UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • David Cameron – 2006 Speech at Equal Opportunities Commission Event

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 13 March 2006.

    The Conservative Party and the Equal Opportunities Commission share a common goal.

    We want to make sexual inequality history.

    That needs a serious commitment.

    It needs clear policies.

    And it needs leadership.

    What I’d like to do today is look at some of the problems we face and outline some solutions.

    It’s not a comprehensive package.

    You wouldn’t expect it to be at this stage in the policy cycle.

    But I hope you’ll agree it’s a fair start.

    You explained that the Conservative Party has a credibility problem in this area …

    … that we haven’t said enough about this subject in the past.

    Clearly we have work to do.

    One cause of our reticence is a source of some strength as well as a source of weakness.

    We respect the private sphere.

    We have a reluctance to tell people and institutions – including our own party – what to do.

    We are not great at signing up to grandiloquent charters. We prefer practical measures

    But this should mean that when we do make commitments, we really mean them – and will then go on to do what ever is necessary to deliver them.

    More Conservative Women MPs

    As practical people, it is only right that we should start with our own party.

    That is why the first speech that I made as leader was about electing more women MPs.

    I believe that the gross under-representation of women on the Conservative benches short changes not only women but also the Party itself.

    How can we draw on all the talents of the country when we habitually exclude half the population?

    I’ve put in place an action plan – the Priority List – which gives Conservative Associations the opportunity to select candidates from a pool of very talented people. Half of them will be women.

    Of course, in any individual selection process the best candidate may be a man.

    But, and this is the key point, it’s just as likely to be a woman.

    This change in selection procedures is a huge exercise.

    All selections for Westminster seats have been stopped.

    All candidates have been made to reapply to the list.

    And if, after a few selections, we find that an unacceptably low proportion of selected candidates are women we will take further action.

    I will do what is necessary to ensure that the Conservative Party will have far more women MPs after the next election.

    A better balance of men and women in our party is not just about fairness, it’s about effectiveness.

    Ask 10 men and 10 women what they think are the big issues of the day and you might get the same answers.

    I doubt it …but you might

    Ask them to rank those issues in order of priority, or to raise issues of particular concern to them, and some fundamental differences will start to appear.

    The point is a simple one – I want the Conservative party to understand and reflect the priorities of modern Britain. Unless we look and think like modern Britain that is far more difficult to achieve.

    Put another way, I want the conversation within the Conservative party to be more like the conversation we should be having with the rest of the country.

    Childcare

    In many households – including my own – the topic that comes up the most often in conversation is childcare.

    It’s something few families with children can avoid.

    Fifteen years ago, 59 per cent of women of working age with dependent children were in paid employment.

    Today that figure has shot up to 68 per cent.

    And the group of women who are entering the workplace most rapidly are mothers of children up to age four.

    It’s up to us as a society to give mums the support they need.

    Some may choose to stay at home and that’s a valid and worthwhile choice.

    But the majority will return to work and that’s an equally valid and worthwhile choice.

    Society shouldn’t try to direct women but to direct help to women where it’s most needed.

    Before the last election we agreed with the Government’s proposals for extending maternity leave.

    In addition we supported the idea of allowing mums to take the additional money but over a shorter time period. That is something we should consider again.

    Instead of imposing a choice on mothers, we should support the choices that mothers make for themselves.

    Mothers who work should not be made to feel guilty. Nor should mothers who stay at home.

    Let us stop trying to tell families how to live their lives.

    Let us instead support the lives that families live.

    As George Osborne has said, there are three principles that should guide my party when thinking about childcare and parenting.

    Providing financial support for the childcare choices that families themselves make; not using financial support as a stick to force parents into a particular choice.

    That means looking at whether we can expand the kinds of childcare supported by the childcare tax credit.

    Secondly, expanding the range of childcare choices available.

    That means ensuring the government does not seek a monopoly in the provision of childcare or nursery places and that voluntary and private providers are not crowded out.

    And third, realising that government has a role in protecting the careers of women who want to take time off to look after their children, particularly when they are just born.

    Many good employers offer generous maternity support. They understand the importance of a motivated, happy and loyal workforce.

    But we do need to provide legal protection to those who are not fortunate enough to work for those businesses.

    More flexible working

    One of the reasons that many women don’t go back to work after having a baby is that flexibility isn’t an option.

    This can be a loss to them to their employer and to the economy.

    We need innovation in working practices to allow more women to work again.

    Flexible working is the way forward for serious employers.

    85 per cent of Microsoft’s UK workforce works flexibly.

    As a result the company has better retention rates and higher morale than before.

    And the example of JetBlue’s ‘homesourcing’ programme in the US is an interesting one.

    With 400 women employees almost always working from home, taking customer bookings online, they are at the vanguard of flexible working.

    And their employees are happier, and as a result – more productive.

    And it isn’t only American firms who are making changes.

    A hi-tech manufacturing firm in my constituency has introduced almost totally flexible hours, with employees told to work their 38 hour week on their terms.

    That’s good news for everyone but women are particularly happy about a system that recognises their responsibilities and meets their needs.

    But the benefits of flexible working are not universally understood.

    The EOC’s own research suggests that a majority of managers are not yet comfortable with it.

    Our job is to help get the message out.

    Flexible working is good for women, good for employers and good for society.

    And it’s particularly important for modern families – especially with only 10 per cent of people working nine to five.

    We come in all shapes and sizes and we want the ability to mould our work ours to suit our family circumstances – not the other way round.

    Equal Pay

    Closing the pay gap must be at the heart of our commitment to end inequality.

    After thirty years of the Equal Pay Act, women’s pay is still nearly a fifth lower than men’s – and for women working part-time, the pay gap is around 40 per cent.

    The fact that the Act was passed thirty years ago, and yet the pay gap is still so wide proves that there is no magic wand.

    I believe one of the most potent tools in ending this scandal is much greater transparency.

    We need to challenge the culture of secrecy about pay that holds sway in too many British workplaces.

    I know it is easier said than done in some situations.

    It’s no secret how much I earn – or Jenny, for that matter.

    But many employees have no idea how much their co-workers are paid.

    It’s in this climate of concealment that unfairness can thrive.

    How can you challenge the facts if you’re not allowed to know them?

    Of course there are complex situations where it may not be possible or pertinent for people to know their colleagues salaries, but instead of asking “why should I be transparent” , employers and employees should be asking “why not”.

    Transparency should be the norm, not the exception.

    And all of us need to change our cultural attitudes to pay by being much more open.

    In these areas – childcare, equal pay, flexibility – it’s not just that we have an obligation to help deliver equality, we will be failing our economy if we don’t.

