UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Tim Farron – 2016 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    timfarron

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Farron, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, to the party’s Spring Conference on 13 March 2016.

    You will be unsurprised to hear that I was recently interviewed by Stylist magazine.

    They asked me lots of exciting questions regarding my colossal sense of glamour.

    They also wanted me to write about a woman who had been my hero.

    I wanted to be completely honest, and pick the woman who was indeed my hero.

    Neva Orrell.

    She was a local councillor in Leyland when I first joined the Liberals… but Stylist magazine said that they wanted me to pick someone a bit more well known.

    So I tried Shirley Williams – they said no.

    I tried Elizabeth Warren. Nope.

    So in the end, they asked me to write about that well known woman. Bill Clinton.

    ***

    So, Neva Orrell.

    First off, she was actually a woman.

    But also, Neva was a teacher.

    She was a local councillor in our area when I first joined the Liberals.

    She was four-foot-ten, had a tangerine rinse and – to the best of my knowledge – was the only person Tony Greaves was scared of.

    Neva had lived through the war.

    She’d lost loved ones, witnessed the devastation, the grief and the tragedy of war – and she became convinced that we must work together to build a world where hatred and war might be overcome.

    She wanted to join a movement that would fight for tolerance, peace and freedom, for the things that would make a repeat of that war least likely.

    In 1949 she joined the Liberals. Neva spent the next 53 years of her life being the greatest servant that her community in Leyland had ever known.

    Getting people rehoused, improving roads, cleaning up the environment, meeting the needs of individuals throughout the town.

    Maybe some would be dismissive about this; A great internationalist, a great liberal? Who then spent her time on pavement politics?

    But that is how it should be.

    Because if you are a liberal then you will walk the walk, committed to your community.

    Your community.

    The place you live

    The experiences and identities you share

    The people with whom you feel you belong

    Community is what you make it, and where we – where you – make a difference.

    We say we care about people, and we prove it by serving people, empowering people, getting things done.

    And it is what makes us liberals.

    We stand for election not to be something, but because we want to do something.

    We campaign not to be grand, but to do grand things – make a difference.

    It is what makes us different.

    I joined the Liberal Party at 16.

    Now, you may be surprised to discover this, but this was not a carefully calculated career move.

    Not a career move, but not a cop-out either.

    I didn’t join a pressure group. I joined a movement.

    Determined to use power to make a difference – and give people opportunities.

    Because every family, every small business, everyone in Britain deserves a clear path to fulfil their own ambition.

    ***

    Now, as well as stylist, I’ve also made the hallowed feature pages of Autocar magazine.

    They had heard that my car had been written off in the floods.

    They were impressed by my dedication and commitment to something so battered and beaten up…

    They also wanted to know about my Volvo…

    It was early December and I had agreed to do an interview with BBC News about the floods.

    Half an hour before I was on air, I was in the car with my kids and the river wall in front of me broke.

    In two seconds flat the car had filled up to our waists…

    We had to bail out and do it quickly.

    We were a few miles from the nearest village, stranded, and completely soaked by the side of the road… and then the phone went, it was the BBC.

    So, John Simpson style, me and the kids reported live from the scene while my Volvo, and a very large number of precious prefab sprout CDs disappeared from view.

    Now, we lost a car. That’s nothing.

    I lost my beloved pre-fab sprout CDs. Even they can be replaced,

    But friends of mine lost their homes, their businesses.

    ***

    And here in York more than six hundred homes and businesses, some just a couple of hundred yards from where we are today, were under water.

    Many are yet to recover.

    And yet, when I look around York, as I did on Friday, I see the same tremendous spirit I see at home in Cumbria – testament to the determination of people who come together and support one another.

    When a community is tested, you see it’s true character.

    And as we can see by being here for Conference, York is open for business – Cumbria, the Scottish borders, the north, we’re all open for business.

    Even when this Government is barely lifting a finger to help, the spirit of the people is the real northern powerhouse.

    ***

    Within a few weeks of my birth in 1970, two disastrous things happened.

    1. England got knocked out of the world cup by West Germany

    2. The Liberals had an electoral disaster that made last May look quite good by comparison.

    We almost disappeared altogether.

    But we fought back. Not by accident, but by careful design.

    And we fought back by making a virtue of the fact that there is more to life than Westminster.

    Young Liberals led the rebuild of our party by taking our philosophy and our ideals into their communities and putting them into practice.

    They got their hands well and truly dirty, turning a belief in the individual into action, galvanising communities, winning change, challenging the self-satisfied power of the town hall and Whitehall.

    In 2016 let us choose that path back to power.

    Community politics is what we are for.

    The establishment is increasingly out of reach and out of touch, locally and nationally, it is down to us to make the difference.

    In every community I want us to be the antidote to the kind of politics that makes people go off politics altogether.

    ***

    In 1997 The Liberal Democrats made a tremendous leap forward, securing 46 MPs.

    One of those MPs was our excellent Chief Whip Tom Brake.

    I recently found out that Tom has also been a magazine star.

    It was an interview that had originally been offered to me, but without me knowing, my team decided Tom was much better suited for such a challenge.

    So you all have the press office to thank for the fact that last April’s centrefold in Men’s Health magazine, was not this gut on stage before you, but the rather more toned one of the chief whip.

    The feature involved posing without a shirt on, exercising every day for seven weeks, and eating healthily.

    Alistair was devastated not to have been asked.

    In 2001 and 2005 our numbers increased to 52 and 62.

    We got to 63 when Willie won Dunfermline.

    Indeed we reached that peak at a point when we didn’t even have a leader…Don’t go getting any ideas.

    In 2010, you know the story, we did the right thing, but paid a heavy price.

    We put country before party and I am dead proud that we did.

    But were the seeds of our setback in May sown many years before?

    Because Westminster can be a beguiling place.

    When you are there, there’s constant temptation to try and be like everyone else.

    We’ve had a full shadow cabinet. We’ve had junior spokespeople.

    We’ve even had enough for some troublesome backbenchers.

    Mind you, even with 8 we still have some of those.

    But, we must always ask ourselves, when we are a Westminster force, is it too tempting to get obsessed with Parliament that we forget the community politics that put us there?

