Tag: Speeches

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at London Fashion Week

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, during London Fashion Week on 18 September 2018.

    Thank you Stephanie and welcome everyone. I am truly delighted to be hosting this reception to celebrate London Fashion Week.

    I want to thank Stephanie Phair, Caroline Rush – and everyone at the British Fashion Council – for their fantastic work in championing British fashion and London Fashion Week. And of course the designers, the models, the assistants, the set designers and all those without whom it would not be such a success.

    For years – London Fashion Week has showcased not just the big well-known names in British fashion, but also the – often brilliant – up and coming talent.

    That is what has always made London stand out. That is what has always given this city’s fashion business the leading edge.

    And I am delighted that this year we have designers such as Malene Oddershede Bach and Victoria Beckham showing in London for the first time.

    British fashion, as Stephanie just said, is serious business. Some of our biggest names are known the world over – Stella McCartney, Burberry, Mulberry. The industry as a whole contributes £32 billion to our economy, employs over 890,000 people, and totals billions of pounds worth of exports.

    But if I am honest, we have all got a job to do, which is about getting that message out to people – about how valuable fashion is to the British economy as a whole, about how many jobs are involved in the British fashion industry and what it means to our economy.

    We are home to some of the world’s finest fashion colleges. Our designers sit at the helm of global brands. And we lead the world in design and digital innovation – with names such as MatchesFashion, Net-a-Porter, ASOS and Farfetch launched in the UK.

    And of course – this year there was the live streaming of London Fashion Week shows to millions of fashion watchers in China.

    But it is also London’s reputation as a thriving, diverse city that makes this such a great place to do business. And I am delighted to hear that Chanel – one of the grand dames in the fashion business – has announced it is relocating its global headquarters here to London.

    I want to see us continue this success – I want Britain to continue being a place where talent is nurtured and supported, and where fashion can thrive and do business.

    And as we look to build a new future for a global Britain, as an open, outward-facing country outside of the EU – I want to ensure that our fashion industry – an industry in which we have so much pride – can build upon its success. That is why our exceptional talent visa will ensure that the world’s leading fashion designers can live and work here. It is why we are backing the industries of the future through our modern Industrial Strategy – supporting innovation, technology and encouraging jobs and growth in every part of the country.

    And it is why through the Creative Industries Sector Deal we – along with industry – are investing £150 million in creative businesses, including design and fashion.

    But today – as London Fashion Week draws to a close – let me congratulate you all once again.

    As I say, let’s work together to make sure everybody realises what an important part London fashion does and British fashion plays in our economy and employing people up and down our country. Let’s get the message out there of the fantastic talent we’ve got – not just the big names but all the people who are behind those big names and every aspect of the industry which leads to its enormous success.

    And I wish you all every success for the season ahead. Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech at National Housing Federation Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, at the National Housing Federation Summit on 19 September 2018.

    Thank you, Diane, and good morning everyone.

    It is a pleasure to be here with you all today at what is an event of firsts and lasts.

    I will start with the lasts…

    Reference has already been made to the fact this is David Orr’s final annual conference as Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation.

    In his 12 years at the helm David has done much to refocus and reinvigorate the housing association sector, and has been a worthy champion for your cause.

    David, it has been a pleasure working with you since I became Prime Minister, and I am very sorry to see you go.

    But I know that, in Kate Henderson, the NHF has found a worthy successor and the right person to take the Federation on the next stage of its journey.

    And, Kate, I am very much looking forward to getting to know you and working with you to tackle what remains one of the great challenges of our time.

    While this may be David’s last NHF conference, I have to admit it is my first.

    In fact I was shocked to discover that this is the first time in history any Prime Minister has spoken at what is the biggest event on the housing association calendar.

    To me, that speaks volumes about the way in which social housing has, for too long and under successive governments, been pushed to the edge of the political debate.

    At best taken for granted, at worst actively undermined.

    Well, I’m very pleased to say that is no longer the case.

    Because, since my very first day in Downing Street, I have made it my personal mission to fix our broken housing system.

    Doing so underpins so much of what this government is working to achieve, from tackling loneliness to supporting the industries of the future.

    And housing associations have a huge role to play in making sure that vision becomes a reality.

    We are already making good progress.

    Doing all we can to get more of the right homes built in the right places, so we can help more people onto the housing ladder – and ensure that those who cannot afford to own their own home also have a decent place to live.

    We have committed tens of billions of pounds to getting homes built, including creating the infrastructure that unlocks sites where they are needed most.

    Our new National Planning Policy Framework has removed unnecessary barriers to homebuilding and made it harder for commercial developers to dodge their affordable home obligations.

    We are gearing up Homes England to be more proactive and interventionist, so that it can drive more and better development.

    The Affordable Homes Programme is supporting the delivery of a quarter of a million affordable homes right across the country, with thousands of them available for social rent.

    And the Land Assembly and Small Sites funds, together worth more than £1.9 billion, are now available.

    They allow us to make positive interventions in the land market, bring more sites to market, and capture more of the land value for the benefit of local communities.

    Just this morning we have heard the NHF calling for more of the value generated by public investment and the planning system to be captured and invested in affordable homes, public services and local infrastructure.

    It is an important issue, which is why the government consulted on it recently.

    We will be responding in full in the near future.

    But in the meantime let me assure you that we share your commitment to giving communities a fairer share of the value created by development.

    Land is an irreplaceable natural resource, and we must make sure its use benefits us all.

    As well as boosting housing supply, we are taking action to protect and support homeowners and tenants.

    Banning letting agent fees for people who rent their homes.

    Clamping down on rogue landlords and unscrupulous managing agents.

    And bringing an end to unjustified use of leasehold.

    I am sure many of the people in this room will have responded to our consultation on making longer, more family-friendly tenancies the norm – the results of that will be published shortly.

    And our Green Paper on Social Housing, which was of course announced at last year’s NHF conference, offers a landmark opportunity for major reforms to improve fairness, quality and safety for all residents living in social housing.

    James Brokenshire, Kit Malthouse, and ministers and officials right across government are pulling out all the stops to make sure everyone in this country has a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.

    And already we are seeing the results.

    In 2016/17, more than 217,000 additional homes were added across England.

    That represents a 15 per cent increase on the previous year.

    In fact, with the exception of one year, the last time we saw net completions this high Lady Thatcher was in Downing Street.

    Yet we should not lose sight of the fact that the housing crisis we face today did not come about overnight.

    It is the result of decades of neglect.

    Year after year in which housebuilding of all kinds fell even as demand rose.

    So, while the steps we are taking are already making a real and lasting difference to millions of lives, we should not pretend that our broken housing system can be fixed at the flick of a switch.

    And nor should we see it as a challenge for central government alone.

    Rather, it is a challenge we must rise to together.

    One that can only be tackled by many different parties working together in partnership.

    That is why, when local authorities asked us for a more robust planning framework and greater clarity over local plans and viability assessments, we made sure they got it.

    When developers told us they needed greater investment in infrastructure and a reliable pipeline of skilled construction workers, we set about securing both.

    And we have also been listening to housing associations.

    After Sajid Javid told last year’s NHF conference that the government wanted to do more to support your sector, you asked us to do three things.

    First, you said that to plan ahead and secure future investment, you needed long-term certainty on rents.

    We have given you that long-term certainty.

    Second, you said that to keep your properties affordable for all, the Local Housing Allowance cap should not be extended to the social sector.

    We have not extended that cap.

    And third, you said that if you were going to take a serious role in not just managing but building the homes this country needs, you had to have the stability provided by long-term funding deals.

    Well, eight housing associations have already been given such deals, worth almost £600 million and paving the way for almost 15,000 new affordable homes.

    And today, I can announce that new longer-term partnerships will be opened up to the most ambitious housing associations through a ground-breaking £2 billion initiative.

    Under the scheme, associations will be able to apply for funding stretching as far ahead as 2028/29 – the first time any government has offered housing associations such long-term certainty.

    Doing so will give you the stability you need to get tens of thousands of affordable and social homes built where they are needed most, and make it easier for you to leverage the private finance you need to build many more.

    The offer is typical of the positive approach this government has taken with the housing sector since I became Prime Minister.

    You asked, we delivered.

    Now, I have something to ask of you.

    Last year I told the big commercial developers that we would give them the support they asked for – but that, in return, we expected them to do their duty by getting homes built.

    Today, I’m asking housing associations to use the tools we have given you.

    Not just to build more homes, though of course more homes are needed.

    But to take the lead in transforming the very way in which we think about and deliver housing in this country.

    Rather than simply acquiring a proportion of the properties commercial developers build, I want to see housing associations taking on and leading major developments themselves.

    Because creating the kind of large-scale, high-quality developments this country needs requires a special kind of leadership.

    Leadership you are uniquely well-placed to provide.

    Your close ties with local communities give you an unparalleled insight into what a community needs in a development.

    A clear vision for the whole site and how it can complement existing places, not just a narrow focus on fitting in the maximum number of units and the bare minimum of social homes.

    Your social mission can ensure developments are rooted in a conception of the public good, rather than in a simple profit motive.

    That means creating genuinely mixed communities with the right infrastructure and truly affordable housing.

    Your unique status as public interested, non-profit private institutions allows you to attract patient investment and deploy it to secure long-term returns on quality rather than short-term speculative gains.

    Your expertise as property managers means you can nurture attractive, thriving places for decades to come.

    You are capable of riding out the ups and downs of the business cycle, as we saw in the years after the economic crash when housing associations carried on building even as private developers hunkered down.

    And you do all this with the discipline, rigour and management qualities of the serious multi-million pound businesses that many of you are.

    This combination of qualities allows housing associations to achieve things neither private developers nor local authorities are capable of doing.

    And to see what that means on the ground, you need simply look at two major developments either side of the River Thames.

    For years, the private sector struggled to make a success of Barking Riverside.

    Lacking a guiding vision for the site and constrained by short-term business cycles, its huge potential went untapped.

    Today, under the leadership of L&Q, the build-out rate has quadrupled.

    The project is finally beginning to deliver on its potential, and is on course to become a thriving, growing community.

    On the opposite bank, two local authorities had similar problems dealing with the unique challenges and opportunities of the Thamesmead estate.

    Now, thanks to the commitment and insight of Peabody, there are ambitious plans for up to 20,000 new homes in one of the UK’s most over-subscribed cities.

    Making complex projects like this work requires vision, determination and the courage to do development differently.

    Housing associations possess that.

    Given the right tools and the right support, you can act as the strategic, long-term investors in the kind of high-quality places this country needs.

    To put it simply, you get homes built.

    And I want to work with you to transform the way we do so.

    But the unique status, rich history and social mission of housing associations mean you also have a much broader role to play.

    A role that includes changing the way tenants and society as a whole think about social housing.

    Midway through oral historian Tony Parker’s The People of Providence, the author recounts a conversation with a woman who lived on Southwark’s Brandon Estate, not far from where we are this morning.

    “I wouldn’t want to be thought of as an estate person, not in any way at all,” she tells him. “I live here, but I’d never say to anyone my home is here.”

    That conversation took place almost 40 years ago, but it could just as easily have happened today.

    Because, for many people, a certain stigma still clings to social housing.

    Some residents feel marginalised and overlooked, and are ashamed to share the fact that their home belongs to a housing association or local authority.

    And on the outside, many people in society – including too many politicians – continue to look down on social housing and, by extension, the people who call it their home.

    Part of the problem is physical, in the buildings themselves.

    Whether unintentionally or by design, the decisions we make about the homes we build for social rent – their location, quality and appearance – can all too easily make them distinct from the community in which they stand.

    This, in turn, can cement prejudice and stigma among those who live in them and wider society, leading to lowered expectations and restricted opportunities.

    It shouldn’t be this way.

    On a new mixed-tenure development, the social housing should not be tucked away behind the private homes, out of sight and out of mind.