    Pensions

    The next issue I want to mention – women and pensions – is far more one of straightforward unfairness.

    Many people don’t realise that the full state pension is not automatic.

    Women who take time out from working in order to bring up children or look after elderly relatives are placed at a severe disadvantage.

    Those who have made National Insurance contributions for less than 10 years don’t count.

    That’s almost one and a half million women excluded from pension entitlements.

    We have to make sure that the reform of the pension system that follows from the Turner report provides a fairer deal for women.

    At the last election, David Willetts put forward some interesting ideas about allowing people who had taken career breaks to care for children or relatives to buy back lost years.

    He also suggested that the ten-year rule on contributions should be abolished.

    We must look at correcting some of the worst inequities of the past as well as ensuring fairness and equality for the future.

    Carers

    The last area I want to discuss is one I feel incredibly strongly about. Carers.

    One in eight of the population is a carer.

    It’s estimated that carers save the Treasury £57 billion every year.

    58 per cent of them are women, and 67 per cent of working age.

    Only 16 per cent are able to work full time, with work being totally out of the question for more than one million carers looking after someone for more than 50 hours per week.

    Often, with a complicated benefits system, the state makes life harder for them and not easier.

    I help care for a severely disabled child – my son.

    It’s what I do at the start of each day. It’s sharpened my focus on the world of care assessments, eligibility criteria, disability living allowance, respite breaks, OTs, SENCOs, and other sets of initials.

    But I would not dare to call myself a carer.

    The work that full-time carers or those with little extra help do is unbelievable.

    They risk ill health. They battle with bureaucracy. They give up work. They often give up much of life. And they do it to ensure that someone they love stays at home rather than going to an institution.

    We don’t do enough to celebrate that work, and thank these tireless people.

    And we don’t do enough to help them.

    There is a big agenda for the Conservative party to drive forward.

    Why is it, according to a recent Mencap survey, that only 22 per cent of the parents of severely disabled children get more than 2 hours help per week from the state?

    Why do only a fifth get any respite at all?

    So we need to consider clear rights to respite care.

    Why is it that more than a quarter of the budget used to support carers is lost in “assessment and commissioning costs” instead of going to where it is needed most?

    So we should look at expanding direct payments, putting money in the hands of carers and those in need of care to provide for themselves.

    Helping carers is the best way to help those they are caring for.

    Conclusion

    Jenny asked in her speech – can the Conservative Party be the true party of the modern family.

    My answer is a big “yes”.

    She points the way by saying that we must combine our traditional position of support for the family with our belief in choice for everyone.

    That’s right.

    My personal belief in the importance of family is based on my own experience, yes. But it is also based on the answer to a very simple question.

    Which institution in our society does more than any other …to care for the elderly … to look after the disabled …. to bring up children with the right values … to pick up the pieces when things go wrong with drugs, alcohol, or mental health …

    … and which institution does all of these things for free?

    It’s the family.

    Thank you again for today.

    Quite rightly you will set a simple test for our policies. It will be the same one that I set.

    In all the areas I have mentioned – pay, child care, pensions, flexibility and the gender balance of my own party – will our policies help to eradicate inequality and deliver fairness?

    And when it comes to the family: do our policies encourage families to come together and stay together and be that strong force at the heart of our society we all want to see?

    These are vital tests – and ones that I am determined to meet.

  • Oliver Letwin – 2006 Speech at the Policy Exchange

    Oliver Letwin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Oliver Letwin at the Policy Exchange on 16 March 2006.

    “I want to speak today about where Conservative policy comes from and about where it is going.

    But, before I do that, I want to begin by saying how refreshing it is to find myself here, making this speech.

    Policy Exchange was founded by my friends and colleagues, Francis Maude, Archie Norman, and Michael Gove at a time when the Conservative Party’s fortunes were at a low ebb. Today, from those slight foundations, under the brilliant guidance of Nicholas Boles, it has become one of the seminal influences on political debate in Britain. And — a particular pleasure to me — it is now chaired by my best man, Charles Moore.

    To say that I feel at home here would be an understatement.

    But it would also be an understatement to say that circumstances have somewhat changed since the foundation of Policy Exchange.

    The dark days of the Conservative Party are past.

    The sunlit uplands now beckon.

    We know that reaching them and ascending them will involve a long route-march followed by a steep climb.

    But we can at least see them clearly before us. And we now possess two items that every mountaineer requires: a compass and a map..

    My aim today is to describe the direction indicated by the compass and the route shown by the map.

    Let me start with the compass-bearing.

    In what direction does it point?

    It points towards a government that supports society more and dominates society less.

    I hope this does not surprise you. It ought not to do so. The desire to see the state supporting society rather than dominating society, is the enduring characteristic of conservative thinking.

    That is the deep instinct from which all our policy will spring.

    We have expressed it in two slogans, “trusting people” and “sharing responsibility”.

    These slogans are, for us, central.

    The conviction that government should trust people more and dominate them less springs from the view that our society is more complicated and subtle than is dreamt of in the philosophies of Whitehall departments, agencies and inspectorates.

    We believe that the people best equipped to organise anything are typically those who are involved in it.

    We think this is true of families, schools, hospitals, businesses, villages, towns and cities.

    But this doesn’t mean that we think government should wash its hands of all these things. To have a strong sense of the limitations of government is not to lack aspirations for government.

    When we say that we believe in shared responsibility, we mean that we acknowledge the responsibility for government to support society — to establish a stable framework of expectation that enables all our people, through their various social relations, to make a civilized life for themselves.

    Our vision, in short, is of a government that opens opportunity rather than of a government that directs society.

    Before I go any further, I want to pause, to reflect on how that centre-right view differs from the view currently espoused by the centre-left and on how it marks out Modern, Compassionate Conservatism.

    The difference between our view and the centre-left view lies in the fact that, for the centre-left, the default position is direction by the state.

    The rhetoric of the centre-left does not always disclose this default postion. Indeed, in the hands of the most Blairite proponents of New Labour, the rhetoric frequently tends in the opposite direction. The intelligent Mr Miliband, for example, talks glowingly of ‘double-devolution’. By this, he apparently means devolving power to local authorities and then devolving it further to the entities governed by local authorities, including social enterprises. So far, so excellent.

    But I fear we shall find that, in practice, this alleged “double-devolution” results in centralisation — with the government constraining the bodies to whom power is ostensibly devolved with a welter of centrally imposed targets, performance monitoring, inspections, specific grants and the like.