    Westminster’s rules are laid down by parties that have an opposite agenda to ours – with powerful vested interests to protect, not people to liberate.

    For the establishment parties it is the best Old Boys’ Club in town, and they have stacked the rules to protect it.

    We arrive in the big league on our terms. But we too often attempt to remain on theirs.

    When we ran the biggest councils in this country, Liverpool and Newcastle, Bristol and Cardiff, Edinburgh and Sheffield. We did so because of who we were.

    We were never the council’s representatives to the people, we were the people’s representatives to the council.

    And as we rebuild we will – and must – continue to be the people’s representatives in Parliament too.

    We must return to our roots.

    No matter the office, always remaining true to our instincts.

    It’s time to focus not on parliamentary games, but on real life.

    It’s time we got back to community politics.

    ***

    In 2008 I started a campaign to bring a chemotherapy unit to my local hospital.

    We walked the 44-mile journey to the nearest unit to highlight our case, gathered 10 thousand signatures, and 600 people wrote personal stories to the local trust.

    We campaigned, we lobbied and we stood up for our community. In 2011, we got it.

    Shortly afterwards, an elderly couple called me over in the street and the lady told me that they had decided she wasn’t going to go through with treatment for her cancer because she couldn’t cope with the vast round trip…

    But when the new unit opened, she changed her mind.

    It’s about making a difference to people’s lives.

    In Bradford, Jeanette Sunderland saw that a library was closing. She pulled together local businesses and not only saved the library, but raised £1.4million to turn it into an enterprise centre, creating jobs and new businesses.

    It was Simon Hughes, who heard the plight of a gay Iranian man. He was facing deportation to a country that had killed his boyfriend. To this day he says that Simon’s action saved his life.

    In Sutton, the Liberal Democrats have just secured funding for the second largest cancer centre in the world, that will create 13,000 jobs, and develop two new cancer drugs every five years.

    Here in in York, Keith Aspden passed a budget protecting frontline services and have increased investment in community-based mental health care.

    And it was Michael Moore who secured a commitment from the Government to spend 0.7% commitment on international aid. Our commitment to the international community. Money which is currently saving hundreds of thousands of lives across the world.

    Community politics at every level.

    Lives across the country and across the globe are better because of the work we do.

    The work that you do.

    ***

    “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the sunrise of their life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life—the sick, the needy and the disabled.”

    Those are the words of Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson’s Vice-President.

    There is no doubt.

    Hubert Humphrey would mark this Conservative Government an abject failure.

    Just this week they voted through plans to cut £30 a week from the benefits of sick and disabled people.

    They are pushing ahead with cuts to Universal Credit, so low income working families will lose on average £1000 a year.

    And they still plan to exclude youngsters from being able to claim housing benefit, leaving vulnerable young people with nowhere else to go.

    Their benefit cuts are a calculated political choice – hurting millions of people.

    And their latest move is to cut Personal Independence Payments, by more than £1billion.

    640,000 people with disabilities are set to lose vital support that helps them live truly independent lives.

    As is his style, this Chancellor uses smoke and mirrors to distort the truth.

    His clever accounting and theatrical budgets mask the true scale of what he has planned.

    His agenda isn’t just a parliamentary game, it strikes right at the heart of the communities we represent.

    And we will not stand for it.

    ***

    We start, not with politics but with people, with communities.

    But the chancellor is currently placing the very foundations of a happy and healthy community – under threat.

    Our schools, our homes, our environment, even our health.

    The basic building blocks for life that can have the biggest impact.

    On housing…

    A decent home isn’t just a roof over someone’s head; it’s an opportunity to get a job, it’s an opportunity for security and peace of mind.

    So tackling the housing crisis must be the first priority for any community politician.

    Build more affordable homes… Invest in house-building… set up local housing companies by councils…create a Housing Investment Bank to bring in private capital… and allow councils to borrow to build.

    On education…

    The pupil premium not just a few pounds chucked into the pot; It’s tailored support to help a child thrive.

    Education is what creates the level playing field so that every individual can play a full part in their community.

    We will defend the pupil premium we fought to introduce, fight short-sighted cuts to school budgets, and challenge political interference.

    On the environment…

    Climate change isn’t just a fashionable campaign, it is a battle for the future of our planet.

    The environment is local. Home insulation, solar panels, flood protection. The world around us, the air we breathe and the land we rely on to survive, are under threat.

    And on health…

    Parity of esteem between mental and physical health isn’t just technical jargon.

    We will stand alongside Norman Lamb as he leads our battle to make sure someone with a life-threatening eating disorder has the same right to treatment for their condition as a patient with cancer.

    Housing. Education. Environment. Health.

    Essential for our communities. Essentials in life.

    All relying on Britain’s incredible public sector, and the people who work in it.

    ***

    And at a time when they should be focussing on improving public services, this Government is locked in a dispute with junior doctors.

    Instead of taking action to safeguard the future of the NHS – the Conservative government is running it into the ground.

    In Coalition the Conservatives had to be dragged kicking and screaming just to fund the very basics.

    Norman refused to back down when they tried to diminish our health service, and now on their own, the Tories are hoping we won’t notice what’s happening.

    Instead of working to strengthen and protect the NHS, Jeremy Hunt is jeopardising it.

    Junior Doctors are working tirelessly for the good of the British people and they have people’s lives in their hands – yet as we heard on Friday from Dr Saleyha Assan, they feel under attack.

    We should be working with them to save the NHS. They are the future of healthcare.

    Jeremy Hunt, enough is enough.

    You have mishandled this dispute with junior doctors.

    You have lost their confidence.

    You have lost the confidence of NHS staff.

    You have lost the confidence of the British people.

    You have proved that the NHS is at risk in Tory hands.

    The battle with junior doctors is the tip of the iceberg.

    The scale of this crisis is too big.

    It’s time for a full cross party commission.

    As Norman said, we need a new Beveridge deal for the 21st century.

    We cannot allow our NHS to wither because of the shameful politics of short termist politicians.

    ***

    Talking of which… George Osborne.

    This week he will come forward with his budget.

    We have already heard that more cuts are coming our way.