    As you look from building to building, house to house, you should not be able to tell simply by looking which homes are affordable and which were sold at the market rate.

    The quality of aesthetic, design and build should not be any lower just because a property is to be managed by a housing association.

    Some say that quantity, quality and affordability must always be traded off against one another.

    Well to them, I say look at the Nansledan development outside Newquay.

    A whole new community being built to meet local needs and with the support of local people.

    Thousands of homes of all types and tenures.

    All of the highest quality, in keeping with traditional local styles, and with no way of telling from the outside which properties are being built for housing associations and which are destined for the private market.

    As builders yourselves and as large-scale buyers of homes, you have the power to deliver or demand the quality of social homes the people of this country deserve.

    We should never see social housing as something that need simply be “good enough”, nor think that the people who live in it should be grateful for their safety net and expect no better.

    Whether it is owned and managed by local authorities, TMOs or housing associations, I want to see social housing that is so good people are proud to call it their home.

    Proud to tell people where they live.

    Proud to be thought of, in the words of Parker’s interviewee, as “an estate person”.

    Our friends and neighbours who live in social housing are not second-rate citizens.

    They should not have to put up with second-rate homes.

    And that applies to management every bit as much as design and construction.

    In 2018, most housing associations are not in the business of building houses.

    Rather, you manage them, maintain them and take care not only of the buildings themselves but of the people who call them home.

    It is work that is every bit as important as building and development and, when done badly, the impact can range from upsetting to catastrophic.

    While it would not be right for me to pre-empt the findings of the public inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy, it is clear that many of the tower’s tenants felt ignored, patronised and overlooked by the TMO responsible for their homes and their safety.

    Over the past year the issues they raised have been echoed by social housing tenants across the country.

    Repairs botched or neglected.

    Problems not dealt with.

    Complaints ignored.

    Again, it does not have to be this way.

    Housing associations, with their historic social mission and focus on the civic good, can be at the forefront of showing what good property management looks like.

    Across England, housing associations manage almost three million properties.

    That gives you tremendous influence, the power to raise the standards of millions of homes and, in doing so, do much to shift perceptions of social housing.

    And you can go further still, making a real and lasting difference to the lives of your tenants.

    In my Maidenhead constituency I recently met a single mother whose housing association – Housing Solutions – hadn’t just provided her with a new home but opened up a whole new life for her.

    Rather than simply managing her property, Housing Solutions connected her with the training and support she needed to start her own business.

    That business is so successful she has been able to move from a social rented home into shared ownership, getting that vital first foot on the property ladder for her family.

    Elsewhere, housing associations are helping some of society’s most vulnerable people: those without a home at all.

    Here in London, more than 50 associations are working with St Mungo’s and other organisations to deliver the Clearing House project, helping to get rough sleepers off the streets, out of danger, and on the road to a safe and secure future.

    They are all wonderful examples of the work that housing associations can do above and beyond simply building and managing properties.

    And they show how it is possible for the housing associations of 2018 to carry forward the social justice mission of the pioneers who created the sector in Victorian times – and their descendants who stepped up half a century ago in the wake of Cathy Come Home.

    The rise of social housing in this country provided what has been called the “biggest collective leap in living standards in British history”.

    It brought about the end of the slums and tenements, a recognition that all of us, whoever we are and whatever our circumstances, deserve a decent place to call our own.

    Today, housing associations are the keepers of that legacy.

    The bearers and protectors of a precious idea that has already made an immeasurable difference to tens of millions of lives and has the potential to transform countless more.

    For too long, your work has gone unrecognised and under-appreciated at the highest levels.

    But no longer.

    This government values housing associations.

    Over the past two years we have worked with you, listened to you, and responded to you.

    You asked for our support, and you have our support.

    Not mere lip service, but real policies, real change, real action.

    Now it is your turn to act, building the homes we need and challenging the attitudes that hold us back.

    Fixing our broken housing market will not be quick or easy.

    But it can be done.

    And, with this government’s support, housing associations can be at the centre of making it happen.

    Building on more than a century of history, and carrying forward the torch of high-quality, affordable housing for generations to come.

  • James Brokenshire – 2018 Speech at National Housing Federation Summit

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government, at the National Housing Federation Summit on 20 September 2018.

    Thanks to Baroness Warwick for that kind introduction.

    It’s a great pleasure to be here – albeit on a site that I understand once housed one of Britain’s so-called ugliest buildings.

    Some of you may remember – and even mourn – the County Hall Island Block apartments that stood empty here for 20 years before a 6-year old boy got his wish to set the bulldozers in motion.

    Now we may all have our different views on architecture and design.

    But I think we can agree that you know you’ve succeeded when you’re not constructing buildings that 6-year-olds want to demolish!

    It’s also genuinely a great privilege to be speaking before we hear from David [Orr] for the final time in his role as the National Housing Federation’s (NHF) Chief Executive.

    Though, I understand, it’s not just his speeches which are much much-anticipated.

    I hear his performances at NHF karaoke nights, too, are also quite a draw.

    And while I can’t promise to match David’s musical talents, I’ll do my best as the warm-up act!

    Before I go on, I want to firstly applaud the tremendous leadership and public service David has shown through a long and distinguished career.

    I also want to welcome your successor, Kate Henderson, and say how much I’m looking forward to working with Kate.

    I know you’ll be putting your own stamp on the role, but what a great legacy to build on.

    David, you have transformed the housing association sector and inspired and challenged us all to raise our game for people living in social housing and, indeed, all parts of our community, including the most vulnerable.

    I think that’s the thing I have been most struck by, David’s passion, leadership, and humanity too – it comes from the heart and we have all been strengthened by it.

    And I’m especially grateful for your contribution to the Rough Sleeping Advisory Panel which helped develop the Rough Sleeping Strategy we published recently – an issue that I know matters greatly to us both.

    This Strategy – and, indeed, all our work on housing – is driven by the belief that everyone must have the security, dignity and opportunities they need to build a better life.

    As the Prime Minister said yesterday, this mission is absolutely central to this government’s priorities – and very much in keeping with your founding ideals as a sector.

    And, working with you, we’re delivering on it.

    Housing associations played a big role in helping us deliver 217,000 homes in 2016 to 2017 – the highest level in all but one of the last 30 years. And I’m hugely grateful for all of your efforts.

    But we know you can and want to do more.

    Which is why we’ve listened to what you’ve told us – about wanting more certainty and stability to be able to protect and boost supply – and have responded.

    We’ve put billions into affordable housing, including homes for social rent, and given housing associations a leading role in delivering this through long term funding deals.

    We’ve given you more certainty over your rental income.

    We’ve retained the funding for supported accommodation within Housing Benefit.

    We’ve enabled councils to borrow more to build more.

    We’re supporting Homes England to take a more strategic, assertive approach – putting more certainty into the system – and reforming planning to get Britain building.

    We’re also taking action on other issues that you’ve raised such as doing more to capture increases in land value for the public good through:

    changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),

    Section 106 planning obligations,

    and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

    But I know there is more to do.

    And as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we’ll be responding shortly to a consultation on developer contributions that includes proposals to help councils capture land values more effectively.

    So the sector has never been better placed to really step up and help deliver the homes our country needs.

    But this isn’t just about getting the numbers up.

    It’s also about changing the false attitudes towards social housing.

    Challenging the mistakes and flawed perceptions about people living in social housing.

    About improving the experience of tenants – and rebalancing their relationship with landlords through stronger regulation.

    And following the terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower, ensuring, above all, that homes are decent, safe and well-maintained.

    Which is what the social housing green paper published last month aims to do.

    My thanks to David and housing associations for their enthusiasm and support for the extensive engagement that we carried out with residents that helped inform this work.

    Yes, the Paper reminded us of the challenges that people living in social housing face.

    Stigma.

    The need for landlords to be more transparent and accountable.

    Concerns about how complaints are handled.

    To quote one resident we spoke to: “I feel privileged and lucky to be a housing association tenant. Having an affordable secure and quality home means everything and has helped me into employment. And the security has also helped my children be happy and successful.”

    As the Prime Minister said, we need to do more to reinforce that pride in social housing.

    That sense that it can be both a safety net and a springboard to a better life

    Something we treasure in the way we do our NHS.

    That’s why we’re investing in the sector and giving you the longer-term certainty that will help you build more, faster – both now and into the future.

    In July, I announced 8 longer-term strategic partnerships between housing associations and Homes England worth around £590 million which will yield about 14,000 new affordable homes, including for social rent.

    And which will see us championing modern methods of construction and more small and medium sized builders playing their part in a more diverse market.

    And I want to thank both the NHF and Homes England – under David and Nick Walkley’s leadership respectively – for their valuable work on making this happen.

    The Prime Minister’s announcement, yesterday, of the £2 billion initiative – enabling the most ambitious housing associations to apply for funding over the next decade – takes this to the next level.

    This bold, new scheme is the first time any government has offered you this kind of long-term funding certainty and stability.

    As such, it promises to be a game-changer – not just because it will help you get tens of thousands of new affordable and social homes built and provide a strong impetus for you to go further.

    But because the certainty and stability that underpins it signals a new approach to the way we invest in and deliver housing in this country.

    An approach that is a real vote of confidence in housing associations and places you firmly in the driving seat – to be industry leaders in building more and better, in driving innovation and setting higher standards for the way social housing is managed and the people who live in it are supported.

    With your – as Diana put it yesterday – special combination of a “core social purpose” and “good business sense” you are uniquely well placed to pick up this baton.

    So I urge you to make the most of this opportunity to help us deliver a new generation of social housing and help secure the high quality homes that people who can’t afford to buy or rent privately deserve.

    These have to be homes that meet their needs.

    And having listened to residents, we’ve decided, for example, not to implement the provisions in the Housing and Planning Act to make fixed term tenancies mandatory for local authorities at this time.

    We understand that lifetime tenancies are, for some people, for some communities, essential for providing the security and stability they need to make a place truly feel like home.

    That’s why it’s right that all social landlords should have the freedom to offer them.

    Now, it’s also right and fair that social housing can be a springboard to home ownership.

    And I want to commend the vital work by David and the NHF with this government on the Voluntary Right to Buy agreement.

    This has already helped hundreds of housing association tenants to buy their homes and thousands more are set to benefit from the latest, large-scale Midlands pilot that launched last month.

    We will be monitoring this closely; in particular in relation to replacing homes that are sold.

    This groundbreaking partnership between government and the sector is an important step towards extending the dream of home ownership.

    With that in mind, we have to challenge what I believe to be false choices.

    In particular that you can either boost the supply of rented properties or support home ownership – that you can’t do both.

    This doesn’t have to be the case.

    Whilst championing better standards for renters, we should not apologise for backing the aspiration around home ownership.

    Two thirds of social housing residents would like to be home owners.

    These people – who run our businesses, keep our public services going, contribute to society in countless ways – are just as hard-working, ambitious and keen to improve their communities as anyone else.

    We should recognise that ambition and provide that opportunity to which they aspire.

    The social housing green paper sets out how we can do this, whilst also ensuring that councils can replace homes sold.

    There’s nothing contradictory about this – about building more affordable homes and helping people meet the aim of home ownership.

    I believe to say otherwise, is a false choice.

    We have to do both.

    And nor is there anything contradictory about promoting ownership and tackling stigma – another all too common false choice.

    To do otherwise would be to ignore the ambition of the vast majority of social housing tenants.

    All I want is to help each person living in social housing to make the right choice for themselves – not have it made for them.

    And the same goes for another false choice that pits building more homes against building better homes.

    We’re determined to deliver 300,000 homes on average a year by the middle of the next decade, but not at any price.

    These are not just a roof over our heads. They are the foundations on which our lives and communities are built.

    As the philosopher Sir Roger Scruton put it: “We are needy creatures and our greatest need is for home…All our attempts to make our surroundings look right – through decorating, arranging, creating – are attempts to extend a welcome to ourselves and to those whom we love.”