    Why do I say this? Because the trend of the present Government’s actions, as opposed to its rhetoric, has been to seek centralist and directive solutions whenever a specific, centrally determined goal is not being achieved at high speed. Speak to professionals in our schools, hospitals and police forces, and you will find them echoing that view. Speak to the social enterprises and voluntary bodies, and you will hear endless tales of the lengths to which they have to go to fit their actual projects into the highly targeted and ever-changing initiatives and schemes devised by Whitehall.

    Actions, as they say, speak louder than words — and the only plausible conclusion when one looks at the actions rather than the words is that the centre-left instinct to solve social problems through central government direction is thoroughly intact.

    This willingness of the centre-left to engage in central direction is linked in an interesting way with their desire for short-term results.

    If your main concern is with the long-term sustainability of arrangements and changes, then you want them to run with the grain. You want them to emerge, so far as possible, from choices and decisions made voluntarily by participants in civil society — because choices made that way are more likely to last.

    But if you are impatient, if what you want is rapid results, then you are far more likely to get what you want by imposing it through central authority. Of course, if you do things that way, you pay the penalty that, when central authority alters its focus or removes its interest, there is likely to be a reversion. But by then perhaps people — or the media — will have moved on, and in the meanwhile the coup of the initial, fast result has been obtained.

    And that, I fear, is pretty much a thumbnail sketch of much of the recent modus operandi of the centre-left in Britain. Centrally imposed measure, causing a media stir in the short term, followed by unexpected (but actually predictable) failure to achieve sustainable change in the long-term.

    So there is a clear distinction between our long-term, centre-right approach of trusting people more and dominating them less, and the yearning of the centre-left for short-term results, with their consequent readiness to default to central direction whenever those results are not immediately forthcoming.

    But our approach is also, distinctively, a modern and compassionate approach.

    Its modernity lies in a new agenda which addresses the great challenges of our time. I shall return to that agenda in a moment.

    What marks our approach as compassionate is the centrality of our concern with social justice.

    We want today’s modern, compassionate Conservative Party to be the party that offers a way back in for the unemployed, the homeless, the disabled, the refugee, the orphan, the drug-addict, for those who have been kept out and for those who have been shut out, for those who have lost out and for those who have dropped out, for all the victims of state failure.

    In the recent past, despite various efforts on our part to rectify the perception, too many people have imagined that we were somehow a Party focussing solely or mainly on a quite different set of people — those who can look after themselves, or the rich.

    Of course, we wish there to be in Britain opportunities for all people of every kind.

    But the focus of modern compassionate conservatism is not on those who can look after themselves. It is on those who are most in need. Our intention, in using government to support society, is that society should thereby be enabled to support the least advantaged.

    So, on the one side, we have the centre-left, defaulting to short-term, centralist, statist solutions. And, on the other side, we have a Modern, Compassionate Conservative Party — a Party of the centre-right, which sees its task as using government to support society, in order that society can sustainably provide opportunity for those most in need of it.

    That is where the modern, compassionate conservative policy agenda comes from.

    The next question is: where is it going?

    And the first answer is: towards a coherent policy programme.

    This may sound like an obvious statement.

    Who wouldn’t want a policy programme?

    Who would want an incoherent policy programme?

    But I should bring to your attention that, if the desire is obvious, the fulfilment of the desire is anything but obvious.

    I do not believe that the Government can claim, at this stage in its term of office, to have anything recognisable as a coherent policy programme. If you ask how its policy on housing coheres with its policy on carbon-emissions, or how its policy on localisation ties in with its police amalgamations, or how its fiscal policy ties in with its policy on competitiveness and productivity, you will not find it easy to give convincing answers.

    I will pass over, in respectful silence, the question of the coherence of Liberal-Democrat policy.

    But I fully recognise that we, too, over recent years, have found it dauntingly difficult to establish a coherent policy programme.

    Part of the reason for this is that the world is complicated.

    It is fairly easy to stipulate an array of desirable policy outcomes. But — because the world is a complicated place — it is genuinely difficult to find means of satisfying all of the desires simultaneously.

    A serious policy programme therefore has to rescue coherence out of the real-world tensions, by establishing how the greatest possible proportion of any given desired outcome can be achieved without sacrificing too much of the other desired outcomes.

    This requires imagination, foresight and hard work. It cannot be achieved in a rush.

    A Party in opposition, in the early stages of a Parliament, has the time to do it properly.

    But, to do it properly, one has to find the right way of asking the right people the right questions. And that is exactly the process in which we are now engaged.

    Let me start with the questions.

    First of all, they don’t come in neat boxes — certainly not the neat boxes gift-wrapped by Whitehall departments.

    So we have not asked our Quality of Life Policy Group to think about our transport policy, or our energy policy, or our housing and planning policy, or our climate change policy, or our wider environmental policy. We have instead asked them to think about all these things together — because they are all connected with one another.

    And then we’ve invited our Economic Competitiveness Group to look at these same things (along with some other items) but asking a different question — not how they affect our quality of life, but how they affect our competitiveness.

    Two policy groups, each asking the same questions? Yes — and probably getting different answers.

    Why? Because the world is a complicated place, and because both quality of life and economic competitiveness count, and because we know that it is only by resolving the tensions that arise when we consider the same areas of policy from both angles that we can develop a policy programme that is coherent and built to last.

    And of course the questions we have asked our policy groups to address — the angles from which we have asked them to look at the complicated world — are not arbitrary. We have asked them to consider what we think are the most difficult and important questions facing Britain today — How do we improve our quality of life and do our bit to protect our planet? How do we become more economically competitive? How do we do more to relieve global poverty in the face of globalisation? How do we improve our public services? How do we strengthen national and international security and increase community cohesion? How do we bring social justice to a Britain in which so many of our fellow-citizens are trapped in multiple deprivation?

    I am not suggesting that these are the only questions to be asked. Some others — very important in themselves — will need to be considered, such as the measures required to strengthen our democracy, which Ken Clarke and his team are looking at in a separate task force.

    But I do say that any policy programme which can answer those questions convincingly will be a programme worthy of a government for this country.

    Such a policy programme is exactly what we need to build out of the work of the policy groups. And when we come to that great architectural project, we shall know that the bricks out of which we are fashioning the building have been constructed with the aid of experts — because the people we have asked to work with us in these groups are real experts.

    And the strength of the groups lies not just in the experts within them, but also in the vast range of understanding and opinion upon which they will draw. It lies in the research they will commission, the evidence they will hear, the ideas and proposals they will receive from far and wide in what is undoubtedly the most transparent policy-making process yet developed by a major political party in Britain.