    George Osborne’s approach to the budget is political theatre. It’s about politics, headlines and calculated positioning.

    Not a long term economic plan, but a short term political scam.

    Our focus is 100% on people. How will this budget impact the lives of those around us?

    Osborne asks how will this play in the Daily Mail.

    We ask, how will this play in daily life?

    Thanks to the tough choices we took, the structural deficit will be abolished by next year.

    So, the UK now stands at a crossroads.

    Osborne is taking an unnecessary political choice to cut further.

    If the Chancellor really wanted to help the economy, he should invest in, and help our local communities.

    Because its time to give public sector workers the pay rise they deserve

    It is time to be active and ambitious by investing in capital spending on housing, broadband and public transport.

    It’s time to support the skills people want and need for the future.

    It’s time to make the tax system work for small businesses.

    ***

    Communities thrive when enterprise and small business can thrive.

    But far too often the cards are stacked against them.

    Google and Facebook can negotiate with the tax office for months, yet small businesses can’t even get through on the phone.

    So. We all know the system favours the big multinationals.

    well, it’s time we transformed the way we treat small business in this country.

    Instead of Government fawning over the multi-nationals, how about putting small business at the centre of our business economy?

    And we need to ensure our taxation system is fit for the future.

    It will be the new micro breweries, the community hubs, the app developers, the new firms in our communities who will make the difference.

    Some small businesses are small for good, the backbone of our economy.

    Some small businesses are small for now. If we back them they will build our future.

    We need a system that works for all small businesses, the small for good, and the small for now.

    Ensuring the tax system is a level playing field will take some work.

    But that is why I am delighted to announce that Vince Cable has agreed to chair an expert panel for me to look at how we radically reform the way we tax businesses.

    Over the next year, Vince’s team will come forward with a new approach, that’s fit for the future

    Because when the system is broken, we Liberal Democrats will not defend it, we should fix it.

    ***

    We are a proud to be Britain’s internationalist party.

    We believe that Britain should lead a response to the refugee crisis, not bury our heads in the sand.

    We believe Britain thrives when we lead amongst our neighbours in Europe, and will be diminished when we walk away from of the most important group of nations on the planet.

    And that’s why it is deeply humiliating for Britain when Barack Obama criticised the Prime Minister for having a ‘free ride’ on defence.

    Nowhere is it more plainly seen than in this government’s dismal treatment of the Afghan interpreters.

    For thirteen years we relied on the skills of these brave and loyal individuals to keep our troops safe in a brutal, bloody conflict.

    Yet our Government is sending them back to Afghanistan to live at the mercy of the Taliban, or is leaving them in refugee camps as they desperately try to reach the UK, the country they served.

    David Cameron; your treatment of the Afghan interpreters is a disgrace.

    Britain is better than a ‘free ride’ at the expense of those who laid their lives on the line for us.

    Show the world that we value those who show the ultimate loyalty to our country and bring them back to Britain without delay.

    It’s hard to miss the inflammatory rhetoric creeping into politics. Rather than looking for solutions, people look for someone to blame.

    None of this is more apparent or scary than in the United States.

    Now, I confess, I am conflicted about Donald Trump.

    He can’t be all bad – he has a cameo role in one of the greatest films of all time, Home Alone 2, and his only line is to give McAuley Culkin’s character directions to the hotel reception desk.

    And, ladies and gentlemen, they are accurate directions.

    Mind you, McCauley Culkin then goes to the reception desk and commits credit card fraud to pay for ridiculous luxuries that he could not otherwise afford.

    This was a popular and influential film, and frankly it’s a short hop from this kind of short-sighted consumer credit greed to the subprime market scandal, the fall of the banking system and a world-wide recession.

    For which, on second thoughts, I now hold Trump personally responsible.

    Is he a joke or is he terrifying?

    Well, we see that building walls and splitting communities, spouting hatred and venom, and attacking the vulnerable and voiceless, now constitutes a political movement. And I think that is terrifying.

    But don’t scoff at our cousins across the water, thinking ‘only in America, it couldn’t happen here!’

    Because across British politics there are the flag waving nationalists, those who demonise the other.

    But this party is the polar opposite of all that.

    We will be the beacon of tolerance and acceptance.

    Standing for what unites us, not the differences that divide us.

    As we see the tension at Trump rallies rise, I want to be absolutely clear:

    No matter where you’re from, who you are, the colour of your skin, your faith or who you love, we stand by your side.

    ***

    When you are a new leader, you fight to get attention, to make a mark.

    A journalist said to me the other day ‘all I know about you is that you’re that bloke who keeps banging on about refugees’.

    He meant it as a rebuke.

    I took it as badge of honour.

    The biggest humanitarian crisis in Europe for 70 years, with no sign of this tragedy coming to an end.

    190,000 refugees entered Europe in 2014, a post war record.

    Last year that number increased to 1 million.

    This year, the UN thinks there could be 3 million.

    And most refugees aren’t even coming to Europe.

    There’s a million in Lebanon, 700,000 in Jordan, 2.7million in Turkey.

    So many facts and figures.

    Such big numbers.

    Every one of them an individual, a person.

    In Calais, Cologne, Lesbos and in refugee centres here in the UK I’ve only met a hundred or so of them. But they are meetings I cannot forget. I will not forget.

    I confess that I am personally affected by every one of them.

    And so I feel personally ashamed by our government’s response to this crisis.

    A crisis right on our doorstep, yet our government chooses to look the other way.

    All those desperate people and the Prime Minister will not take a single one of them.

    Not the orphaned 11 year old in Calais.

    Not the shivering 85 year old woman I met in Lesbos.

    Not the family sleeping rough in Macedonia.

    Now, I heard one conservative columnist this week say that ‘the Prime Minister is bound by public opinion, and that will of course limit his room to act on the refugee crisis’.

    Well, do you know what, maybe it’s time politicians stopped following and had the guts to lead.

    Now is the time to say that when thousands of innocent kids are stranded cold and alone in camps in Europe, we don’t give a monkeys what the focus groups say.

    Now is the time to turn and face this crisis, to choose to play our part.

    Now is the time to take a stand, to lead.

    Because this is not about statistics.

    This is about people just like you and me.