    So good design and style matter – arguably more, not less, for people living in social housing and combatting the stigma that surrounds it.

    It’s not our job in government to dictate what this looks like, but we all know how it feels.

    Good design produces places that people have helped shape and are proud to call home.

    It protects and strengthens the beauty of our natural environment.

    It adds to the value of existing settlements for years to come, making it more likely that new development will be welcomed rather than resisted.

    Therefore, building better will, in fact, help us build more – something that our social housing green paper recognises and how that must apply to social and affordable homes as it does to any other types of housing.

    So it’s time we rejected these false choices.

    Accept we can and should extend home ownership as well as deliver more quality affordable rented homes.

    Accept that there is nothing incompatible or contradictory about these goals which, after all, have the same end: more people having decent, secure, comforting places they call home.

    Accept that they are goals which are within our grasp.

    The truth is that the best communities; the most interesting and successful communities, where most people want to live, tend to be mixed and diverse.

    Places where people from all backgrounds, living in all types of housing, can come together, bound by a strong sense of belonging and identity.

    Yes, we are facing a huge challenge.

    But I know that there’s no sector better placed than you to meet it.

    As the Prime Minister said, you have blazed a trail for many high quality and, yes, beautiful homes that have stood the test of time and served the public good.

    That make a mockery of arguments that high density and affordability have to equal low quality and a lack of character.

    This is the difference that I know we all want to see as we look forward.

    As David said in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire, we have an “obligation…to make this a moment of change”.

    It’s clear that, to do this, to make this difference, to meet that obligation, we need all parts of the sector to pull together.

    We’ve responded to your calls for more support.

    And I’m looking forward to seeing housing associations; with your unique and impressive track record, seizing this unprecedented opportunity and leading the charge.

    To deliver the homes we need and the brighter future our people deserve.

  • Dawn Butler – 2018 Speech at Labour Party Women’s Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dawn Butler, Labour’s Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, at the Labour Party Women’s Conference in Liverpool on 22 September 2018.

    Good morning conference. What a year it’s been for us.

    Sadly, we have lost the wonderful Tessa Jowell. But in her memory we have marched in our thousands against Trump, said enough is enough to sexual harassment, fought for the reproductive rights of women in Northern Ireland, called for an end to period poverty.

    And all this – in the centenary year of when some – but not all – women got the vote.

    This reminds us that – no woman should ever be left behind.

    You are phenomenal women – and you are vital to Labour winning the next election.

    We are the many, literally 51% of the UK population. We truly are the many.

    This Conservative Government has shown us their true colours – they have created a hostile environment for the Windrush generation and others – disabled people; the LGBT+ community; older women; BAME people.

    86% of the cuts have fallen on the shoulders of women – your shoulders – and now is time for the many to rise up.

    We need innovation and transformation on a scale like we have never seen before – transformation that works for working people – and for those who need a government that cares for them.

    Only a Labour Government will deliver for the many not the few.

    This Tory Government simply does not care – in fact almost every single policy they implement makes the lives of women worse.

    Women are poorly and under-paid – whether it is as a result of the gender pay gap or the unpaid caring responsibilities –  this underpayment means that women can find it hard to care for themselves and their families.

    Women’s refuges are in crisis, foodbanks on the rise – period poverty, all cuts have consequences.

    Local councils, have seen nearly 50% of their funding cut – I want to give a shout out to all the councillors fighting everyday against these Tory cuts.

    Conference, we are in Liverpool where over 30 years ago the council stood up to Thatcher and said-better to break the law than break the poor.

    Councils today should not have to consider cutting funding for women refuges, a lifeline to the most vulnerable.

    Labour alongside women’s aid – has called for sustainable long-term funding and national oversight to set quality standards.

    But you know what conference, the woman at the head of Government – refuses to accept her failings – every Wednesday Jeremy highlights the consequences of her damaging policies but she refuses to listen – instead she feigns ignorance and spouts half-truths.

    Only a Labour government will deliver for the many not the few.

    Far from dealing with the “burning injustices” of society, we have a Government that pours petrol all over them.

    Martin Luther King said, ‘our minds are being invaded by half-truths prejudice and false talks – there is little hope for us until we become tough-minded enough to break loose from these shackles.

    So break loose conference – break loose – hold your heads high – stand tall and believe in our traditional Labour values – and our ability to win with our socialist values – and our ability to make our country a better and fairer place for all.

    OK we are in opposition but with your help and with the phenomenal work of the trade unions we have had victories; scrapping employment tribunal fees;  universal credit waiting time reduced; the resignation of Toby young.

    Just imagine what we will achieve in Government.

    We want to build a society where no one is held back v we can’t carry on just tinkering around the edges – with equality an afterthought.

    The Conservatives have had seven different equality ministers tagged onto four different departments and a budget that’s almost been halved.

    This proves the Tories are not taking equalities seriously.

    That’s why the next Labour government will create a standalone department, headed by a secretary of state to reduce discrimination and inequality.

    The next Labour government will put equality centre stage.

    The next Labour government will protect all women

    Domestic abuse is a hidden killer and remains at epidemic levels.

    The most recent ONS survey shows 1.2 million women have experienced domestic abuse in a year. The impact on the victim and those around them is devastating.

    So it’s time domestic abuse becomes everyone’s business.

    Employers have a duty of care to employees experiencing domestic abuse.

    It can be done. We have already seen new employment laws introduced in the Philippines, Australia and most recently New Zealand granting victims the right to paid leave.

    So today I am proud to announce that Labour will require employers to have a domestic abuse employment policy and provide up to 10 days paid leave.

    This crucial time will allow women and men to leave their abusive partners safely – get the help – protection and support they need knowing their livelihood is secure.

    On average 2 women a week are murdered by a current or former abusive partner. These 10 days could literally help save the lives of those women.

    Only a Labour government will deliver for the many not the few.

    Under Labour we will help good businesses succeed; we want businesses to pay staff the real living wage; strive to end the gender pay gap; encourage paternity leavers.

    Under Labour, government contracts will go to companies who treat employees well.

    Only a Labour government will deliver for the many and not just the few.

    And conference, I have another announcement-planning for Government is quite empowering.

    For too long our laws have allowed discrimination to go unchallenged; conference, a Labour Government will change that; we will acknowledge intersectionality.

    Intersectionality is about how different layers of discrimination interact with each other – for example – our laws do not recognise the fact that black women can be discriminated against because they are both black and a woman; or a woman being discriminated against because of her age and gender; or disability and gender.

    A Labour government will change that and enact section 14 of the equality act, so people can bring forward cases on multiple grounds of discrimination.

    A Labour Government will create an environment – at home – at work and in public spaces, which will encourage people to be their true authentic selves.

    Conference just imagine if all the men fought for the rights of women, equal pay would be achieved overnight.

    Just imagine if all white people fought for the rights of black people – racism would no longer be so prevalent in our society – and just imagine if all of the straight people fought for the rights of the LGBT+ community – homophobia would be a thing of the past.

    And I could go on.

    But imagine our society, truly a place for the many and not the few, we have to be that society we have to be the change we seek.

    Only a Labour Government will deliver for the many not the few.

    We will rebuild our country for the many not the few.

    This is not an easy battle to fight – or win – they will throw everything at us. But we have to be tough-minded – we have to be steadfast in our vision – and we have to be our true authentic selves.

    We have to be the flood of positivity to drown out all of the negativity.

    Because we are the many;

    When the sharpest words wanna cut me down,

    I’m gonna send a flood, gonna drown them out.

    I am brave, I am bruised.

    I am who I’m meant to be, this is me.

    Look out ’cause here I come.

    And I’m marching on to the beat I drum.

    I’m not scared to be seen.

    I make no apologies, this is me.

  • Theresa May – 2018 Speech in Cape Town

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Cape Town, South Africa, on 28 August 2018.

    Good morning everyone, and thank you all for joining us today. It’s a pleasure to be here in Cape Town, a city whose recent past lends it a special resonance for many around the world, and which symbolises the transformation experienced by South Africa.

    Out in the bay lies Robben Island, where for so long so many were unjustly imprisoned for dreaming of a country in which the colour of your skin made no difference to your rights and opportunities.

    Foremost among them was, of course, Nelson Mandela. As the world marked the 100th anniversary of his birth earlier this year, a memorial to the great man was unveiled in Westminster Abbey. There it sits alongside tributes to the kings and queens, poets and scientists who have shaped my nation’s history – a fitting recognition of the lasting impact Mandela made on the world.

    Mandela’s walk to freedom – and that of South Africa – was long and arduous. But 28 years ago, barely a mile from here at Cape Town City Hall, he spoke for the first time following his release from decades behind bars.

    Four years later, on Grand Parade, the newly inaugurated president of South Africa spoke of his election not as a victory of party, but of people. Of the power of democracy, and the necessity of unity, of equality, of universal rights.

    He spoke of the need to transform not just the culture and politics of South Africa, but its economy too. Of his desire to “change South Africa from a country in which the majority lived with little hope, to one in which they can live and work with dignity, with a sense of self-esteem and confidence in the future … building a better life of opportunity, freedom and prosperity.”

    It was a bold vision, one shared not just by millions of South Africans but hundreds of millions of people across the world.

    People including Kofi Annan. His unlikely journey from Ghanaian suburbs to global leadership took a very different route to that of Mandela. Yet, like your former president, Annan’s impact, influence and values spread well beyond the borders of his beloved homeland. And, like Mandela, the world is a poorer place for his passing – but all the richer for his legacy.

    The life stories of these two great men encapsulate the ebbs and flows of history. They demonstrate just how much can be achieved over the course of a lifetime. But also that progress can never be taken for granted – the fight to secure our gains is constant.

    Mandela was born in 1918 with the world on the brink of peace from a war that was meant to end all war. But when Annan was born just twenty years later, those dreams of a lasting peace were about to be shattered once again, claiming millions of lives, including many from this continent.

    It was in the aftermath of this devastation that the United Nations – the organisation that half a century later Annan would go on to lead – was founded. And despite false starts and mistakes along the way, global institutions and co-operation established in this period have delivered great gains for development.

    It was at the same time, that independence movements of a generation of new nations, took on a renewed urgency. People across the world won the right to self-determination, constitutions were written and countries were born.

    And the embrace of free markets and free trade, which accelerated further with the end of the Cold War, has acted as the greatest agent of collective human progress the world has ever seen. In those countries that have successfully embraced properly regulated market economies, life expectancy has increased and infant mortality fallen. Absolute poverty has shrunk and disposable income grown. Access to education has widened, and rates of illiteracy plummeted. And innovators have developed technology that transformed lives.

    The progress that we have made over the past century is remarkable. The opportunities for the next generation even more so. But to deliver on that promise we need to recognise new challenges.

    As war and state-based conflicts have declined, it has been replaced by new threats. In the past five years, terrorists have killed around 20,000 people in Africa – from the 2013 siege in Nairobi’s Westgate shopping centre to last year’s horrific truck bombing in Mogadishu and March’s al-Qaeda attacks in Burkina Faso. Whether in Europe or Africa, non-state actors are threatening our lives and radicalising our people.

    And today, malign state activity is on the rise – from cyber attacks on national infrastructure and institutions, to the use of chemical weapons on the streets of the UK and Syria.

    While free trade and globalisation have brought huge benefits, they have not been felt by everyone and too many of our citizens fear that they will be left behind. From the great Financial Crisis of 2008, to the advent of artificial intelligence replacing human labour, people are questioning the model of economic development we seek to defend.

    And as we face such troubling questions, the capacity for governments old and new to provide the answers is being challenged.

    For some, the solution lies in seeking to halt or reverse change. Undermining the institutions of global co-operation, rebuilding the barriers to trade, viewing global competition as a zero sum game.

    I disagree.

    Because these are not challenges faced by a single nation alone.