    So I think we can say that we have found a way of asking the right people the right questions.

    But, of course, we cannot end there.

    The really difficult work is yet to come in the later part of next year, when we come, as a Shadow Cabinet, to construct the programme on the basis of the analyses, suggestions and recommendations of the policy groups and task forces. We shall undoubtedly accept some of the recommendations unamended. But we shall also undoubtedly have to reject or modify many others in order to obtain a coherent whole that appropriately balances the competing objectives in a complicated world.

    And this, last stage is not, of course, one that can be left to the experts. There is a point at which, when the experts have said their say, the politicians have to make the judgements. We cannot escape, as a potential government, the responsibility for deciding on the difficult balances between competing objectives –because it is upon the ability to make those judgements that the success of a government depends.

    I cannot say that it will be easy, or that the work of the policy groups will make it easy.

    But I can say that it will be a considerable step forward for us and for our country if the Conservative Party is able go into the next election with a policy programme that constitutes a clear answer to the great political questions of our time, and if that answer is coherent in three senses — coherent in the sense of having resolved the tensions between conflicting aims, coherent in its remorseless focus on social justice, and coherent also in conforming, throughout, with the vision of a government that is there to support rather than to dominate society, so that the answers we propose to the great questions are long-term answers, answers that are built into the fabric of society, built sustainably, built to last.

  • Jeremy Wright – 2019 Speech on the Value of Culture

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, the Media and Sport, on 18 January 2019.

    Thank you very much for that introduction Martin.

    I couldn’t agree more about the importance of the UK City of Culture and the huge impact it can have on the cities that hold the title.

    As some of you will know, during its year as UK City of Culture, the city of Hull added 300 million pounds to the local economy and created 800 new jobs.

    But perhaps more remarkably, and perhaps more importantly, over 95 per cent of its population attended a cultural event in the course of that year as City of Culture.

    And in two years time, it’s Coventry’s turn. What Hull’s experience showed and what I am convinced Coventry’s experience will show, is that culture really matters.

    It matters to the wellbeing of us as individuals, it matters to the health of our communities and it matters to the strength of our nation.

    So first, let me say something about us as individuals.

    Recent analysis of the Understanding Society survey painted a compelling picture of the impact that the arts can have on our development and wellbeing.

    It showed how engagement with the arts is linked with higher happiness and self-esteem in young people, helping them to foster feelings of personal pride and achievement.

    Adults who make more frequent visits to libraries, arts events or cultural sites tend to have better health and well-being than those who visit infrequently.

    So culture plays a big part in making us healthier and happier people. But it also provides some of the answers to complex questions around the future of employment and productivity.

    Creativity is increasingly recognised as a vital skill by employers and educators alike. In many ways, it is the most future proof skill we can have.

    Automation is set to further transform the way we live and work. And this means the attributes that can’t be replicated by machines, like creativity, empathy and ingenuity, will be at a premium.

    Nobody has yet developed an algorithm that can create an Oscar winning film, or create a TV show that drives profound social change, like BBC’s Planet Earth.

    And the UK’s cultural and creative industries are a vital and growing part of our economy.

    They made a record contribution in 2017, more than a 100 billion pounds for the first time.

    And they will be providing good jobs for a long time to come.

    The challenge is how to help our young people to see the range of careers that culture has to offer.

    And wherever they come from and whatever they look like, to help them see themselves pursuing those careers.

    But we don’t have to make a living through culture for culture to change the way we live.

    How we engage with culture of all kinds can change the way we see the world and the way we see ourselves, and that is particularly true when we are young.

    When I was 13, the same age as my daughter is now, I was persuaded to act in the school play. Now I don’t remember the reviews, most of them anyway, but I still feel the benefit to my self-confidence.

    So much so that I can still make the connection between standing on that stage then and standing on this stage now, not to mention the stages, real and metaphorical, I have stood on in between, performing in the courtroom and in the Commons.

    And it’s not just me of course.

    Look at the alumni of our world renowned National Youth Theatre.

    They are not only celebrated actors like Helen Mirren, Daniel Day-Lewis and Idris Elba, but also writers, musicians and journalists who have been able to transfer the skills they learned to thrive in their chosen career.

    Skills of self-confidence, teamwork and dedication are eminently transferable, and they are learned through the opportunities arts and culture can offer.

    And I want more young people to be able to take advantage of these opportunities.

    And so in September I was delighted to announce a 5 million pound pilot to create youth performance partnerships across England.

    This scheme will bring arts organisations and schools together to teach practical performance skills, both on and off stage, to those who wouldn’t have the chance otherwise.

    It will also link primary and secondary schools with playwrights to give children the opportunity to perform new works by up and coming writers, from diverse backgrounds and from across the UK.

    I’m pleased to have seen some really strong bids and I’m looking forward to making the final announcement of the successful bidders in the Spring.

    I know my colleagues at the Department for Education share our ambition in these areas. And I will be working with them to bring the benefits of drama, dance, art, music and more to a greater number of young people.

    But culture of course can make all of us healthier, happier and safer.

    My department is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, and NHS England, to support greater use of social prescribing, in particular to address loneliness and help people with their mental health.

    Evaluation of existing projects in England has shown that prescribed arts and reading programmes can reduce anxiety, depression and lead to an increase in feelings of social inclusion – strengthening communities and giving people a sense of belonging.

    And I very much welcome the Secretary of State for Health’s recent speech on the value of arts and health.

    And I look forward to social prescribing becoming a mainstream part of NHS delivery, with 60 per cent of Clinical Commissioning Groups currently supporting the delivery of social prescribing projects.

    So culture can offer us opportunities, teach us about ourselves and even help to keep us healthy.

    But it can also help to offer us second chances. I had the privilege of serving as Minister for Prisons and Rehabilitation for two years.

    In that time I came across offenders who painted, sculpted and even sang opera as part of their rehabilitation. And in many cases it worked.

    It worked because those things provided an outlet, they offered a sometimes new experience of excelling at something, and for some, indicated a lawful way to make a living.

    We can all benefit from access to the arts and we should all be able to.

    And so I welcome the Arts Council England’s clear indication that they want to use the next 10 year strategy to further increase participation.

    The Creative People and Places programme has already been hugely important – reaching 2 million people who would not ordinarily participate in art and culture.

    It gives local communities the chance to make decisions to shape the culture they want in their local area.

    And I wholeheartedly support today’s announcement from the Arts Council that they will be investing an additional 27 million pounds in this programme.

    Funding which will be targeted at places with the ‘least engaged’ population in arts and culture, and that will build on the success of other projects that have previously received funding.