    This is about dignity and decency.

    Do to others as you would have them do to you.

    On the morning of October 27th last year, I stood on the beach on the island of Lesbos and I met a couple in their thirties: a carpenter and a nursery teacher from the Daesh occupied region of Iraq.

    With them, still in their flimsy life jackets, they had their two little girls, aged three and five.

    To distract them from the terror of the journey over the sea to Europe they’d sung songs to the girls and told them stories for hours and hours.

    Why did they put them through this?

    They love their children as much as I love mine yet they risked their daughters’ lives…why? Because the bigger risk was to stay and not to flee.

    And the Britain I believe in, offers that family sanctuary, hope and a future.

    David Cameron has gone through Calais plenty of times recently on his way to Brussels.

    But he’s never got off the train there.

    He’s never seen for himself the heartbreak of those who have had to leave everything, to flee towards a country and a continent that you thought represented peace and security but got there only to be treated like dirt.

    He’s refused to meet the proud people, broken by the wickedness of those who sought to kill them at home, and broken again by the callous indifference of those to whom they looked for sanctuary.

    Being 12 and alone in a camp thousands of miles from home.

    Being in a boat tossed to and fro as you sought land in the darkness, hearing the screams of the people in the neighbouring vessel as it went down.

    Having to leave your town at night, the town you grew up in, the only home you ever knew.

    Seeing children as young as you slaughtered by Daesh.

    Their stories stay with me, they motivate me.

    No one should have to live as they have lived.

    But we don’t have to allow these stories to end with desperation and tragedy.

    They can be about hope and opportunity.

    Three weeks ago I went to Cologne.

    I met newly arrived refugees from Syria who were being integrated into German culture.

    I sat a dozen young Syrian men who were being taught intensive German.

    They had vital skills and were on the path to a career, on the path to being a massive asset to the country that had given them a second chance.

    And then a week ago I met 6 young people from Eritrea and South Sudan – refugees from persecution.

    They’d got their way to England, to Gravesend.

    They spend their days sat in a hostel with little to do.

    The UK authorities would not even provide them with basic English language lessons.

    One of these six had got herself onto a nursing course from September, but the rest were being left to rot.

    Their clear cases for asylum were being kicked off into the long grass.

    Bored, scared, directionless, young people overflowing with talent and denied opportunity by a government that is deliberately blind to their potential.

    Refugees in Germany, welcomed, trained, empowered – transformed into enthusiastic, tax-paying Germans.

    Refugees in Britain, held in contempt, trapped, their talents wasted, and let down by people who act in our name.

    Britain is better than that.

    And so I will continue bang on about it.

    To speak for British values, for common sense, for action to help the desperate, for fear to give way to opportunity.

    ***

    But we can be sure that the UK has no chance of exercising any kind of leadership if it opts for isolation and irrelevance.

    And in just over fourteen weeks, we will face a vote on Britain’s future in Europe.

    By the way, when I came in this morning, the leave stand was closed. They had indeed left.

    They did clearly did feel, it was better off out.

    So, it is exactly 25 years ago this very week – in what is a quite spooky coincidence – since my second favourite band, the Clash, had their one and only number one hit.

    ‘Should I stay or should I go’.

    The lyrics are, ‘if I stay there will be trouble, if I go it will be double’- project fear there from Strummer and Jones…

    Whether David Cameron’s renegotiation impresses you or not, this is so much bigger than Cameron’s deal.

    Here are the questions that we must all answer:

    We belong to the biggest most successful market on the planet. Are we more prosperous staying in, or getting out?

    We live in dangerous times. Are we safer alongside our friends and neighbours, or isolated.

    We face vast international challenges: climate change, the refugee crisis, a global economy. Do we best tackle these together or on our own?

    They are the big questions, and the answers to me are crystal clear.

    We are stronger together.

    We are stronger in.

    For our prosperity, our security, our relevance, Britain must remain.

    ***

    And our national security is being challenged by more than the referendum.

    Right now the Government are using it as an excuse to extend snooping powers.

    Theresa May won’t just have access to your Facebook messages, but to everything from your medical records to your child’s baby monitor.

    And it’s not just MI5 and MI6 – your local council will be able to know where you’ve been and who you’ve spoken to, as will the tax office.

    Not even the Home Office can pretend that this is purely about keeping people safe.

    Trying to fight terrorism by gathering more and more irrelevant information is illiberal and totally counterproductive.

    The haystacks of information will become so huge that finding the needle will be near impossible.

    No matter what the government calls it, don’t make any mistake – this is the Snoopers’ Charter back again and we won’t have it.

    ***

    This is what we’ve come to expect from the Conservative Government.

    Here’s a party which took office, backed by just 36% of British voters.

    They cling to a tiny majority of just 12, yet govern with a care-free arrogance, decimating social housing, demolishing green energy, and demonising refugees.

    And they are taking their chance to change the rules in their favour.. attacking public funding for the opposition to hold them to account, opposing Lords reform, gerrymandering boundaries and undermining the independence of the BBC.

    Even if you are a hardened Tory, you should be appalled by what this government is doing to our democracy.

    ***

    And you know what? It makes me unbelievably angry…. With Labour.

    Let me be clear about this.

    I’m not angry because Labour is now run by the kind of people who used to try and sell me tedious newspapers outside the Students’ Union. That’s their funeral.

    I am angry with Labour because their internal chaos is letting this government off the hook.

    The Corbyn agenda is about taking over the Labour party, not rescuing Britain.

    ***

    I will not stand by while the Tories dig in for a generation.

    We can be, we must be, what stands in their way.

    We have to build that force.

    Ward by ward, house by house, issue by issue.

    Pick a ward and win it.

    This May, next May, all year round.

    We can win anywhere, you can win anywhere if you immerse yourself in your community.

    You keep in touch, you get things done.

    We know, that no matter where you’re from, your parents’ wealth, the colour of your skin, your gender, your faith, or who you love, you must have every opportunity to succeed. And you have a home with us.

    Together we can show a liberal vision for Britain that isn’t obsessed with self interest, or the here and now, but the long term future of our country.

    With strategic capital investment.

    Strong, local public services.

    And a well paid public sector.