    The ideology that inspires vicious terrorist attacks does not respect borders. A chemical weapons attack does not only harm its victims but weakens the rules that protect us all from such behaviour. In a more connected world we must all deal with the consequences, for good and ill, of increased mobility – not just of people through migration flows, but also of money, of data, of ideology. And we should recognise that competition and cooperation are not opposites. They can be mutually reinforcing.

    So now is the time for the nations of the world to come together. To co-operate. To view international competition as a process through which both sides can benefit. To work as partners, sharing our skills, our experience and our resources to tackle the challenges we face, to contain and direct the forces shaping the world and to deliver prosperity, security and success for all our people.

    This week I am visiting three countries – South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya – that I regard as key partners in achieving this goal. With thriving democracies, strong international ties, including through the Commonwealth, and fast-changing economies, they are typical of 21st century Africa. An Africa very different to the stereotypes that dominated previous centuries, and that some people still believe even today.

    In 2018, five of the world’s fastest-growing economies are African. The continent’s total GDP could well double between 2015 and 2030. By 2050, a quarter of the world’s population and a quarter of the world’s consumers will live here.

    From the Western Cape to the Mediterranean come stories of increasing stability, growth, innovation and hope.

    South Africa, for so long blighted by the evils of Apartheid, is free, democratic, and home to one of the continent’s largest economies.

    In Cote D’Ivoire, United Nations peacekeepers have gone home and GDP is growing three times faster than in Europe.

    And Ethiopia – for a generation of British people often associated only with famine – is fast becoming an industrialised nation, creating a huge number of jobs and establishing itself as a global destination for investment.

    Yet, in a situation familiar to nations around the world, progress has not been uniform.

    As well as emergent democracies and growing economies, Africa is home to the majority of the world’s fragile states and a quarter of the world’s displaced people.

    Extremist groups such as Boko Haram and al-Shabab are killing thousands. Africa’s ocean economy – three times the size of its landmass – is under threat from plastic waste and other pollution.

    Most of the world’s poorest people are Africans. And increasing wealth has brought rising inequality, both between and within nations. For example, much of Nigeria is thriving, with many individuals enjoying the fruits of a resurgent economy. Yet 87 million Nigerians live on less than $1.90 a day – making it home to more very poor people than any other nation in the world.

    Achieving not just growth but inclusive growth is a challenge faced by governments in the UK, Europe, North America and beyond. And as African economies become more successful it is an issue that is being confronted here too.

    Because, in the years ahead, demographic change will present further economic challenges and opportunities for this continent. Before arriving here this morning I visited the ID Mkize Secondary School in Gugulethu. The teenagers I met there were an inspiration, full of ideas and enthusiasm about their own futures and full of pride about the future of their country and their continent.

    It’s an outlook they share with so many Africans, 60 per cent of whom are aged under 25. Such a young population represents a phenomenal level of human capital and potential. With their innovation, dynamism and creativity, Africa’s young people could enrich not only this continent but the world economy and society at large.

    But to make the most of this promise it needs to be properly harnessed. Between now and 2035, African nations will have to create 18 million new jobs every year just to keep pace with the rapidly growing population. That’s almost 50,000 new jobs every single day, simply to maintain employment at its current level.

    That would be huge challenge for any continent, let alone one where economic growth is still fragile and markets are still developing.

    And it is indicative of the need to redouble our efforts to ensure the forces shaping our world deliver for all our people. Because the challenges facing Africa are not Africa’s alone. It is in the world’s interest to see that those jobs are created, to tackle the causes and symptoms of extremism and instability, to deal with migration flows and to encourage clean growth.

    If we fail to do so, the economic and environmental impacts will swiftly reach every corner of our networked, connected world. And the human impacts – from a loss of faith in free markets and democracy as the best way to secure global growth and human rights, to greater conflict and an increased susceptibility to extremism – will be similarly global.

    That is why I want to create a new partnership between the UK and our friends in Africa, one built around our shared prosperity and shared security.

    As Prime Minister of a trading nation whose success depends on global markets, I want to see strong African economies that British companies can do business with in a free and fair fashion. Whether through creating new customers for British exporters or opportunities for British investors, our integrated global economy means healthy African economies are good news for British people as well as African people.

    That’s why I’m delighted that we will today confirm plans to carry over the European Union’s Economic Partnership Agreement with the Southern African Customs Union and Mozambique once the EU’s deal no longer applies to the UK.

    As a Prime Minister who believes both in free markets and in nations and businesses acting in line with well-established rules and principles of conduct, I want to demonstrate to young Africans that their brightest future lies in a free and thriving private sector. One driven and underpinned by transparency, high standards, the rule of law and fairness. Only in such circumstances can innovation truly be rewarded, the potential of individuals unleashed, and societies provided with the opportunities they want, need and deserve.

    And as Prime Minister of a global nation, I’m all too aware that our domestic security is reliant on stability worldwide, not just in our immediate neighbourhood. From reducing drivers of illegal migration to denying refuge to terrorists who would strike our shores, in 2018 African and British security are inextricably linked and mutually dependent. That’s one of the reasons why I continue to support calls for a permanent African presence on the UN Security Council.

    So of course there is an element of national self-interest in what I’m proposing. I want to do what’s right for my country, just as President Ramaphosa wants what’s best for South Africa.

    And I see no distinction between national self-interest and global co-operation. For when the multilateral system works, it does so on behalf of nation states and our people, allowing us to harness the best we each have to offer, preventing the large dominating the small, and reinforcing fairness, transparency and the rule of law.

    It is not about extending geopolitical influence or creating lopsided dependent relationships. It is about the UK seeking to work more closely with the more than 50 nations of Africa to deliver our shared security and prosperity, and through this strengthening a global system that is capable of delivering lasting benefits for all.

    At the very heart of that partnership should be job creation. Every African leader I speak to identifies jobs as the number one demand of their people and their greatest political priority. Indeed, it is also at the centre of my agenda in the UK.

    It is the private sector that is the key to driving the growth that will deliver those jobs – transforming labour markets, opening up opportunity and unleashing entrepreneurial spirit. And the UK has the companies that can invest in and trade with Africa to do just this.

    However, for a variety of reasons the private sector has not yet managed to deliver the jobs and investment that many African nations need.

    So I want to put our development budget and expertise at the centre of our partnership as part of an ambitious new approach – and use this to support the private sector to take root and grow.

    And I can today announce a new ambition: by 2022, I want the UK to be the G7’s number one investor in Africa, with Britain’s private sector companies taking the lead in investing the billions that will see African economies growing by trillions.

    We have the tools to do so. The City of London makes the UK the unrivalled global hub for international investment, with more than £8 trillion of assets under management. We are home to cutting-edge science and technology and world-class defence, diplomacy and development. We are a trusted and trustworthy partner: our legal system is second to none, including some of the toughest anti-corruption laws in the world. Where our companies fall short, they are held to account, in the courts if necessary. And our commitment to free and open trade under the rules-based order means our international partners know they will be treated fairly.

    So a driving focus of our development programme will be to ensure that governments in Africa have the environment, knowledge, institutions and support to attract sustainable, long-term investments in the future of Africa and Africans.

    And to help bring those investments about, I can today announce an additional £4 billion programme of UK investment in African economies that will pave the way for at least another £4 billion of private sector financing.

    This includes, for the first time, an ambition from the UK government’s Development Finance Institution, CDC, to invest £3.5 billion in African nations over the next four years. And next year London will host an Africa Investment Summit, helping investors and African governments forge closer ties with one another.

    And because markets and economies need people as well as capital, we will also be sharing our expertise – supporting partner countries in developing their business environments and institutions, integrating into global value chains, building ties with investors and tackling barriers to growth.

    To do so, we will radically expand the UK government’s presence in Africa, opening new missions and bringing in trade experts, investment specialists, and other policy experts.

    We will continue to invest in the human capital that underpins future prosperity, ensuring that young African men and women have access to the quality education, healthcare and skills they need to fulfil their potential.

    And we will use our influence and global standing to encourage other developed nations, and the global institutions of which we are a leading member, to take the same approach.

    The ability to do this – to bring so much more to the table than just government funding – is what marks out the UK’s development programme as so effective.

    Aid is a crucial part of the equation, but it is accompanied by our ability to leverage huge sums of private sector investment from our capital markets. By our world-class professional services. By our unrivalled expertise in financial services and education. By our investment in science and research and the experience of some of the world’s most innovative companies.

    And it is all underpinned by our respected legal system, regulatory standards and values: British investors respect ethical practices, comply with local laws, contribute to local economies and build long-term local capability.

    So while we cannot compete with the economic might of some foreign governments investing in Africa, what we can offer is long-term investment of the very highest quality and breadth. Something that will deliver more for Africans for longer, and which can only be achieved when the government and private sector work together.

    At the same time, investment cannot be attracted nor growth achieved in the absence of security and the stability it brings. So, we also need to target our development assistance to build that stability and tackle the drivers of fragility.

    By 2030, 80 per cent of the world’s extreme poor will live in fragile states. Even in countries considered relatively stable and prosperous, pockets of fragility persist.

    The UK is already providing support for African governments that are meeting this challenge head-on. Nigerian troops on the frontline against Boko Haram have received specialist training from Britain. Counter-terror operations in Mali are being supported by British Chinook helicopters. British troops in Kenya have trained African Union peacekeepers heading for Somalia, while also working with international partners to reform the Somalian security forces for the long-term.

    UK law enforcement works hand in hand with their counterparts across Africa to tackle the destabilising menace of organised crime, from people traffickers to drug smugglers.

    But the answer to security challenges is not purely military or operational – it is also political. The new partnership I am proposing means working with African leaders who are driving progress, taking on the political challenges and vested interests to ensure that benefits flow to all their people. And it means building strong institutions, and helping to build trust between those institutions and the people who are governed by them.

    Because it is from those institutions – the building blocks of nation states – that all the benefits I have described today ultimately flow. Without the stability and certainty provided by reliable legal systems, enforceable contracts, recognised standards and so on, it is impossible for responsible private sector companies to make long-term investments. It is impossible for economies to create sufficient numbers of skilled, jobs. And growth cannot be fair and inclusive if markets, whether domestic or international, are not governed by transparent and effective rules that are actively enforced.

    This is particularly important in the fight against corruption and dirty money, both of which have the potential to push development off course by undermining the rule of law and diverting money out of the economy. That’s why, later this week, the UK will be signing a new agreement to repatriate huge sums of money that have been illegally removed from Kenya – allowing this money to be returned to its rightful owners and invested in the future of their country.

    And we must also support governments as they work to ensure development is not stalled by other threats. This includes boosting resilience against climate change and tackling demographic challenges by empowering women and girls with access to safe, voluntary modern family planning, enabling access to education and skills.

    In setting out this new partnership with Africa, I am making a broader proposition for how we will use our development assistance across the world, led by my excellent International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt.

    And as we reorient our development programme, I want to be clear: foreign aid works. Since 2015, UK aid in countries around the world has paid for more than 37 million children to be immunised, saving more than 600,000 lives. We’ve helped almost 11.5 million young people get an education, and given more than 40 million people access to clean water or proper sanitation. As I stand here today, people in the Democratic Republic of Congo are being treated with an Ebola vaccine developed with support from the UK.

    The UK’s role in international development is something of which I am immensely proud, as I believe the nation as a whole should be. We will remain a global champion for aid spending, humanitarian relief and international development. We will continue our commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on official development assistance. And we will not falter in our work to deliver the Sustainable Development Goals.

    But I am also unashamed about the need to ensure that our aid programme works for the UK. So today I am committing that our development spending will not only combat extreme poverty, but at the same time tackle global challenges and support our own national interest. This will ensure that our investment in aid benefits us all, and is fully aligned with our wider national security priorities.

    In practice, this will mean helping fast-growing frontier markets like Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal to sustain their development progress and create opportunities for investors, including British companies.