    I want every cultural organisation receiving public funding to have the objective of boosting participation.

    Because culture is good for us all.

    And it’s good for communities too, because our culture brings us together – through objects and experiences from which we can all take pleasure and pride.

    And I am sure none of us can remember a time when Britain has needed that power to unite more.

    So this week, of all weeks, I make the case for culture’s capacity to heal our wounds.

    Whatever our views on the European Union, we are proud of…

    Our film industry, which in the past five years has picked up 61 BAFTAs and 25 Oscars.

    We are proud of the impact of our hit shows like Sherlock, which are being enjoyed in over 230 territories across the world.

    And we are proud of our recording artists, who accounted for 8 of the top 10 artist albums in 2017.

    We share our culture. It belongs to us all.

    It can bring us together and we need it to do so now.

    We are the same country that united to host the Olympics and Paralympics with such warmth, pride and passion only a few years ago.

    A Games that not only showcased the world’s athletic talent but transformed attitudes to disability.

    Its famous opening ceremony was a celebration not just of a great country but of a united one – proud of things we achieved together. We need to remind ourselves of that.

    So this is a good time to make this case, and this is a good place to make it in.

    The City of Coventry stands as an international symbol of reconciliation, of bridging divides.

    It has achieved that not least through arts and culture.

    From Philip Larkin to the Specials, this is a city that has helped to shape our nation’s cultural history.

    And I am sure that record will be amplified in its year as City of Culture.

    And of course it isn’t just in cities of culture where culture must thrive.

    The year after Coventry’s year of culture we will hold a Festival that will celebrate the creativity that exists across the whole country.

    More immediately, we announced in the Autumn Budget, we will be providing 55 million pounds as part of the Future High Streets fund, dedicated to support the regeneration of high street heritage assets.

    Those much loved historic buildings that provide a sense of place, community identity and connectedness.

    Another example is the Cultural Development Fund, which we launched as part of the Creative Industries Sector Deal.

    This is an important part of the Government’s modern Industrial Strategy, which has seen over 150 million pounds jointly invested by Government and industry through the Creative Industries Sector Deal.

    Designed to help cultural and creative businesses across Britain thrive and consolidate the country’s position as a global creative and cultural powerhouse, and further support the view that culture is an integral part of our society and economy.

    And so this 20 million pound fund aims to strengthen our advantage as a creative nation by investing in culture, heritage and creativity to unlock economic growth and offer opportunities for regeneration.

    In the bids we’ve had we’ve seen cultural and creative leaders joining forces with local authorities and higher education to form partnerships and create distinctive bids.

    The quality of the bids was exceptionally high, and we should celebrate the fact that so many towns and cities are developing ambitions for investment in culture to drive growth.

    And today I am delighted to announce the places that were successful in receiving funding.

    The winning places are: Grimsby, Plymouth, the Thames Estuary in Kent and Essex, Wakefield and Worcester.

    Together, these successful projects are set to create over 1,300 new jobs, train and upskill over 2,000 people and leave a lasting legacy in their local communities.

    Take the Wakefield bid. Bringing together major and respected cultural organisations including Yorkshire Sculpture Park and The Hepworth, this project will help promote Wakefield to the world.

    And this is just one of several transformative projects that will be created thanks to this funding.

    Grimsby will focus on using public art to revive its historic town centre, alongside creating a new film, TV and music production facility.

    Plymouth will be using cutting-edge digital and immersive technologies to help bring to life the celebrations to mark the 400 year anniversary of the Mayflower’s voyage.

    The Thames Estuary bid will develop a world leading creative production corridor.

    And Worcester will regenerate the city’s iconic railway arches, providing affordable workspaces and business support connecting local businesses with local creative talent.

    I’d like to thank the Arts Council for administering this fund, and to all the expert panellists who helped us review the bids.

    I hope the CDF will suggest to Local Enterprise Partnerships and to local authorities how they might focus their attention on cultural and creative investment as part of developing their local industrial strategies.

    We also know that our libraries, leisure centres, historic buildings, museums and galleries help contribute to some of the healthiest and most vibrant communities up and down our country.

    Through initiatives like the CDF and the recently launched Northern Cultural Regeneration Social Investment Fund, we can give the financial boost needed to help local communities grow and prosper.

    Earlier this week we announced that 4 million pounds from our partnership with the Wolfson Foundation will go towards improving 35 museums and galleries across England, with over 80 per cent of this funding going outside London.

    All these investments and improvements matter because strong communities make for a strong country.

    And we are a nation that is renowned for its cultural heft. We are a soft power superpower.

    The UK recently reclaimed top position in the Global Soft Power Index, driven by our artists, our writers and our cultural institutions. Now we are back on top, we need to stay on top.

    And thanks to the great work of our creators, our culture is in demand all across the world.

    UK creative and cultural sectors export 27 billion pounds worth of services to the rest of the world.

    The exciting growth of digital culture means that our traditional creative institutions have been able to reach new global audiences, for example through live streams of theatre productions.

    But they bring huge benefits to our tourism and heritage sectors as well, when people decide that they want to come here and see it for themselves.

    One in five visitors to London go to the British Museum.

    One Ed Sheeran track is thought to be responsible for 100,000 extra visitors to Framlingham Castle.

    And Downton Abbey has helped Highclere Castle, Sherlock Baker Street, and Emily Bronte the moors of West Yorkshire. Our culture and our heritage reinforce each other.

    And these cultural exports allow us to break down barriers and reach those that we may not be able to reach with traditional diplomacy.

    Our culture and civilisation are our calling card to the world, saying loud and clear that we are committed to equality, tolerance and freedom.

    And so I am proud that we are working hard to ensure the protection of cultural assets across the world.

    For instance the DCMS funded the 30 million pound Cultural Protection Fund to help preserve and protect heritage in 12 countries in the Middle East and Africa.

    And we have been joining the international effort to make sure that buildings, monuments and works of art threatened by Daesh can be given a new lease of life and can be seen and enjoyed by the whole world.

    We will maintain these values of openness and cooperation.

    And our close cultural links with our friends and partners in the EU, as shown by the agreement for the Bayeux Tapestry to come to England for the first time in 1000 years.

    And we can develop new and enduring partnerships.

    Only last week we announced that some of the masterpieces in the National Gallery, including van Gogh’s famous sunflowers, will go to Japan for the first time as part of Japan’s Olympic year.

    As we equip our country for the future, a strong arts, heritage and cultural strategy isn’t just an afterthought, but rather central to our plans.

    In a modern and interconnected world, the places that will be successful are those which can attract and retain highly skilled and talented people.