    Where enterprise is encouraged.

    Where clean energy creates jobs.

    And where everyone has the right to a decent home.

    And where desperate people fleeing war and persecution are not demonised, they are welcomed.

    We are the opposition that will talk to our country about our country.

    A champion for communities when they need it.

    The voice for junior doctors.

    Standing by our teachers.

    Backing innovation.

    A movement.

    We can be the voice that Britain needs, and become the movement to make that difference.

    Find your community, and make that difference.

    Liberal Democrats. This is our vision for Britain.

    Thank you.

  • David Trimble – 1990 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    By https://www.flickr.com/photos/altogetherfool/ - https://www.flickr.com/photos/altogetherfool/3674015778, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39319835
    By https://www.flickr.com/photos/altogetherfool/ – https://www.flickr.com/photos/altogetherfool/3674015778, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39319835

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by David Trimble in the House of Commons on 23 May 1990.

    I understand that it is customary for me to begin by paying tribute to the previous Member for Upper Bann, which I do gladly. Mr. Harold McCusker can be aptly summed up as a man of the people. He worked extremely hard for the people of Upper Bann and cared deeply for their welfare. I know from canvassing in the recent by-election that he was held in high regard and with deep affection by the people of Upper Bann. Harold, characteristically, was a fighter. He fought for those people and he fought in personal terms. His illness would not have been so prolonged if he had not fought so strongly against it. As many hon. Members know, Harold’s surname literally means “a son of Ulster”, and he was a son of Ulster. He was conscious of the soil from which he sprang and the traditions of the area and its people.

    The Upper Bann area is proud of its Unionist heritage, and many elements within the area express that heritage. I had some pleasure in reading a recent publication by the Public Record Office, edited by David Miller. Hon. Members will be familiar with his earlier work, which was extremely enlightening, on Unionism and loyalism. That publication included a copy of the account by Colonel Blacker of the formation of the Orange Order, of which I am proud to be a member. We find within it not only the Armagh area—sometimes the Armagh people, it being the County of the Diamond, forget that other counties contributed—but particularly in the west Down area. I am thinking particularly of the Bleary boys who contributed to that and to the successful defeat of the 1938 rebellion shortly afterwards.

    The Unionist heritage of the north Armagh area is in some ways epitomised by the statute of Colonel Saunderson, which stands in the centre of Armagh. I shall refer again to Colonel Saunderson in a way that is particularly apposite to other matters.

    Upper Bann is significant not only for its Orange heritage but for the way in which its character was formed largely through the plantation processes of the 17th and early 18th centuries. The major towns in the area are plantation towns. We see that from the contribution of the Brownlows to the creation of Lurgan and of the Warings to Waringstown and other towns in the area.

    That plantation had a significant heritage in other repects, because directly from it sprang the Ulster custom, which after the Ulster land war of the 1770s provided a basis from which the industrial revolution was able to occur. The industrial revolution in Ulster, which was centred on the Lagan valley, was an indigenous growth. Ministers may be interested in this, because it owed nothing to Government contribution or significant landlord patronage. It was indigenous and arose out of the customary rights that the tenants had won for themselves. We find the traces of one of the first major industrial developments in the area—the textile industry—through the middle Bann valley, running from Gilford down to the town of Banbridge, which lies in the centre of the constituency.

    During the recent by-election in Upper Bann, attention focused on the intervention of what are called national parties. I want to reflect on that for a moment. I mentioned Colonel Saunderson, whose statue stands in the centre of Portadown. The inscription refers to him as the leader of Ulster’s Unionists in the House for more than 20 years. As hon. Members will know, he first sat in the House as a Liberal, representing the constituency of County Cavan, and in the 1880s was returned for North Armagh, including Portadown, as a Conservative. Of course, he is noted as the leader of the Ulster Unionists.

    The term “national parties” which has been bandied about in recent times is misleading. It was misleading for some people who call themselves Conservatives to intervene in that election and call themselves the national parties. They claimed that their arrival was something new. Of course it was not new. Nor are they right to refer to themselves as solely national parties as distinct from provincial parties. We in the Ulster Unionist party are the British national party in Ulster. We were formed historically by an alliance between Ulster Liberals and Ulster Conservatives, with Ulster Labour representatives too, to combat Irish nationalists. We are the national British parties in Ulster. In that context, one must put a large question mark against the aims and motives of a group calling itself Conservative which contested the election with, it seemed to us, the object of dividing and diminishing the Unionist voice and, by so doing, diminishing the voice of the British people of Ulster.

    Since my arrival in the House, several hon. Members have expressed to me their regret at the decision of the Conservative party to contest the Upper Bann election. I did not regret it during the election. While canvassing, I repeatedly told the electors that the election was an opportunity for them to vote against the policies of the Government. The results show that the electorate of Upper Bann seized that opportunity with both hands. Hon. Members will not need to be reminded that the candidate representing the policies of the Government scored a total of 2.9 per cent.—less than 3 per cent.—of the valid votes cast in the election. That is a clear rejection of the policies of the present Administration. That demonstrates—indeed, it confirms, because we had demonstrated it on many previous occasions—that the policies pursued by the Northern Ireland Office have no mandate from the people of Ulster. That is significant.

    People cannot say that a majority elsewhere in the United Kingdom in favour of the Government’s policies legitimises those policies. A clear distinction can be drawn between Northern Ireland and, say, Scotland. In Scotland, where again the Government have no mandate for their policies, they can say that their policies are applied on a Great Britain basis and that they have a majority in Great Britain. However, the policies pursued in Northern Ireland are applied, not on a United Kingdom basis but specifically to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom and its constitutional status in the kingdom is diminished.

    A mandate for the Government’s policies can be obtained only from the people of Ulster. Clearly that mandate does not exist. In the light of that, the only honourable course for the Government is to reconsider their policies and accept the offers made by my colleague to extricate them from the position in which they have put themselves. They should adopt policies that reinforce the position of the kingdom of Ulster within the kingdom.