    It will also mean supporting countries and societies on the front line of instability in all of its forms. So we will invest more in countries like Mali, Chad and Niger that are waging a battle against terrorism in the Sahel – including by opening new embassies in Niger and Chad and having a much larger presence in Mali.

    We will do more with countries like Jordan, who are facing the threat of Daesh’s dispersal and the burden of the tragic conflict on their border with Syria, and to reinforce democracies facing state-based threats, as we recently did through our Western Balkans summit.

    We will use our aid programme to support a major new crack down on illicit finance and organised crime, deploying expertise in financial centres around the world and increasing our work with law enforcement to return more of the billions of dollars that have been stolen from countries in Africa and elsewhere.

    And we will invest more resources into countering illegal migration, modern slavery and trafficking in people.

    These new priorities will represent a fundamental strategic shift in the way we use our aid programme, putting development at the heart of our international agenda – not only protecting and supporting the most vulnerable people but bolstering states under threat, shaping a global economy that works for everyone, and building co-operation across the world in support of the rules-based system.

    We will use our future spending plans to set out these proposals in more detail.

    True partnerships are not about one party doing unto another, but states, governments, businesses and individuals working together in a responsible way to achieve common goals.

    Delivering such long-term success will not be quick or easy. But I am committed to Africa, and committed to using every lever of the British government to support the partnerships and ideas that will bring benefits for generations to come.

    When President Mandela addressed the Cape Town crowds in 1994, he spoke not only of the immense challenge facing South Africa, but also of his certainty that the people of this country would rise to meet it.

    As the world once again faces great uncertainties, I am confident that all our peoples can rise to the moment. That, together, we will tip the balance of change from challenge to opportunity. And that – as friends, partners and equals – we will secure a more prosperous future for all our people.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2018 Statement on Daesh

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, at the UN Security Council on 23 August 2018.

    I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I’d like to open the session by thanking Mr Voronkov and Ms Coninsx for their briefing on the Secretary-General’s report on the threat posed by the Daesh to international peace and security. I’d also like to welcome Dr Joana Cook. Thank you for sharing the key findings of your report on Daesh women and minors which shows the value of inviting civil society and researchers to inform our discussions.

    In the summer of 2014 Daesh swept down the Tigris and Euphrates valleys capturing thousands of square miles of Iraq and Syria and imposing its pitiless rule on millions of people in an area that was once the cradle of civilization. Over the next 3 years, attacks that were directed, inspired or enabled by Daesh would claim more than 30,000 lives including 181 attacks outside Iraq and Syria.

    The world responded by forming a Global Coalition to defeat this threat and military action by many countries including my own has driven Daesh from almost all of its domain and liberated millions from its oppression.

    But the point I wish to emphasise today is that this has not been vanquished and the root causes of its emergence have yet to be resolved. Britain shares the assessment of the Secretary-General’s report that Daesh is responding to the loss of territory by evolving into a covert terrorist network that branches as far apart as Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen.

    Daesh takes advantage of ungoverned space and weak states. Its terrorists do not necessarily require a central direction and they’ve demonstrated their ability to strike in Europe and Southeast Asia. The Secretary-General’s report estimates that as many as 20,000 Daesh fighters remain in Syria and Iraq, including the citizens of many countries. About 900 people with links to the United Kingdom have travelled to join the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. About 40% returned to the UK in the early days of Daesh’s so-called Caliphate and some 20% are believed dead. The rest are still in Iraq, Syria or elsewhere.

    Our response to this enduring threat should fall into 2 parts. First we must press on with military operations against Daesh. British forces continue to play their part as members of the global coalition and UK leads in a vital area of strategic communications against Daesh. This year the British government has committed another £20 million to counter-terrorism projects in countries we assessed to be most at risk from returning foreign fighters.

    Second, we should renew our focus on prevention. By addressing the root causes of the emergence of Daesh. This means doing more to support peace and reconciliation in Iraq and a lasting political settlement in Syria. It also means responding to specific humanitarian problems. For example, up to 20% of foreign fighters globally are women and girls. Almost 10% of the 40,000 individuals who travelled to join Daesh were minors. Many of whom have witnessed or experienced horrific violence and been exposed to radicalization. Some will be suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. We need to act to prevent these minors from becoming the next generation of terrorists. The UN has a vital role in the struggle against Daesh consistent with the responsibility of this Council to address threats to international peace and security. This Council made air travel more secure by passing Resolution 2309 – the first ever Resolution on aviation security. And it addressed the threat from foreign fighters in Resolutions 2178 and 2396. Earlier in 2005, this Council passed Resolution 1624 condemning incitement and repudiating all attempts to justify or glorify acts of terrorism.

    The Council should be willing to consider further action in order to counter the use of the internet by terrorists for propaganda and fundraising. Prevention is a key pillar of the UK’s approach to counter-terrorism. Our aim is to identify anyone at risk of radicalization and seek to reintegrate them into society. Agencies and local governments from health education social services and the police routinely meet to identify individuals at risk and refer them to programs run by specialists in de-radicalisation. This approach focused on prevention rather than prosecution after a crime has been committed has turned more than more 500 people away from terrorism in the UK.

    Over the years we’ve learned lessons and refined our Prevent programme. We stand ready to share our experiences with countries that face similar problems. Societies that are confident about their beliefs and values and hold governments to account are societies that are resistant to the virus of terrorism. The key to success is partnership between many nations. We mustn’t lose sight of the importance of those partnerships even as Daesh loses its grip on Syria and Iraq. I look forward to our discussion today on how we can act together to prevent and counter the evolving threat from Daesh. Thank you.

  • Jeremy Wright – 2018 Speech to Edinburgh TV Festival

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in Edinburgh, Scotland on 22 August 2018.

    It is an honour to be here at this very prestigious festival.

    As you say, I’m fairly new to this job and I recognise that I have a lot to learn, but I hope you will indulge me if I offer some preliminary thoughts on some of the things I have noticed so far.

    Today’s discussion is an important one. It is quite clear that the world of broadcasting is changing, with new channels and content producers transforming the media landscape.

    For me one fact brings this home loud and clear. Young people in Britain now recognise the name YouTube more than they recognise the name of the BBC.

    In these changing times, we must look at what our British broadcasters can do to adapt and thrive.

    One way to do this is to become more transparent, as the recent BBC Charter Review demonstrated with a huge step forward.

    Another way is to become more national.

    A media that is clustered in the capital can’t possibly reflect and represent the rich and diverse tapestry that is the United Kingdom.

    It is clear that the development of Media City Salford has been great for the BBC, great for ITV and great for an exciting cluster of tech and production companies in the region.

    But it has also been great for the UK as a whole, ensuring greater diversity and representation both on and off screen.

    I am delighted that Channel 4 has recently agreed to move 300 staff out of London, with more to come, and to increase spending on programmes outside London to 50 percent of what they do.

    I am looking forward to hearing the location of the new national HQ and creative hubs in October and I hope all broadcasters and producers will follow their lead and encourage the spread of jobs, prosperity, and opportunity beyond London.

    British broadcasting is having an increasing impact not just across the UK but across the world. UK TV programming sales are now at around a billion pounds a year.

    And Planet Earth 2, Midsomer Murders, and Sherlock have been sold to over 200 territories, with Sherlock, for example, being seen by 17 million viewers in China alone.

    From Baker Street to Beijing the reach of UK broadcasting is so wide. And it is getting wider.

    And although British television is changing, there are some long established characteristics that make it so impressive and important. Television, for example, has always been able to bring us together.

    It creates truly national moments through programmes like Planet Earth, Bake Off and even Love Island, helping to create common experiences and bind our communities.

    And public service broadcasters remain a vital part of the broadcasting landscape, with 85 percent of people in this country still watching them every week.

    Nine out of ten people in the UK think that programming and news coverage from Public Service Broadcasters is trustworthy, a vital asset in the era of fake news.

    And strong public service broadcasters mean a strong broadcasting sector as a whole.

    For example, they are vital in helping all broadcasters find talent, and one of the things I have heard loud and clear already is how important it is to find the right talent in this industry.

    This festival has recognised that for a long time – with the proceeds of ticket sales going to help provide an entry level route into the industry and to give talented individuals in the early stages of their careers a step up.

    I pay tribute to that work in helping so many people to have a brighter future in this industry.

    And talking about the future, I wanted to finish by saying just a few words about Brexit, which I know is on the minds of many people here.

    I know that there is concern about how talent will be able to move between the UK and the EU after our exit from the European Union.

    Although you will understand that the final outcome is still subject to negotiation, I can say that the government fully understands how important mobility is for this sector.

    As outlined in the recent White Paper on our future relationship with the EU, we are seeking to agree a framework for mobility with the EU.

    This will include reciprocal arrangements to allow UK nationals to visit the EU without a visa for short term business reasons, with equivalent arrangements for EU citizens coming to the UK.

    And we are working on a broader accord with the EU on culture and education that will, among other things, allow for the temporary movement of goods for major events, tours, exhibitions, and productions.

    Beyond that, as you know we have already reached an agreement with the EU on citizens’ rights, which will provide certainty to EU citizens currently living in the UK.

    And we will be developing a future immigration policy to welcome the people that we need and that we want to come here.

    We understand the importance of retaining European Works Status for the sector, and we were able to confirm this earlier in the year.

    I recognise of course that there are still issues to be resolved in this process and you have my assurance that I will make the case for the interests of this sector as we seek to resolve them.

    But regardless of our settlement with the EU, broadcasting will remain a vital part of what Britain offers the world.

    Because we have a broadcasting sector that’s really worth shouting about.

    Thank you for what you do to contribute to that, and I hope that you enjoy the rest of the festival.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2018 Speech at United States Institute For Peace

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, at the United States Institute for Peace on 21 August 2018.

    In 1898 when Theodore Roosevelt had just completed his tenure as the relatively lowly Assistant Secretary of the Navy, he said: “There comes a time in the life of a nation, as in the life of an individual, when it must face great responsibilities. We have now reached that time… all that we can decide is whether we shall bear ourselves well or ill.”

    History will surely judge that the United States lived up to Roosevelt’s challenge. Thanks to wise decisions made by him and his successors, strong American leadership has put in place a global order that has led to unparalleled peace and prosperity. No small part of that contribution has been made by the United States Institute for Peace and I am privileged to be making these comments here today.

    This period in our history has seen not just the defeat of fascism and communism but the emergence of an international order based on the application of law rather than might. And the result? An exponential growth in trade, leading to extraordinary advances in economic and social prosperity across the globe.

    This is borne out by virtually every indicator, even if they struggle to capture the headlines. For example, notwithstanding terrible recent bloodshed in Syria, the number of conflict-related deaths has fallen from 5 per 100,000 people across the globe in 1984 to just 1.2 per 100,000 in 2016. At the same time average life expectancy has risen from 31 in 1900 to 72 last year.

    If you look at the poorest countries you see even more spectacular progress: when I was born in 1966 half of humanity lived in extreme poverty – now it is just 9%, with 137,000 people emerging from this condition every single day over the last 25 years.

    It is probably not hyperbole to say this period has been the most productive and successful in the 300,000 years that homo sapiens has existed. But how confident can we be that this democratic political and economic order which has done us so proud will actually be sustained?

    Four challenges to the post-war order

    After the fall of the Berlin Wall many assumed we had reached ‘the end of history’ – that western liberal democracies were so obviously the best way of running a society that no one would ever question their uniquely successful combination of economic and political freedoms. Indeed what we used to call ‘Western’ values’ have in some ways become universal, adopted by citizens in Africa and Asia as much as Europe and America.

    But we now know that such unalloyed optimism was misplaced. Not only is our democratic model declining in attractiveness for too many people but globalisation itself appears in retreat. Whilst in the 30 years after 1970 the number of democracies grew from 32 to 77, in the period since 2006 freedom has been in decline. According to Freedom House, 71 countries suffered net declines in political rights and civil liberties last year – and less than half of UN member states are designated ‘free’.