    And places will not attract those people without a strong cultural and heritage offer.

    That means our culture isn’t just a cause of our soft power and a great export product, although it is both of those things, but also a factor in inward investment decisions, at a local and national level.

    Culture is one of the greatest pull factors. Build it, or stage it, and they will come.

    China’s First Emperor and the Terracotta Warriors at the World Museum in Liverpool drew 600,000 visitors, and in turn brought in a staggering 78 million pounds to the local economy in just eight months.

    We all see so many examples of culture proving its worth. But we need to make sure that we keep shouting about it.

    Some of you may know there is a Spending Review coming up and so it is more important than ever that we all give the most robust possible evidence about the impact of what we do.

    And I don’t just mean evidence of economic impact. But demonstrating that the superb experiences that you provide are benefiting all parts of the United Kingdom.

    In terms of geographical spread, but also race, gender and social backgrounds.

    Proving the social and cultural impact of our work will be an important part of our argument and I know it is an argument that we can make with real force.

    The UK is already leading the world in our work to understand and properly measure the impact that culture can have.

    I have asked my department to build on this, and DCMS will bring together academia and policy makers at a forthcoming summit on the measurement of cultural value.

    So that we will be better placed to make fully rounded arguments about culture’s true value to society.

    Because culture shows humanity at its best and the United Kingdom’s culture shows our country at its best.

    Our capacity to create new experiences that transcend boundaries and make life more fulfilling for all of us.

    Our capacity to make and do things that make us all laugh, cry, sing, dream or ponder together.

    And what better moment than now to remind ourselves of what our culture can do.

    Thank you very much.

  • Maggie Throup – 2019 Speech During No Confidence Motion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Maggie Throup, the Conservative MP for Erewash, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2019.

    Even though I respect the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), I am concerned that she sees everything in a very different light from me. I am much more optimistic about our future.

    The motion before us may seem simplistic, and yet it raises questions that go much further. We are in the midst of a battle for the heart and soul of our country and all the things we hold dear. The decisions we take in this place today and over the coming weeks will irreversibly change the course of our history. They will shape Britain’s standing in the world for a generation and, in the process, will perhaps determine the future of this Parliament—the mother of all Parliaments, which has served our nation through war and peace for the best part of 1,000 years.

    On the central question of Europe, which has led us to this position, I make the following points. Like the long-time Brexiteers, I am fully committed to ensuring that the UK can end its membership of the European Union at 11 pm on 29 March, as set down in law. Nothing less than an agreement that ends the free movement of people and returns full control over our money and laws is acceptable to me and the majority of the people of Erewash who voted to leave in the referendum in June 2016. My message for the remainers is that I voted to remain in the European Union, but we lost that argument, and consequently the UK will be leaving the EU.

    Europe may have brought us to this point, but that does not detract from the fact that the single biggest threat to the safety, security and prosperity of our country is sat on the Opposition Benches. The choice before us today is clear: do we want a socialist Government who, within hours of being returned to office, would cause a “run on the pound”, in the words of the shadow Chancellor; a socialist Government who would drive investment out of Britain through their ideological pursuit of nationalisation; a socialist Government whose own Back Benchers advocate the confiscation of council houses bought under the right-to-buy scheme; and a socialist Government who would make my constituents poorer in every sense of the word? I cannot let that happen to my constituents in Erewash or countenance such outcomes. The Government have my full support and confidence today and in the future.

  • Emma Hardy – 2019 Speech During No Confidence Motion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Emma Hardy, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2019.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach).

    The unsettled mood that we feel in the Chamber today and across the whole of Parliament, is reflected across the whole of our society. Out there in the communities, there is a feeling and a desire for change—for something else. This feeling and desire for change manifests itself in different ways, but we would be wrong to ignore it and to underestimate its significance. It manifests itself in the anger that is felt in our communities, including the increased hate that all of us across the House are receiving. It manifests itself in the despair at, and dissociation from, democracy and the lack of faith in anybody in Parliament.

    This is a pivotal moment, and it is about more than whether we think we should have a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, although of course the answer is Labour. It is about how we give back trust and faith to ordinary people. This feeling and mood for change is not going to go away. People are exhausted—they are exhausted by austerity. I do not think anybody in this House appreciates quite how draining poverty is and how the daily grind can get you down.

    Even if Members ignore every other word I say, I would like them to reflect on this statistic: across Yorkshire, there has been a 30% increase in the number of suicides. As I have mentioned before, my constituency covers the Humber bridge, which has become a hotspot for suicides. People are driving there from around the country to take their own lives. What greater damning indictment of this Government can there be that they have left people in such a state of despair, feeling that they have no future whatever?

    What answers are people being offered? Nothing. We have more arguments and Members tearing into each other on the Government Benches, while the people in our communities continue to suffer. They suffer when they go to the NHS. In terms of the nonsense spouted at us about all the good and outstanding schools, I suggest, with respect, that the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) checks the last time that those schools were inspected, which might give him a more accurate figure. Crime is increasing, and people feel unsafe in their homes. The antisocial behaviour that so many people here probably ignore because the gates to their properties allow them to cannot be ignored by the people in our communities.

    This is a moment when we can really make a difference. It is in our gift to give people the change they need. We can channel that need for change into a positive vision for hope, but only if we vote down this Government and have a Labour Government, who will truly deliver for everybody in our country.​

  • Antoinette Sandbach – 2019 Speech During No Confidence Motion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Antoinette Sandbach, the Conservative MP for Eddisbury, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2019.

    Well, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), although I could not disagree more with his characterisation of the situation.

    I remember a Labour Prime Minister who promised this country a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and virtually his last act in government was to sign it and renege on that promise to the British people. I feel that the resentment, after years of broken Labour promises in relation to referendums, bears a large part of the blame in the outcome of the referendum vote. That is not to mention the absolutely miserable way in which the Leader of the Opposition failed to campaign or make a proper case for remaining in the EU during the referendum debate. I will therefore take no lectures from the Labour party.

    The hon. Gentleman talked about reaching out, but there is no explanation as to how the Labour policy would get over the line in terms of state aid because the Opposition say that they want a customs union, but they do not want to accept rules on state aid. They also say that they can negotiate a better deal, but do not want to accept the rules on free movement. The reality of the Labour party’s position is that it would fail its own six tests.

    I am a Member of this House who has shown a willingness to work across parties to get a decent and sensible Brexit result, despite the fact that I personally believe that the best deal that we have is remaining in the EU. I made a promise to try to implement the referendum result, but I do not see that there have been any constructive proposals from the Opposition Front Bench.