    At least the Conservative party came to seek a mandate in Upper Bann, even though that mandate was refused. If listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I find his detailed interest in matters relating to Northern Ireland interesting. I agreed with several of the points that he made. Surely he must find it a little strange to take such a detailed interest in Northern Ireland matters and discuss them at length in the House when he belongs to a party that not only does not contest elections in Northern Ireland but refuses people in Northern Ireland the right or opportunity to join it. A member of a party which deliberately boycotts the people of Northern Ireland must surely find it inconsistent to take such a detailed interest in Northern Ireland.

    Tonight we are discussing the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990. The measure is dealt with in the form of an Order in Council. Order in Council procedures are less than satisfactory. Indeed, that is an understatement. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred a few moments ago to defects in the planning legislation on article 22 inquiries. As hon. Members will know, a planning and building regulations order has been tabled and is shortly to be debated. If that was legislation dealt with in the normal way, the hon. Member for Belfast, East could table an amendment to provide a remedy for the defects to which he referred. Of course, he cannot do so. That is not right. The procedures should not operate in the way that they do. Significant changes are needed.

    I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) on the Payments for Debt (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. Order in Council procedure is objectionable partly because it is described as temporary. It is a temporary procedure stemming currently from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 and originally from the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. One wonders what the meaning of the word “temporary” is in that context.

    That is even more appropriate in the context of the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. He dealt with a temporary measure introduced in 1971, which is still operating. Not only is the measure objectionable because it was a temporary measure which lasted 19 years, but the provisions made for deduction of benefits under the Act were made as the result of administrative action.

    I should have thought that hon. Members who are interested in the rights of persons subject to the law of the United Kingdom would want people’s property rights determined in the courts or through some form of judicial procedure, rather than civil service actions. Civil servants may decide to withhold benefits in order to pay debts owed to other persons. That is particularly strange when, through the Enforcement of Judgments Office and its provisions for attachment of earnings and other assets, procedures have to be followed and some independent judgment is placed between the debtor and the creditor by the operations of the enforcement officers.

    Surely, at least on those grounds, something should be done. Even if it is still felt necessary to make deductions from people entitled to claim benefit, surely something should be done to enable people to make representations before a third party. It would be appropriate to provide something analogous to the procedure for enforcement judgments.

    My first point about the order concerns planning policy in the Craigavon district. That area is unique in Northern Ireland as the only area that does not have in force a development plan or area plan. The original, non-statutory plan, which is now some 20 years old, is not relevant, because the position has changed drastically in the past 20 years, with the failure of the new city project contained within it. In that area, we are operating with the detritus of the new city project.

    While canvassing during the election campaign, I was struck by the desolation of the estates in the central Craigavon or Brownlow area. I hope that some thought has been given to planning policies that could help to regenerate that area. I was also struck by the way in which many areas of the town of Lurgan have been badly blighted because of road proposals which, I am told, have since been abandoned. Again, I hope that some serious planning policies will be evolved to regenerate those areas.

    I was also struck by one of the consequences of the 1960s housing policies which I hope will not be repeated. I refer to the not very well built medium and high-rise flat developments. Nearly all the developments that I saw were semi-derelict and unoccupied. They were eyesores and worse—especially in the Portadown district, where properties that were originally constructed by the local Housing Executive have been bought by the tenants under the right-to-buy procedures, which the Government encouraged.

    The owners have found that, to some extent, their properties have been devalued by the derelict medium-rise flat developments just across the road. I hope that some urgent action will be taken on that. I was told by the occupiers—the purchasers—that they had been told by the executive that they would have to wait two or three years simply for a decision on the flat developments, let alone for any action to be taken.

    My second point about the appropriation order relates to the community relations cultural traditions programmes. As the Minister said, the programmes are being expanded considerably. That is a good thing, and I very much welcome the existence of those programmes. However, I should like an assurance that they will be genuinely representative and even-handed. I must confess to being uncertain about the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council. Technically, it is not a Government body, although in the first instance all its members have been appointed by the Government. It has been given a budget of £300,000. We must ask, how was the body formed? How representative of the community are the people who serve on it and how balanced is that representation? It seems that that representation does not rise above the level of tokenism as far as the majority tradition in Ulster is concerned. Many of the people who serve on it cannot be regarded as truly representative.

    Finally, I refer to an item of expenditure relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I note that there is a provision for £274,000 to be spent—over £200,000 of which will be spent on maintaining a cadre to provide the basis for an Assembly, should one be called in the future. I welcome that expenditure because there is a great need for representative institutions in Ulster. Hon. Members will know that there is a virtual absence of representative institutions and that what are called “local authorities” are not really what are normally understood by that term. They rarely get above the level of English parish councils. There is a huge gap between them and this House. We need representative institutions.

    Although I welcome that expenditure on the Northern Ireland Assembly, I do not want my comments to be taken as implying my approval of the proposals in the Prior Act—the Northern Ireland Act 1982. I am not sure that those proposals ever were workable. If we ever have an Assembly—or devolution on any significant scale in the future—I hope that it will be much more substantial than that of the Northern Ireland Assembly, if it is to be regarded as worthwhile devolution as distinct from what is essentially local government restructuring, which is another matter.

    Devolution is said to be the Government’s policy. I find it curious that a Government with that policy have not made any proposals that would advance that policy. That is to be contrasted with the experience or the actions of the Ulster Unionist party because it is now almost two and a half years since the Ulster Unionist party made detailed proposals for developments in Northern Ireland to the previous Secretary of State, to which there has not yet been any response. The Government do not make any proposals of their own. Their attitude is passive. If we were to have discussions on the proposals, I suspect that the Government would not advance any proposals of their own, but would simply adopt the role of picking holes in the proposals of ourselves and others.

    I wonder why that should be the case. I suspect that, despite its protestations to the contrary, the Northern Ireland Office actually prefers the present position. I suspect that it does not really want devolution, but prefers to sustain the present direct rule. Under that system, it is effectively insulated from any form of democratic control. Ministers can speak for themselves, but civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office give the impression that they are not really interested in devolution, and that they enjoy the freedom from accountability that direct rule gives them. That is another reason for ending direct rule at the earliest opportunity.

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2016 Statement on Deaths of Journalists

    NusratGhani

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nusrat Ghani in the House of Commons on 1 February 2016.