    Four developments in particular should give us cause for concern:

    Firstly the established rules of international conduct are repeatedly being flouted by major countries like Russia. The seizure of Crimea in 2014 was the first time that territory has been annexed in Europe by force of arms since 1945. But in fact it was not the Kremlin’s first territorial incursion in this century, which was the invasion of Georgia in 2008.

    At the same time, we have also seen the open flouting of international norms on the use of chemical weapons by both Russia and Syria – in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 to which both countries are parties.

    As a result hundreds have died horrific deaths in Syria. And this March the Russian government even used a banned nerve agent on the streets of Salisbury in Britain in an attempt to assassinate Sergei and Yulia Skripal. One British citizen was tragically killed as a result.

    Such aggressive and malign behaviour undermines the international order that keeps us safe. And of course we must engage with Moscow, but we must also be blunt: Russia’s foreign policy under President Putin has made the world a more dangerous place.

    The second challenge is the changing East-West balance of power.

    By 2030 China is forecast to overtake America as the world’s biggest economy. 800 million Chinese have lifted themselves out of grinding poverty, surely something everyone should welcome. By 2050 China and India are projected to account for a greater share of global GDP than the G7 – compared to less than half of that level today.

    But with economic power comes political responsibility. And whilst China has been vocal in its support for some features of the existing system, particularly elements that enable it to trade freely with the world, it has been less supportive in other areas, refusing for example to oppose Russia’s annexation of Crimea or support measures to strengthen the international ban on chemical weapons. Our hope must be for consistent, strong backing from China for the international rules-based order – and the key will be to get the right balance of competition and cooperation so that we can secure shared objectives wherever possible.

    Then there is the third challenge, namely the fraying domestic support for democratic systems in our own countries.

    Since the financial crash of 2008, many voters have started to question globalisation and reject political leaders they associate as defending it. This has combined with a sense that attempts to export our own economic and political model to countries like Iraq have ended up as spectacular failures.

    Disenchantment is so bad that according to one poll 1 in 10 people in Europe – and 1 in 6 in America – think it would be a good thing for ‘the army to rule’.

    Added to which are basic challenges to the plumbing of our systems. The heart of any democracy is freedom of expression, which allows citizens to access independent information to help decide who to vote for. But the ubiquity of fake news, social media targeting and foreign attempts to manipulate elections have undermined confidence that this can actually happen.

    The result is cynicism about both democratic systems and the elites who run them, a cynicism that would be fuelled further if companies with a global reach such as Google were to accept censorship as the price of entry into the Chinese market. The result is that those of us – myself included – who strongly support the basic tenets of the post-1945 international order find we are not just having to make the arguments for it abroad, but at home as well.

    We should never be complacent about one further challenge, namely the continuing threat from Islamist-inspired terrorism. This continues to use distorted religious dogma to reject the entire basis of the international order – including the modern state system itself which they would like to replace with a so-called Caliphate.

    Since the dark days of 9/11 in New York and 7/7 in London we have made great military progress towards defeating extremist organisations. But truthfully we have made far less progress in understanding why those movements arose in the first place so we can prevent their re-emergence. Nor have we successfully reassured our own peoples that such ideologies will never be allowed to threaten our own open culture.

    So how should we respond to these challenges? I want to suggest 3 things in particular.

    1. Firstly we need to rebuild the strongest possible alliances between countries that share the same values.

    The visible advantage that won NATO the Cold War was military capability. The invisible weapon was a rock-solid alliance of like-minded nations that sat behind it. Those shared values meant no opponent was ever in doubt about our red lines.

    Henry Kissinger, who I am privileged to be meeting in a couple of days in New York, said that “credibility for a state plays the role of character for a human being. It provides a guarantee that its assurances can be relied upon by friends and its threats taken seriously by adversaries.” But instead of building up our credibility, we have been weakening it.

    A limp response to Russia’s intervention in Georgia in 2008 can only have made the 2014 annexation of Crimea more likely. Our failure to respond to Assad’s use of sarin gas in 2013 must be at least part of the reason why he chose to use chemical weapons again in 2014, 2015, 2017 and in April this year.

    Not every hostile action constitutes the crossing of a ‘red line’ and we will always need a graduated menu of responses. But the strengthening of our credibility in support of a rules-based international order must become a central goal of foreign policy.

    Those who do not share our values need to know that there will always be a serious price to pay if red lines are crossed – whether territorial incursions, the use of banned weapons or, increasingly, cyber attacks.

    And part of that credibility comes from unity.

    We showed that this year with a strong, united response from 28 allies to the use of chemical weapons in Salisbury. 153 Russian intelligence officials were expelled including 60 who were removed by the United States – more than any other country – and the US has since gone further by announcing sanctions. Combined with the decisive US military response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Douma in April – joined by Britain and France – we can see that the red lines on chemical weapon use have started to regain credibility.

    And today the United Kingdom asks its allies to go further by calling on the European Union to ensure its sanctions against Russia are comprehensive, and that we truly stand shoulder to shoulder with the US. That means calling out and responding to transgressions with one voice wherever and whenever they occur, from the streets of Salisbury to the heart of Crimea.

    We need to remember the importance of unity as we face, not just on this issue – whether it is halting the malign influence of Iran, ending the conflicts in Syria and Yemen, denuclearising the Korean Peninsula or fair burden-sharing within NATO, where President Trump is surely right to urge higher defence spending by European allies as Britain is doing.

    Making compromises for the sake of unity will always be necessary. We should never forget Margaret Thatcher’s words: “It is in a country’s interests to keep faith with its allies. States in this sense are like people. If you have a reputation for exacting favours and not returning them, the favours dry up.”

    And one of the biggest threats to European unity would be a chaotic no-deal Brexit. Britain would, of course, find a way to prosper and we have faced many greater challenges in our history. We will always be a dependable ally for the US and all countries that share our values. But the risk of a messy divorce, as opposed to the friendship we seek, would be a fissure in relations between European allies that would take a generation to heal – a geostrategic error for Europe at an extremely vulnerable time in our history. So, as I have been saying to European governments, now is the time for the European Commission to engage with an open mind with the fair and constructive proposals made by the Prime Minister.

    For all of us – the United States, the EU and the UK – the strategic choices we make on these issues will have a profound impact on the solidity of our democratic and economic systems. In the face of these new challenges now is surely the time to rebuild the unity of purpose we know is essential.

    2. The second response to the challenges we face will take longer – but is even more important. We need to regain the economic momentum that ultimately lies at the root of political power. Power follows money. If we want to project our values, we need competitive economies.

    Professor Paul Kennedy of Yale University defined the “process of rise and fall among the Great Powers” as being the result of “differentials in growth rates and technological change, leading to shifts in the global economic balances, which in turn gradually impinge upon political and military balances.”

    Britain of course knows this well. In the 19th century, thanks to the Industrial Revolution and the invention of steam-powered mass production, we eclipsed all of our rivals and became the first truly global power in history.

    Of course as poorer countries develop, their share of global wealth will increase – and we should welcome that. But we also need to stay in the game. Recent improvements in US growth are encouraging, but all of us need to play to our strengths.

    Free and open societies are not just the best hedge against the corruption that disfigures and constrains economic growth in so many countries. They are also the natural incubators of innovative technological advances that power modern economies. As John Stuart Mill put it: “Genius can only breathe in an atmosphere of freedom.” Of the top 10 countries in this year’s Global Innovation Index, nearly all are liberal democracies. Britain is fourth, the US comes sixth – and those 2 countries account for 19 of the world’s top 20 universities.

    China’s astonishing march into AI and robotics show that our leadership in creativity and innovation is not unchallenged. We in Britain are responding with a modern industrial strategy, focused on the fourth industrial revolution and including major education reforms along with the biggest investment in rail since Victorian times. But there is much more to do and we must all prove in this new era that free, open, capitalist values are still the key to economic renewal and prosperity. Free trade is a critical too and that the United Kingdom warmly welcomes the support from the US administration for a UK/US free trade deal.

    3. The final response to the challenges we face must be to get our own house in order.

    Dissatisfaction with the way society works is nothing new – although social media can make it spread like wildfire. But we are putting our heads in the sand if we think we can blame social media by pretending that some of the causes of that resentment are not real – whether caused by the decline in real incomes for many Americans and Europeans, dislocation caused by changes in technology or the identity concerns of many voters caused by immigration.

    To reject those concerns as being held by a minority of voters with illiberal views is to make a dangerous mistake. In Britain the 52% of our country who voted to leave the EU cannot be dismissed as far-right extremists. Nor the many who seek change in the US.

    Our 2 histories share a common thread of the benefits of freedom and prosperity progressively being shared with more and more of our peoples. But if our electorates believe that such benefits are no longer being shared fairly between political elites and the people they represent, then resentment boils over. Expressing such resentment is an affirmation and not a rejection of the core democratic instinct that a society must work for all its citizens – so the sooner we address those concerns the stronger our democracies will be.

    Part of that must be to address concerns about the basic functioning of our democracies. Given the importance of the online world for political communication, the rules governing online activity in the run up to elections should surely be as strict as those elsewhere – and modern electorates should be given confidence that the results cannot be influenced by the cyber activities of other countries.

    At the same time, we need to restore confidence in the multilateral institutions whose job is to protect the stability of the international order and the values it depends on. No-one understood the importance of this task better than Kofi Annan, a humane and principled leader who embodied the best of the UN during his 10 years as Secretary General and whose death last Saturday we all mourn. But he would have been the first to acknowledge that all too often these institutions are seen as talking shops with little capacity to engineer real change. Given they sit at the heart of the international rules-based order the UK and US must continue to make common cause to progress bold and necessary reforms.

    These are just 3 of the many possible responses to the challenges we face. But if the issues seem daunting, history also tells us that nothing is inevitable.

    The progress we have made did not happen by accident – but rather as the result of extraordinary endeavour and difficult choices made at critical moments. I started with Teddy Roosevelt so let me finish with his formidable niece Eleanor who said that in working for the dignity and freedom of the human race “to stand still is to retreat”. Just as others before us, now is the time to move forward, with clarity and purpose.

  • Ken Livingstone – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Ken Livingstone in the House of Commons on 7 July 1987.

    I shall start by praising my predecessor, Mr. Reg Freeson. There are some who may he surprised at that. Our differences were political and I do not think that anyone would suggest that he did not serve his constituency as well and as excellently as any other hon. Member. Therefore, I praise his record in this place, although I played some part in ending his presence here. Given how bad the post is currently, I cannot report that I have had a letter of congratulations from him yet. I shall notify the House when t do. I would not urge right hon. and hon. Members to hold their breath.

    I want to thank all the officials of the House, including the police, for their assistance. I cannot recall anywhere that I have been where there is such a degree of helpfulness, general good humour and pleasantness. I am certain that other new Members think the same. I do not know why that should be. Perhaps close proximity to 649 fellow politicians induces this state of good humour, or perhaps there are those who have a private joke that they are not telling the rest of us.

    I wish to start by making clear my position on violence. I condemn without equivocation all acts of violence, but I am not prepared to be uneven-handed. I do not believe that we should condemn the violence of the IRA and produce a less strident condemnation of the violence of other extra-legal organisations. Nor do I believe that we should be any the less outraged when those who operate on behalf of the British state and security forces go beyond the law or the conventions of decency, as has occasionally happened. Either we condemn all violence or we are not placed to condemn any of it.

    Like many others, I do not believe that direct rule is a workable option for Ireland. I believe that nothing short of a united Ireland will bring about an end to the troubles that have assailed our involvement with that island over hundreds of years, with an especial viciousness over the past two decades. Throughout my parliamentary career I shall continue to press at every opportunity for a withdrawal of Britain from Ireland and the opening to a united Ireland in which the Irish people can decide how best to govern themselves.