    The reason that I have confidence in the Government—and I do—is that, although the press has been taken over with Brexit, we have been getting on with the job and delivering in so many other ways. Some 39,000 workers in my constituency have been taken out of tax because of the Government’s proposals. I remember Gordon Brown introducing a 10p tax rate on those earning just over £4,500; the lowest paid had to pay tax. Now, a ​low-paid worker in my constituency will not pay tax until they are earning at least £12,500. That is one of many achievements by the Government.

    We have introduced a new benefit of two weeks’ paid parental leave, which is one of the first new benefits that we have introduced for many years and is a significant achievement. There are also very good environmental policies coming out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. There is a good record of which to be proud.

  • Jonathan Reynolds – 2019 Speech During No Confidence Motion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Reynolds, the Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2019.

    I rise to say that I have no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. In doing so, I will not address the domestic record of the Government—I wish that I had time to do so as it has been one of hunger and homelessness, and that is a record that needs revealing, but in three minutes that is clearly not possible.

    The Government genuinely deserve to lose this vote today because there is only one reason for their existence, and only one reason why the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister, and that is Brexit. The job of this Government was to deliver Brexit. After the referendum, the majority of MPs accepted the result and wanted to work pragmatically on a deal to secure the best terms of our new relationship. We did not do so lightly. Let us not forget that the referendum was called only to try to solve some internal problems in the Conservative party. David Cameron had expected that there would be another hung Parliament and that the Liberal Democrats would be in coalition with him again and that he could drop the idea entirely, and he got it wrong.

    As a result, we all got the most divisive politics that this country has had in the modern era. The denigration of expertise and reason became the new normal. All of us saw our friend murdered in that campaign, and yet, despite that, there was no doubt that this House had, and still does have, a cross-party majority for a Brexit deal. But how did the Prime Minister respond to that? Did she reach out across party lines? No. Did she seek to unite leavers and remainers? No. Did she provide leadership on the big questions? Absolutely not. Instead, we had this played from the beginning for narrow party advantage. Reasonable concerns about how customs would work, how the banking system would function, the rights of EU citizens and even which queue at passport control EU citizens would use were first dismissed and then, cynically and falsely, presented as opposition to Brexit itself. When an election was called, despite the Prime Minister giving her word, Downing Street briefed it as a chance to “Crush the saboteurs”. Well, how ​ironic that the deal’s biggest saboteur has turned out to be the Prime Minister herself, and it is her deal that has been crushed.

    We all appreciate that the Conservative party is irrevocably split on this issue, and its decision on the final destination risks losing one half of its Members entirely. But the answer to that is to reach out and have a conversation with all of the House of Commons. Instead of that, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was appointed Foreign Secretary and travelled around Europe insulting our friends. Then there was the nationalistic rhetoric of the “citizens of nowhere” speech and the idea at Conservative conference that we could list foreign workers, as if we were living in 1930s Germany. Then we had the Chancellor threatening our friends and allies with economic warfare as if the UK were some overgrown school bully. All of this has squandered centuries of good will and landed us where we are.

    It is this Prime Minister, this Government, these red lines and this strategy that are to blame for bringing this country to the abyss. The Government have nothing left to offer; and, in the national interest, they should go.

  • Therese Coffey – 2019 Statement on the Environment Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Therese Coffey, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 17 January 2019.

    I attended the EU Environment Council on 20 December in Brussels. Mairi Gougeon MSP, the Scottish Minister for Rural Affairs and Natural Environment, also attended. I wish to update the House on the matters discussed.

    C02 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles regulation—general approach

    Council reached an agreed position (“general approach”) on the regulation on C02 emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The European Commission had proposed an indicative 30% reduction in emissions by 2030, with a 15% reduction by 2025.

    A full roundtable heard Ministers set out their respective positions. The UK intervened calling for greater ambition for 2030 and stressing the need to agree a strong overall package of measures. The presidency presented a revised proposal; the key element being a binding 2030 target, which was sufficient to achieve a general approach. One member state abstained.

    Regulation on LIFE—partial general approach

    The presidency introduced its compromise text for a partial general approach of the LIFE programme (the EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental, ​nature conservation and climate action projects throughout the EU), to run from 2021-27. In this revised text, the presidency reintroduced the role of the LIFE committee and placed greater emphasis on geographical balance; member states welcomed the adoption of the partial general approach. While all could support the agreement, a number of member states intervened to restate their preference for higher co-financing rates.

    “A Clean Planet for All”: a long-term strategy for EU greenhouse gas emissions reductions—exchange of views

    The Commission introduced its long-term strategy on climate, which was published on 28 November 2018, which recommends that the EU aims for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, following which the Council held its first exchange of views. The Council agreed that the strategy should be discussed in multiple council formations in the coming months. Interventions focused on the aim for net zero-emissions, the importance of just transition, the recognition of specific national and regional circumstances, the contribution of technology to decarbonisation, and the role of national long-term strategies.

    The UK intervened to highlight that the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on 1.5 degrees underscored the urgency of tackling climate change, and welcomed the strategy as a serious response that also underlines the benefits of taking action, and stresses the need to ensure that no one is left behind in the transition. The UK highlighted the action being taken across the UK to tackle climate change, and the role of clean growth in the domestic industrial strategy. The UK welcomed the focus in the strategy on carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS), given its vital importance in reducing the costs of decarbonisation and the need for collaboration to scale up CCUS, and also highlighted the need to consider nature-based solutions.

    AOB items

    The following items were also discussed under any other business.

    1. Report on recent international meetings: United Nations framework convention on climate change 24th session of the conference of the parties

    The presidency, Commission, and Poland, which held the presidency of the 24th session of the conference to the parties (COP) to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), presented on COP24, which took place in Katowice, Poland, on 2 to 14 December 2018. The agreement of the rulebook underpinning the Paris agreement was welcomed as a significant achievement.

    2. Report on the implementation of the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change

    Council noted the information from the presidency.

    3. The “Graz Declaration”—Starting a new era: Clean, safe and affordable mobility for Europe

    Council noted the presidency presentation on the Graz declaration, which was agreed at October informal Environment Council (29 and 30 October).

    4. Measures at EU level to create the conditions for discontinuing the use of the environmentally problematic substances contained in plant protection products

    Council noted the information from the Belgian delegation on plant protection products.​
    5. Intermediary sessions of the meeting of the parties to the convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (Espoo convention) and the protocol on strategic environmental assessment (SEA)

    Lithuania, supported by Luxembourg, presented information concerning the draft recommendations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Espoo Convention Implementation Committee regarding the Ostrovets new nuclear project in Belarus. These recommendations will be tabled for possible endorsement by the intermediary session of the meeting of the parties to the convention in February 2019.