    Marie Colvin was a The Sunday Times journalist killed in Syria in 2012, while reporting from the siege of Homs. She passionately believed that through her work she could be the voice of all those experiencing conflict, from whatever perspective. During the latter part of her life, her determination to be that voice had a physical manifestation: an eye patch, the result of injuries sustained in Sri Lanka, where she was hit by shrapnel as she tried to cross the front line.

    Following her death, the columnist Peter Oborne wrote:

    “Society urgently requires men and women with courage, passion and integrity to discover the facts that those in authority want to suppress.”

    Marie Colvin herself said:

    “In an age of 24/7 rolling news, blogs and Twitter, we are on constant call wherever we are. But war reporting is still essentially the same—someone has to go there and see what is happening. You can’t get that information without going to places where people are being shot at, and others are shooting at you.”

    The relationship between Members of this House and the fourth estate—our friends up in the Press Gallery—is complicated, but although much of modern-day politics could often be described as a conflict zone, we do not daily put our lives on the line in our place of work. When a member of our armed forces is killed in a conflict zone, the Prime Minister rightly takes a moment at the beginning of Prime Minister’s questions to remind the nation of the sacrifice that that brave serviceman or woman has made. But with the notable exception of people such as Marie Colvin, we do not hear anywhere near as much about the sacrifices made by a large number of professional and citizen journalists every year in the name of newsgathering.

    The Committee to Protect Journalists, which I want to thank on the record for its assistance in preparation for this debate, has recorded that 98 journalists were killed last year. It has been definitively confirmed that 71 of them were murdered in direct reprisal for their work; were killed in crossfire during combat situations; or were killed while carrying out a dangerous assignment, such as covering a street protest.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) I sought the hon. Lady’s permission last week to intervene. Statistics from the International Federation of Journalists show that 2,297 journalists and media professionals were killed in the past quarter of a century. That is an enormous number. They were standing up for the freedom of speech that we take for granted in this country. Does she agree that the United Kingdom and other liberal democracies should be promoting free speech and liberty across the globe, through the media and through journalism?

    Nusrat Ghani The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: the numbers are vast in the past 50 years or so. I hope that the Minister will respond on that, and I will ask him to do so towards the end of my speech. The International Federation of Journalists puts the number even higher than the CPJ, saying that at least 112 were killed last year.

    Professional journalists in conflict zones, such as those working for the BBC and Sky, are fortunate to have extensive support from their employers. Employees of those organisations undergo hostile environment training in preparation for travelling to conflict zones to check that they are adequately prepared for the dangers that they will face.

    Recently, a member of staff working for a major British media outlet in the middle east was approached by a man who verbally abused him, accusing him of being a traitor and a collaborator. His companions intervened, but another eight people arrived on the scene carrying batons and knives. The journalist ran away and took refuge in a nearby shop. However, two of his companions were heavily beaten up and received hospital treatment from the injuries they sustained.

    The incident was reported by the staff member to the high risk team, which subsequently deployed a security adviser to the country to conduct a security review for that individual, and put additional security measures in place to support the staff. However, increasingly, our news comes not just from professional journalists, whose names, faces and employers we recognise, but from stringers and citizen journalists. Stringers are unattached freelance journalists and citizen journalists are members of the public—independent voices.

    The ability of citizen journalists to share stories has an effect on professional journalists. The pressure to go deeper into conflict zones is greater. One of the defining features of a war reporter these days is that they are embedded in the conflict. Today, they are on the frontline, or in enemy territory.

    Increasingly, we understand that many of the world’s conflicts today are conflicts of narrative. In the middle east, Daesh wants to control what the conflict looks like. It wants a monopoly over stories and images. More than ever, the narrative is what people are fighting over. Daesh wants to recruit with images, and the reality disseminated by journalists challenges that propaganda. Any citizen journalist can break the propaganda machine. Anyone with a phone is an opponent.

    Daesh sees journalists as spies. It sees them as western actors who seek to disrupt the Daesh narrative by reporting on its weaknesses and failures, and that makes them a target. The philosopher Walter Benjamin said:

    “History is written by the victors.”

    That remains true, but the victors, and the course of the fight, are now a consequence of what is written, and that is even more the case now than it was in Benjamin’s time. That makes it even more important that we protect and honour those journalists, whether professional or citizen.

    The BBC’s Lyse Doucet said last year:

    “We often say that journalists are no longer on the frontline. But we are the frontline…We are targeted in a way we never have been before… now journalists are seen as bounty and as having propaganda value.”

    Journalists in conflict zones are not ordinary members of the public. They tell the stories that allow us to understand what is truly going on in the confusion and propaganda of warfare, and they carry out a vital public service.

    Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate her on securing this very important debate. Does she agree that the pace of news in the modern age means that we can no longer wait for dispatches to be informed about what is going on in conflict zones? Journalists are best positioned to give us this real-time accurate information of what is really going on.

    Nusrat Ghani I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Conflict is changing incredibly quickly. Lots of chaotic terrorism acts are happening all over the world, and, quite often, we rely on journalists to be our eyes and ears on the ground.

    My discussions with journalists and their employers in recent days have highlighted what I consider to be a gap in the service provided by the Foreign Office to those taking risks to bring truth and to hold people to account. Will the Foreign Office consider making it the policy of British embassies and consuls abroad to hold a register of journalists working in conflict zones within the relevant country at any one time? At the moment this process is ad hoc. On registration, the embassy would and should provide a security briefing on the situation in that country or the neighbouring country if it is in conflict, increasing the ability of journalists to protect themselves, and their employer’s ability to ensure that they are acting according to legitimate and expert advice.

    The role of foreign Governments in the protection of journalists is an important one. Will the Minister outline what expectations the Foreign Office currently has of foreign Governments to do everything they can to protect journalists who are British, or working for British-based media outlets, and to challenge them to extend that protection to their own local journalists? Will he consider making it a requirement for negotiations with foreign Governments, especially when embarking on diplomatic relations with emerging democracies, that the protection of journalists is an issue on the table?

    The British Government have rightly identified Bangladesh and Pakistan as critical countries in the region and we have partnered with them as a result. Yet in Bangladesh, for example, bloggers are killed by al-Qaeda and others because of what they write. Last year, over 40% of journalists killed in Bangladesh were killed by Islamic extremists because they just disagreed with the words that were written.