    There are many inevitable contradictions—I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will not share this view—in what I perceive as a colonial situation. As in the past, it is inevitable that problems will arise when one power occupies wholly or in part another nation with a separate culture and identity. With the best intentions in the world, the occupying power is led into abuse of its authority, and in so doing alienates key sections of the community.
    I should imagine that much the most effective method of recruitment into the IRA has been the consistent abuse of power over decades by those who held the whip hand while Stormont existed through 50 years of misrule. The only thing that is remarkable is that it took 50 years before the present violence erupted. That suggests a degree of patience and tolerance on the part of the minority of Northern Ireland that I do not think many other peoples around the world would necessarily have been prepared to equal.

    There have been many instances when the present Government’s policies and their agents have been ideal recruiting agents for the IRA. The attitude of the Government towards the hunger strike did more to boost support for those pursuing a violent solution for Northern Ireland than anything that they could have done themselves.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had a shoot-to-kill policy. That has been successfully covered up, but it came close to exposure when Mr. John Stalker was set to investigate it. When it became clear that he was not prepared to be corrupt and that he would not do a whitewash job to let the RUC off the hook, the British establishment, through all its usual means, ensured that he was removed from his task. I wish that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would pursue the inquiry with the same vigour that he condemns the terrorists and ensure that the results of it are brought to the Floor of the House as rapidly as possible as a matter of public debate. As long as the minority in Northern Ireland believes that there is one law and one tone of condemnation of violence for one section of the community but not the other, we shall not be able to achieve any real progress towards peace.

    Representatives of the unionist parties have talked about double standards, and these cannot be denied. We have heard since the Gracious Speech that the British Government intend to continue with the policies that they have been pursuing in the north and possibly to sharpen them to end discrimination against the minority in employment. I welcome that, but if it is good enough for Northern Ireland, why do the British Government do everything possible to prevent Labour councils in Britain that wish to adopt similar policies from ending discrimination against minorities in Britain? We shall not be able to unite the people of Northern Ireland while we have a policy stance for them that is different from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. That makes a mockery of the idea that this is a united kingdom.

    One of the greatest problems to arise during the present troubles has been the backlash against the Irish community in Britain, which my constituents in Brent have suffered. Far too many innocent people are subject to harassment by the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It has been used in a way which was never intended. Still today not 1 per cent. of those detained and harassed by the security forces—I am talking about individual ​ Irish women and men making their way backwards and forwards between the two countries—is ever convicted of any form of crime. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is being used by agents of the British state to harass those who actively campaign for a united Ireland. Every time they do it a nail is driven further into the concept of our remaining with any hold in Ireland.

    As many other nations have found—for example, the French in Algeria—it is inevitable that if we set out to hold a nation against its will, however good our intentions, abuses of power will occur. I wish to draw attention to that by referring to one specific instance.

    During my election campaign in Brent, East, there was an unusual public meeting. An individual was invited to it who has never been a Socialist, who will never be prepared to vote Labour and who thinks that the Tory party is the natural governing party of Britain. He was invited to share a platform with myself and some of the relatives of those who have been subject to miscarriages of justice by the British courts over issues of bombing here in Britain. We invited Mr. Fred Holroyd. For those who do not know, Mr. Holroyd served in Northern Ireland with distinction. As I said, he is no Socialist. He comes from a military family. He went to a Yorkshire grammar school. His whole objective in life was to serve in the British Army. He believed in it totally. He enlisted as a private in the gunners, and three years later he was commissioned into the Royal Corps of Transport. He volunteered for the Special Military Intelligence unit in Northern Ireland when the present troubles began, and he was trained at the Joint Services School of Intelligence. Once his training was finished, he was stationed in Portadown, where, for two and a half years, he ran a series of intelligence operations. I quote him so that there can be no suspicion that he might be a secret member of the Militant Tendency or a secret republican. At the public meeting, his words were that he believed that the Army officers and men with whom he worked were
    “genuinely honest men trying to do the best job in the circumstances. They were in a no-win situation.”

    When he was recruited as an M16 officer, he said of them that they were not disagreeable; their ethics were reasonable; they were seeking a political solution. His complaint, which eventually led to his removal from the Army and an attempt to discredit him, which has been largely successful, was made when the M16 operation was taken over by M15 in 1975—by many of the same people who are dealt with in Peter Wright’s book, and many of the same people who are alleged to have been practising treason against the elected Labour Government of the time. He said that once the M15 took over the reasonable ethics of M16 were pushed aside by operatives in the intelligence world who supported the views of Mr. Kitson and the policies and tactics of subverting the subverters. I recommend Brigadier Kitson’s words to those who are not aware of them. His attitude was to create a counter-terror group, to have agents provocateur, to infiltrate, and to run a dirty tricks campaign in an attempt to discredit the IRA.

    Mr. Holroyd continued to believe that what he was doing was in the best interests of the British state until early in 1975, when Captain Robert Nairac, who, as many hon. Members will know, was later murdered by the IRA, went into his office, fresh from a cross-border operation ​ —something that of course is completely illegal—and showed him the colour photographs that had been taken by Captain Nairac’s team. Captain Nairac had crossed the border with some volunteers from the UDF. He had assassinated John Francis Green, an active member of the IRA who was living south of the border. As an agent of the British Government operating across the border as an assassin he had brought back photographs as proof of that operation. When Captain Nairac showed the photographs, Mr. Holroyd started to object, not because he objected to an active member of the IRA being assassinated in a highly illegal cross-border raid but because he realised that once the British state started to perpetrate such methods there was no way that eventually Britain would not alienate vast sections of the community and eventually lose the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Irish people.

    Holroyd then started to object to the use of such illegal methods by M15 officers. He was immediately shuffled to one side by the expedient method of being taken to a mental hospital and being declared basically unfit for duty. During the month that he spent in the British mental hospital, the three tests that were administered to him were completely successfully passed. Certainly, over a decade later, having met him, I can see no evidence whatsoever that he was in some sense mentally unbalanced. He was a spy who realised that the operations of the British Government were counter-productive. He started to object, and was pushed to one side for his pains.

    I raise the link with Captain Robert Nairac because, as I said, Fred Holroyd had qualms about this but was not particularly shocked; these things happen in a war. The matter needs to be investigated. I cannot prove the claims but allegations are being made extensively here in Britain, in republican circles and on Irish radio and television. A particularly horrifying incident that many hon. Members will remember was the murder of three members of the Miami showband—completely innocent musicians with no political affiliations whatsoever. It took place in the midst of the ceasefire that had been negotiated by the then Labour Government and the IRA. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) pushed it through and sustained it, although there was considerable opposition from within the security services and within many political parties. The Labour Government did everything possible to make the ceasefire work, but it was not wholly accepted within the apparatus of M15—our operatives who allegedly were working on behalf of the British state in Northern Ireland.

    What is particularly disturbing is that what looked at the time like a random act of maniacal violence and sectarian killing now begins to take on a much more sinister stance. It has begun to emerge that Captain Robert Nairac is quite likely to have been the person who organised the killing of the three Miami showband musicians. The evidence for that allegation is forensic and members of the UDF are prepared to say that they were aware of the dealings between members of the UDF gang who actually undertook the murder of the Miami showband musicians. The evidence is quite clear. The same gun that was used by Captain Nairac on his cross-border trip to assassinate John Francis Green was used in the Miami showband massacre.

    Earlier this year, the radio and television service of southern Ireland, RTE, showed a documentary in which the makers—not myself; no one could accuse RTE of ​ being pro-IRA—that allege they have now had contacts with members of the UDF in that area who say that Captain Nairac passed the explosives and the guns to the UDF and set up the killing of the Miami showband musicians. If that is true, it needs to be investigated. The allegation was made on the broadcasting networks of southern Ireland. It is supported by men who served on behalf of Britain as spies in the area at the time. It needs to be investigated and disproved, or the people behind it rooted out. If one wanted to find a way of ending the ceasefire that had been negotiated between the Labour Government and the IRA, what better way to do so than to encourage random sectarian killings? I believe that that was happening.

    It is likely that many of the officers mentioned in Peter Wright’s book who were practising treason against the British Government at home were also practising treason against the British Government in Ireland. If the allegations are true, they were prepared to murder innocent Catholics to start a wave of sectarian killing which would bring to an end the truce that the Labour Government had negotiated with the IRA. No democratic society can allow that sort of allegation to go uninvestigated. It is made by people who served on our behalf as intelligence officers in the area.

    We saw in last Sunday’s edition of The Observer that another intelligence officer, Colin Wallace, who was closely linked with Fred Holroyd in a campaign to expose what was going on, has been dismissed as irrelevant by the British Government. We see now that The Observer, using forensic tests, has been able to demonstrate that the notes that he wrote were not written in the past couple of years by somebody who is embittered and is trying to cash in on what has started to come out. A clear analysis of the ink that was used in the notes shows that they were written in the early 1970s. Slowly, it all begins to pull together.

    The interesting thing about the Peter Wright case is that in his defence in court he said that he was a loyal servant of Britain, and that he sought only to expose corruption and spies in Britain and an establishment that covered them up. One of the arguments by which he demonstrated his loyalty to Britain was when he said in his book that he did not deal with what he knew about operations in Ireland because that could still be damaging to the British Government.

    One needs to take together the accusations of Wallace and Holroyd and link them clearly to what is being said by Peter Wright. There was not just treason by some M15 officers in Britain. Treason was also taking place in Ireland. Those employed by the British state are alleged to have been responsible for killing innocent civilians in order to end a ceasefire with which they disagreed because their political objectives were different from those of the Labour Government of the day. That is a most horrifying crime.

    Wallace and Holroyd are making these quite specific allegations. They are now drafting a book that will expose much more, and we need to ask why the British Government take no action to stop them or to silence them. They pursue Peter Wright, but they are terrified that if they take Wallace and Holroyd to court they will expose in court things that will shake the Government to its foundations.

    A stupid thing happened when the British Army decided to get Holroyd out and discredit him. The officer put in as his replacement, and who was unaware of what had been going on, arrived in the office and assembled all ​ of Holroyd’s papers into a large container and dispatched them to his home. Before the British Government start rubbishing Holroyd too flamboyantly, they should be warned that he retains almost all the case papers that were in his control. They deal with his operations and his work and they are safely out of this country and beyond the reach of the Government.

    We must have a full investigation. Before I could happily vote for this extension of direct rule, I want to see some evidence that the Government are prepared to ensure that these abuses are exposed. I want them to guarantee that similar abuses are not continuing. The whole series of events about which I have spoken must be investigated. Very soon we must have the full evidence about the shoot-to-kill policy of the RUC because I have no doubt that that is being covered up. It would have been most useful if John Stalker had been able to conclude his inquiry after the attempt to discredit him had been exposed and overturned by the local police authority.

    We have to examine other allegations made on RTE that M15 officers were engaged in undermining the power sharing Executive set up by the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). We have to look again at the allegations by Colin Wallace about the Kincora boys’ home scandal. It has been suggested that young boys in a home effectively controlled by M15 were buggered so that Protestant politicians could be blackmailed and silenced by M15. ‘That allegation cannot continue to drift around. It must be investigated and the truth exposed. The longer the British Government cover up and deny all this and refuse to investigate, the more the impression will be created that they know full well what has been going on and that far too many members of the Government are the beneficiaries of these acts of treason by M15 officers in Britain and abroad.
    I do not believe for a minute that these things could have been going on without members of the Conservative party being kept informed in the generality if not in specific details. It looks increasingly likely that Mr. Airey Neave was in touch with some of these officers, and it is certainly the case that Airey Neave delivered a speech that had been——

    Mr. Gow On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with very great reluctance that I intervene during the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), but will you please make it clear to him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that references to Airey Neave of the kind that we have heard are deeply offensive?