    6. Current legislative proposals

    The presidency and the Commission provided an update on current environmental legislative proposals: regulation on taxonomy; directive on single-use plastics; the regulation on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (recast); the regulation on environmental reporting; the directive on drinking water (recast); and the regulation on C02 from cars and vans.

    Several member states welcomed the proposals, in particular the progress on the single-use plastics directive. On the recast of the drinking water directive the Commission urged all member states to show flexibility and work together to make swift progress. The UK intervened to welcome the progress on single-use plastics, and outlined the work being done across the UK to tackle plastic waste. On drinking water, the UK noted the recent progress towards a compromise on materials in contact with drinking water, but indicated that there were still outstanding concerns, and on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), the UK intervened to support the Council position on Decabromodiphenyl ether (a flame retardant) and the existing approach for updating the annexes.

    7. Report on recent international meeting—convention on biological diversity (CBD) and update from the UK on the London illegal wildlife conference

    The Commission and presidency reported back on the recent international meeting on the convention on biological diversity (CBD), in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt on 17 to 29 November. The UK intervened to welcome progress so far and to highlight the commitment that needs to be shown from Governments, civil society and business in order to develop an ambitious post-2020 biodiversity framework.

    Following this, the UK gave a short update on the outcomes of the London illegal wildlife trade (IWT) conference held on 11 and 12 October 2018, outlining the importance of member states continuing to work together to tackle this important issue, and the need to treat IWT as a serious organised crime.

    8. The future of European environment policy—Towards an 8th EU environment action programme

    Council noted the information from the presidency on plans to develop an eighth EU environment action programme.

    9. Environmental and climate ambition of the future CAP

    Council noted the information from the German delegation, supported by the Luxembourg delegation.

  • Marcus Jones – 2019 Speech During No Confidence Motion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Marcus Jones, the Conservative MP for Nuneaton, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2019.

    I rise to support the Government and to speak against this motion. In doing that, I will talk about the record of this Government and the issue that has triggered today’s vote: yesterday’s Brexit vote.

    To put our record in context, everything the Conservatives have done in government since 2010 has had to be framed in the context of the recession, the massive deficit and mess left behind by the Labour party. Despite the mess left behind—the 6% drop in GDP, the 800,000 more people unemployed—under this Conservative party, 3.4 million jobs have been created, we have record employment and record unemployment, we have provided 15 hours of free childcare for disadvantaged two-year-olds and 30 hours of free childcare for working parents, and the national living wage. We have cut income tax so that people can now earn double nearly what they could under the Labour party before paying income tax. We ​have not increased fuel duty for eight years and many more of our children are coming out of primary school with a far higher standard of reading and writing than previously. We have more doctors and nurses in our hospitals. We have fewer infections and people dying because of those in our hospitals, and we are putting £20 billion into the NHS and have a 10-year plan for the NHS, under which we are putting significantly more money into mental health provision. In my constituency, the Labour party tried to close A&E and maternity, so Labour does not have the record it states or thinks it has.

    Have we got everything right? No, we have not got everything right in government. There is still a lot more to do. We need to make sure we build on the money and extra resources that we are now putting into the police force. We need to make sure we honour the commitment to halve and end rough sleeping. We need to make sure we keep refining universal credit in order to get it right, because having a system that gets people into work is the right thing to do. The alternative is more debt, more borrowing and a leadership team that does not believe in this country and thinks more about other countries than its own.

    We are here because of the Brexit debate and Opposition Members have talked about nothing but red lines today. Whether we like what the Prime Minister put on the table yesterday or not, the red lines that she put down were based solely on the referendum in which the British public voted and on manifestos that about 85% of the public voted for. Despite problems across the House and people driving their own agendas, she has tried her best to get a deal that the House can agree with. Clearly it does not do so, but I say to Members opposite that this House voted to have a referendum and the public voted for Brexit. We must deliver on that.

    People do not want a general election. They want us to get on with the job and come out of the European Union, and they want us to come together as a House to do that in a sensible way. They do not want a general election, as they do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition is a Prime Minister in waiting. They do not believe that he could be a Prime Minister. I am against this motion and I will be proud to go through the Lobby and vote to back this Government tonight.

  • Steve Double – 2019 Speech During No Confidence Motion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Steve Double, the Conservative MP for St. Austell and Newquay, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2019.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).

    It is well documented that I have had my differences with the Prime Minister in recent weeks and months, and it was with regret that I found I could not support her deal in the Lobby last night and had to vote against it, but I can assure the House that I will be voting against this motion of no confidence this evening, because I want this Conservative Government to remain in office.

    The Prime Minister has many qualities, and those qualities have come to the fore in recent times. People across the country admire her resilience, fortitude and determination, and I join them in saying that those are indeed great qualities which she has demonstrated. Let me also say, with respect, that if she now directs those qualities towards the European Commission, her stock in this nation will rise dramatically. The people of this country want to see our Prime Minister stand up to those in the EU and tell them what it needs from the negotiations, and I encourage her to do that.

    There is no doubt that the Prime Minister has been given an incredibly challenging job, but that job has been made all the harder by the behaviour of some Members who have sought to undermine her negotiating position time and again. Those who have called for a second referendum have completely undermined her position by making the EU believe that we could have a ​second vote to overturn the decision, thus making the deal unattractive in the hope that we would reject it, while those who have discounted no deal have undermined her position by taking it off the table. Anyone involved in negotiations will say that no deal must remain a position in any successful negotiation.

    I find it very interesting that Labour Front Benchers have said that they would rule out no deal, on the basis that it would be damaging to the country. I do not think no deal would be that damaging to the country—it would be a challenge—and businesses in my community tell me time and again that what they really fear is not a no-deal Brexit but a Labour Government. They are far more afraid of that. Let me say this to those Labour Front Benchers: if you have discounted no deal on the basis that it would be damaging to businesses, will you now please discount a Labour Government on the same criterion? Businesses up and down the country want us to stay in government to prevent Labour from taking office.

    It is fair to say that we are not where we want to be in these negotiations. However, I absolutely back the Prime Minister in her position, which is to say that we will continue to seek a consensus across the House in order to establish a basis on which we can renegotiate with the EU and come up with a deal that we can deliver for this country. So I will back the Government tonight. We need to deliver Brexit, we need to deliver the Brexit that we promised the country in our manifesto, and then we need to move on to a domestic agenda so that we can start to deliver the changes that the country needs and is crying out for.