.

    Introduction

    Thank you all for coming today and for the Soho Theatre for hosting us.

    I think we all feel that we meet at an important moment for the arts and our creative industries

    A moment of huge opportunities – matched only by the scale of the threats.

    Arts are successful

    Stepping back, there is no doubt that the arts are hugely successful, internationally admired and rightly self confident, creating jobs, generating revenue, earning foreign currency, reaching into all parts of the country, extending opportunities and generally doing what art and culture does – enriching the life of the nation and developing the human potential of each and every individual.

    Art is something we are very good at in this country. We’ve got great cultural and artistic traditions and are at the cutting edge for the future – the Olympics opening ceremony reminded everyone of that.

    There is no shortage of success to marvel at and enthusiasm to go yet further.

    But no-one here is lulled by that into a false sense of security. We know that the success that we see now has been built over many years. Above all, by the talent and determination of our artistic and creative community but also, critically, nurtured with the support of public policy, backing from government and local government.

    And it is that essential support which is now threatened

    Why did Jeremy Hunt think it was alright to cut the Arts Council by 30 per cent?

    Why did Gove think it was OK to kick the arts out of the curriculum?

    Why did Osborne think it was alright to stigmatise arts patrons as tax dodgers?

    Why is Eric Pickles getting away with crushing local government’s ability to support arts in their communities?

    And why doesn’t Maria Miller realise that it’s her job to fight back against this – instead just telling the arts they’ve never had it so good?

    My worry is that what we have here is a brazen and wholesale government retreat from public policy backing for the arts and our creative industries.

    Role of government

    No-one thinks that the role of the state is to control or direct art, but the state must play its part:

    –  ensuring the curriculum has arts and creativity running through it so that for every child and in all schools, education includes the arts

    –  ensuring that all children have out of school opportunities – after school, in school holidays.

    –  ensuring that the Arts Council is well supported and funded

    –  ensuring that local government is able to support the arts locally and regionally, and

    –  that all of this has to be championed and protected by a strong central government department .

    It’s government’s role to underpin the platform on which the arts build other support and to ensure that it is available for all people in all areas.

    Importance of speaking up for the arts

    But even if the culture department is failing to speak up for the arts – you are – and all credit to you for doing so.

    Your voice is strong and important and you have our backing.

    If we don’t fight to protect the arts, the price will be paid in the future. Arts and culture takes years to build up. But can easily be so quickly destroyed. The price will be paid in inequality – arts increasingly the preserve of a privileged elite – concentrated in London.

    What needs to be done 

    So, what are we going to do about this?

    Or should I say, what next?

    I think it’s of the utmost important that you are not only doing your day jobs but also working together for the arts.

    You have the authority, the legitimacy, the commitment, to do that and with the respect you command, you are a powerful movement. Gove’s backdown on the EBacc was in no small part due to the leadership you gave from the arts against it.

    But because I don’t think he’s genuinely changed his mind we’ll have to keep a close eye to make sure he doesn’t just pause and try and sneak it in again.

    Remaking the argument for the arts

    I think it’s right that you are remaking the arguments for the arts. The case has always been there – we made it, together, in the run up to 1997. It was the reason we trebled the budget of the Arts Council, strengthened the DCMS, empowered artistic renaissance in the great cities of our regions.

    But there is a new generation who’ve emerged during a time of flowering of the arts who now need to hear and be confident in making the case. And there’s a generation of the public who have no idea about the scale and importance of public funding in the arts.

    Perhaps it was because no-one felt they needed to draw attention to it, because the funding could be relied upon. Or was it, perhaps, partly out of a hesitation about drawing attention to public subsidy it in case that might jeopardise it.

    But whatever the reason, go to any institution or read any programme and the names of the donors are up in lights but the contribution – the collective contribution of the taxpayer – is all but invisible. So the irony is that the cuts have been made easier because most people remain unaware of the important role of subsidy in the arts.

    Fighting back against the cuts

    I think it’s right that we fight back against the cuts. Even though it’s a very difficult time because the Government’s austerity programme is choking off economic growth and threatening public services. It is a difficult time. When the police are being cut, when home care support for dementia sufferers is being cut back, there is a fear that speaking up for the arts sounds like special pleading, or people not realising how tough it is out there, or that you’ll be making it worse by biting the hand that feeds you.

    But it’s not special pleading. You are not doing it for yourselves – you are doing it for all those children who still don’t have access to the arts; for the regions which will get left behind; for the opportunities it affords for economic growth; for the part it plays in our national identity.

    And even when it’s tough we still have to think about investment for the future in jobs, growth, opportunities, regeneration – which is what we know arts investment is.

    And, as for “biting the hand”, make no mistake, if there is no fight back against the cuts the Government will take that as a clear signal that they can come back for yet more.

    There is a great deal of support for that – including many on the Tory back benches concerned about the arts in their own area. So we will be highlighting that in the House of Commons, not just in oral questions to the Culture Secretary, but also make sure that every time Gove and Pickles answer oral questions they are challenged about what they are doing to the arts.

    And because there is concern in parts of the Tory backbenches as well as massive concern on our side, we will have, in opposition time in the near future, a full scale debate and vote in the House of Commons and bringing the Culture Secretary to the House to answer all the arguments you are making.

    Survival strategy for the arts

    As well as making the case for the arts and fighting back against the cuts we need to forge a survival strategy for the arts. And I know you are doing that through innovative thinking and partnerships between you, with the Arts Council, through philanthropy and with local government.

    And to help and support our local councillors in playing that role with you, Dan and I have set up the Creative Councillors Network with the LGA Labour group, to bring together, brainstorm and lend support to the Labour councils and councillors to ensure that whilst facing the biggest cuts to local government in a generation they are able to continue to sustain the foundations for the arts in their area.

    As their ability to give grants diminishes, they will all be doing more of the non-revenue things that can make such a difference, such as:

    –  Using the grant of planning permission to leverage investment into the arts

    –  Using public spaces, buildings, parks, empty shops for the arts

    –  Allowing their capital assets to be used as security for loans

    –  Sharing their back office facilities with arts organisations

    –  Bending over backwards to grant licenses for the performing arts

    –  Offering market stalls at peppercorn rents.

    And they have just set up Core Cities which brings together Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield and which will discuss how councils – even in the most challenging of times – can and will continue to support the arts.

    Planning for a future arts policy 

    And we need to plan for the future.

    We’ve been working on our 5 point plan for jobs and growth in arts and the creative industries:

    – young people and skills

    –  access to finance – including scope for crowd funding of equity and loans as well as gifts

    –  a strong championing of intellectual property

    –  a specific focus on our regions

    –  exporting and inward investment.

    In all our discussions on this we work together with Chuka Umunna on Business, Ed Balls on Treasury issues, Stephen Twigg on Education and of course Hillary Benn on Local Government who will be here with us later.

    We hope to get back in to government – so now is the time firmly to re-establish the case for the arts in public policy and work up a clear plan for a 21st Century arts policy.

    2015 is when we want to start doing it – so the thinking and the planning must be now.

    So I hope that we can work together to forge a programme for our manifesto for the vision for arts policy for 2015 and beyond.