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) Order. Hon. Members making their first speech in the House are usually heard without interruption. So far I have heard nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that is out of order.

    Mr. Livingstone May I make it clear to the House that I am reporting allegations that hon. Members have read in newspapers and that are reported on radio and television both here and abroad. They are made by intelligence officers who served at the time in Ireland on behalf of the British Government. It may well be that the allegations are all a tissue of lies, but can we imagine any other Western Government who would allow such damaging allegations to circulate month after month and year after year and not move to lance the boil? They would either deal with the allegations or demonstrate that they ​ were untrue. The Prime Minister’s day-by-day refusal to investigate what was happening in M15 at that time can only lead a large number of reasonable people both here and abroad to believe that there is some element of truth in the allegations now circulating.

    If Conservative Members are shocked that allegations are made about Airey Neave, they should join me in demanding a full investigation so that Airey Neave’s name can be cleared. Why just Airey Neave? The allegations that I have outlined to the House about Captain Robert Nairac should also be investigated, as should the allegations about the Kincora boys’ home. They should be investigated by a Committee of the House so that we can know the truth. As long as the Prime Minister continues to resist this, and as long as it is quite obvious that she was the main beneficiary of the work of these traitorous officers in M15, many reasonable people cannot avoid the conclusion that she was kept informed to some degree via Airey Neave who had close links with the intelligence services. He made a speech for which false information was provided by Colin Wallace, and Colin Wallace now admits that.

    There is something rotten at the heart of the British security services, and we will not have a safe democracy until it is exposed in its entirety and dealt with.

  • John Major – 1989 Autumn Statement

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Autumn Statement, given in the House of Commons on 15th November 1989.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. Cabinet agreed the Government’s expenditure plans this morning. I am now able to inform the House of the public expenditure outturn for this year; the plans for the next three years; proposals for national insurance contributions in 1990-91; and the forecast of economic prospects for 1990 required by the Industry Act 1975. The main public expenditure figures, together with the full text of the economic forecast, will be available from the Vote Office as soon as I sit down. The printed Autumn Statement will be published next Wednesday.

    Tight control of public expenditure remains a central element of the Government’s economic strategy. In the past seven years this has led to a sharp fall in the ratio of public spending, excluding privatisation proceeds, to national income. This fall has made it possible to improve dramatically the Government’s finances while still making substantial reductions in tax rates. The ratio of public spending to gross domestic product was nearly 47 per cent. in 1982-83. In the current year, it is likely to be 38.75 per cent., significantly below the level expected at the time of the last Autumn Statement. For the next two years the plans I am announcing today show ratios of 39 and 38.75 per cent. Those are unchanged from the ratios published in last year’s Autumn Statement, and permit a cash increase in general Government expenditure in 1990-91 of around £5.5 billion. By 1992-93 the ratio is expected to fall further to its lowest level since the mid-1960s.

    For the current year, the outturn of expenditure is expected to be about £168 billion–£1 billion higher than the original planning total. This partly reflects a lower level of privatisation proceeds, but its principal cause is massive overspending by local authorities on both current and capital account. As the House knows, new arrangements for the finance and control of local authority expenditure in England and Wales are being introduced on 1 April 1990. This year’s outturn shows how necessary those new measures are. Central Government spending remains firmly under control. The plans for the next three years have been set on the new definition of the planning total which the Government announced in July last year and which was welcomed by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.

    This includes central Government support for local authorities, but excludes their self-financed expenditure. The composition of general Government expenditure remains unchanged. For 1990-91, the new planning total has been set at £179 billion and, in the following two years, at £192 billion and £203 billion respectively. Within that, the estimates of privatisation proceeds are unchanged, at £5 billion a year. There are also substantial reserves, rising from £3 billion in 1990-91 to £6 billion and £9 billion in the following two years.

    The new plans also show continued real growth in spending on the Government’s priorities. Thus, between this year and next, spending on the National Health Service in the United Kingdom will rise by £2, 400 million. Taking account of income generation and cost savings, that is equivalent to a £2,600 million increase in resources, or 5.5 per cent. in real terms. These plans will finance the improvements in the management of the service outlined in the National Health Service review. They provide more than £200 million extra for hospital building and other capital expenditure next year ; and they will finance continuing growth in services for patients. They are the clearest possible evidence of the Government’s practical commitment to improving the care available in the National Health Service.

    There will be substantial increases also for investment in transport. Spending on national roads is planned to double between 1988-89 and 1992-93. Extra financing of £400 million to £500 million a year is being made available for the railways and London Regional Transport, including upgrading the services on Network SouthEast and the London Underground, to relieve congestion and improve safety, and for rail services for the Channel tunnel. In total we have added £1.8 billion to the planned spending on transport in the next two years. The plans provide an extra £250 million over the next two years for a new initiative to tackle homelessness, to be announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Central Government support for the provision of new homes by housing associations will more than double from £800 million in 1989-90 to £1,700 million in 1992-93.

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already announced real increases in benefits which will help 1.5 million families and 500,000 long-term sick and disabled people. There will be a further increase of over £500 million in the total resources available for higher education in 1990-91 compared with this year. It will provide for the continuing growth in the number of students, which has risen by 30 per cent. since 1979, and is now at a record level and it will cover the cost of the Government’s proposals on top-up loans. There is provision for more environmental research, including the new climate change centre and the doubling of our contribution to the United Nations environmental programme. About £1.5 billion has been added to planned capital spending by central Government and public corporations in 1990-91. That represents a real increase of around 10 per cent. compared with 1989-90.

    Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member for a long time, but I wish to know whether I am allowed to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. He is making a long statement. Am I allowed to ask a question and, if not, when can I ask him a question?

    Mr. Speaker : Surely the hon. Member does not need to pose that question. If I call him later, he can ask the Chancellor a question then.

    Mr. Major : The new plans include the money central Government provide to support local authority spending. The Government’s proposals for aggregate external finance in 1990-91 were announced to the House in July. Measures have also been announced which will ease the transition from rates to community charge. The cost to the taxpayer of these measures will be nearly £700 million in 1990-91, with further substantial sums in each of the following two years.

    Capital grants and credit approvals will provide central Government support for local authority capital expenditure under the new arrangements. The new plans provide support for a sustained programme of school and college building and modernisation, for local authorities to contribute to the homelessness package, for transport projects, as well as capital spending on other local services, including local roads and environmental improvement. As in the past, these improvements have been possible only through a rigorous selection of priorities, substantial gains in value for money, and a very welcome reduction in the burden of debt interest. They have been found within an affordable level of total public spending. Overall public spending excluding privatisation proceeds is expected to grow on average by 1.75 per cent. a year in real terms throughout the period between 1988-89 and 1992-93. This was the rate of growth projected in last year’s Autumn Statement and we have stuck to it. Over the 1970s, a decade of high borrowing and high inflation, as well as high public spending, it grew not by 1.75 per cent. a year but by 3 per cent. a year.

    The Government’s new plans demonstrate their continuing commitment to two vital principles : first, to maintain firm control over total spending; and secondly, to increase efficiency in order to provide more resources where they are most needed. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on his skilful and successful conduct of the public spending round.

    I turn next to national insurance contributions. As the House knows, we have now implemented the reform of employee contributions announced by my right hon. Friend the member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in the Budget. From last month, two of the three step increases in contribution rates have been abolished. This means that employees who get pay increases taking them just above these steps can no longer lose more in higher contributions than they gain in extra pay. And the initial step at earnings of £43 a week, where people first enter the contribution system, has been more than halved. These measures have reduced contributions by up to £3 a week for nearly 19 million employees and are of particular help to many employees on modest incomes ; they have also removed some important disincentives. The usual autumn review of contributions has been conducted in the light of advice from the Government Actuary on the prospective income and expenditure of the national insurance fund, and taking account of the statement on benefits made in October by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

    Next year, the initial class 1 contribution rate payable on earnings up to the lower earnings limit will remain at only 2 per cent. This means that a payment of only 92p a week will buy entitlement to the basic pension and other contributory benefits for those who earn just enough to pay contributions. On additional earnings, up to the upper earnings limit, the rate will remain unchanged at 9 per cent. For employers, the main rate will also be unchanged at 10.45 per cent.

    The lower earnings limit will be increased to £46 a week, in line with the single person’s pension, and the upper earnings limit will be raised to £350 a week. For employers, the upper limits for the three reduced bands will be increased broadly in line with prices. I am also publishing today the economic forecast required by the Industry Act 1975.

    It is clear beyond doubt that the economy has greatly strengthened over the last decade. We have experienced eight years of strong and sustained growth with inflation at moderate levels. This has brought an increase in employment of about 2.75 million since March 1983 and a sustained rise in living standards. However, it is also clear that in the last two years, 1987 and 1988, demand, and with it output, rose at a rate which exceeded expectations and could not be sustained. That became apparent in increased inflationary pressures and the growth of the current account deficit.

    These pressures had to be reduced and monetary policy was tightened accordingly. The effects of this tightening are already apparent in recent retail sales figures, and the turnaround in the housing market. The Government’s fiscal position is also very strong. I now expect this year’s fiscal surplus to be about £12.5 billion, equivalent to 2.5 per cent. of GDP. That represents a very tight fiscal stance by any standards. Both tax yield and expenditure are higher than forecast at Budget time, but lower proceeds from privatisation and the very high take-up of personal pensions mean that the public sector debt repayment will be slightly below the Budget projections.

    Looking at the wider economy, as always, a great deal inevitably depends on the actions of companies and individuals. So there is bound to be uncertainty about the speed with which the economy will adjust to the present tight stance of policy. Our forecast is that growth in domestic demand will be a little over 3.5 per cent. in the current year–a sharp, but inevitable, slowdown from over 7 per cent. recorded in 1988.

    Non-oil GDP is expected to grow by 3 per cent. this year. GDP growth as a whole for the current year looks like turning out at 2 per cent., a little below the forecast published at Budget time. This results from lower than expected North sea oil production, which is taking longer than expected to recover from the several serious accidents of the past two years.

    Business investment is likely to increase by 9.25 per cent. this year, giving a total of over 40 per cent. in the three years to 1989. This is the largest-ever rise in business investment over a three-year period and is two and a half times as fast as the growth of personal consumption over the same period. This has inevitably contributed to strong import growth and a higher current account deficit in the short run. Notwithstanding this unwelcome effect, the resulting increase in productive capacity will help to sustain the growth of output and in due course bring the deficit down. Looking ahead to 1990, our tight fiscal and monetary policy will have an increasing impact both on household spending and on company spending, which typically reacts later than the personal sector. Investment should continue to grow, but it will do so more slowly. The slowdown in the economy means that GDP is forecast to increase by only 1.25 per cent. in 1990. This will bring the average growth in the four years to 1990 to 3 per cent. a year.

    As domestic demand slows, import growth should moderate. At the same time, the strong rise in exports, which has been one of the most welcome developments in 1989, is forecast to continue. Non-oil visible exports are expected to rise by over 11 per cent. this year, the highest rate since 1973, and we expect a further substantial increase next year. As a result, we now forecast that the current account deficit will fall from some £20 billion in the current year to about £15 billion in 1990.

    We will also see a further reduction in inflation. The headline measure of retail price inflation has already peaked at over 8 per cent. in May and June this year, and has since come down a little. Following the recent rise in mortgage rates, it will remain high for some months, but our forecast is for it to fall to 5.75 per cent. by the fourth quarter of 1990, and I expect to see it fall still further after that.

    Our main priority must be to bring inflation decisively down, and keep it down. To achieve this, the economy must slow down for a while. This does mean that 1990 may not be an easy year, but the economy enters the 1990s in incomparably better shape than it entered the 1980s. The supply side reforms of the last decade have left business and industry better able to handle both the short-term difficulties before us and the longer-term opportunities to come. I have no doubt that we must stick to the policies that have turned the economy around, and that we are determined to do.