    In Pakistan in 2006, it is documented that the Government prepared a list of 33 columnists, writers and reporters in the English and Urdu print media and tried to neutralise the “negativism” of these writers by making them “soft and friendly”, and one could interpret that as going a bit beyond a friendly chat. I have more up-to-date testimonies, but the journalists concerned were reluctant for me to raise that on the Floor of the House today. Will the Foreign Office consider making it a requirement that countries that we are partnered with show clear intent to protect the rights of journalists, both professional and citizen? We must not flinch from exporting our proud British values of freedom of the media and of expression.

    I will finish by talking about Ruqia Hassan, a citizen journalist in Syria who used her Facebook page to describe the atrocities of daily life in Raqqa, until she went silent in July last year. It has been reported that her last words were:

    “I’m in Raqqa and I received death threats, and when Isis [arrests] me and kills me it’s ok because they will cut my head and I have dignity it’s better than I live in humiliation with Isis.”

    It has been speculated that her Facebook page was kept open for months so that other citizen journalists could be lured in and so that they too, in turn, could be silenced.

    Naji Jerf, a 38-year-old activist who reported for the website “Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently”, was also murdered late last year following his final work, “Islamic State in Aleppo”, which exposed human rights violations in the city. His murderers disagreed with him that anyone should hear about those violations. I believe he is the fourth person from “Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently” to have been murdered so far.

    Individuals such as these are part of conflict, and through our consumption of news we are complicit in their participation, but they take the risks. We must honour their bravery, and their pride in what they were, and still are, doing, by highlighting their contribution not only to our understanding of what is going on in conflict zones, but also their contribution to ending conflict by shedding light on it, and we must do all we can to defend their right to do what they do, and protect them as they go about it.

  • David Lidington – 2016 Statement on the European Union

    davidlidington

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2016.

    At about 11.35 this morning, the President of the European Council, Mr Donald Tusk, published a set of draft texts about the United Kingdom’s renegotiation. He has now sent those to all European Union Governments for them to consider ahead of the February European Council. This is a complex and detailed set of documents, which right hon. and hon. Members will, understandably, wish to read and study in detail. With that in mind, and subject to your agreement, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will offer an oral statement tomorrow, following Prime Minister’s questions, to allow Members of the House to question him, having first had a chance to digest the detail of the papers that have been issued within the last hour.

    The Government have been clear that the European Union needs to be reformed if it is to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The British people have very reasonable concerns about the UK’s membership of the European Union, and the Prime Minister is determined to address those. He believes that the reforms that Britain is seeking will benefit not just Britain, but the European Union as a whole. Therefore, our approach in Government has been one of reform, renegotiation and then a referendum. We are working together with other countries to discuss and agree reforms, many of which will benefit the entire European Union, before holding a referendum to ensure that the British people have the final and decisive say about our membership.

    The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement after the December meeting of the European Council. At that meeting, leaders agreed to work together to find mutually satisfactory solutions in all the four areas at the European Council meeting on 18 and 19 February. My right hon. Friend’s meetings in Brussels on 29 January, and his dinner with President Tusk on 31 January, were steps in that negotiation process.

    We are in the middle of a live negotiation and are now entering a particularly crucial phase. The Government have been clear throughout that they cannot provide a running commentary on the renegotiations. However, I am able to say that much progress has been made in recent days, and it appears that a deal is within sight. The publication of the texts by President Tusk this morning is another step in that process, but I would stress to the House that there is still a lot of work to be done.

    If the texts tabled today are agreed by all member states, they will deliver significant reforms in each of the four areas of greatest concern to the British people: economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and immigration. On sovereignty, the texts show significant advances towards securing a United Kingdom carve-out from ever closer union.

    On the relations between euro “ins” and “outs”, the documents offer steps towards significant safeguards for countries outside the eurozone as euro members integrate further. On competitiveness, we are seeing a greater commitment by the entire Union to completing the single market for trade and cutting job-destroying regulations on business.

    On free movement, there are important ideas in President Tusk’s drafts on reducing the pull factor of our welfare system and on action to address the abuse of freedom of movement of persons.

    We believe that real progress has been made, but I would stress that there is more work still to be done and more detail to be nailed down before we are able to say that a satisfactory deal has been secured.

  • Michael Wilshaw – 2016 to the Fair Education Alliance

    michaelwilshaw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of OFSTED, in London on 14 April 2016.

    Good evening everyone. I am really pleased to have been asked to take part in this event to mark the launch of your latest annual report card.

    As I approach the end of my tenure as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, I am saddened, but not surprised, by many of your findings. My motivation and commitment to the cause of educational equality and social mobility remains as strong today as it did on the day I first entered a classroom in Bermondsey nearly half a century ago. And let me tell you about that first class, because it has a bearing on what I’m going to say tonight.

    Since Tracey disappeared into the mists of East London to do an unskilled job, somewhere on the Bermondsey dockside, the world has changed. The world economy has changed, and expectations have changed. Quite rightly we have much higher expectations of what our children can achieve to prepare them for this vastly different economic landscape.

    If Tracey were growing up in today’s world she would have more choices and better options. Children from all walks of life should now be able to achieve any goal. Expectations are higher, our schools are better – in part thanks to Ofsted – and there is definitely more opportunity for all.

    The fact that many more of our children from across the social spectrum are doing well is a cause for optimism.

    So why am I standing here making this speech? Because, although we are doing better, we are not doing anywhere near well enough to compete with the best jurisdictions in the world. And we are certainly not doing well enough for our poorest children. What is particularly worrying is that we are not doing well enough for our brightest children coming from poor backgrounds.

    There’s that damning statistic, the one that keeps me awake at night, from the Sutton Trust. Seven thousand of our brightest children, mainly from poorer backgrounds, were in the top 10% nationally at age 11 but were not in the top 25% at GCSE 5 years later.

    I therefore applaud the collective efforts of the people in this room who have come together under the umbrella of the Fair Education Alliance to try to do something about educational inequality.

    And let’s be clear. This isn’t simply about doing right by a certain sector of society. Tackling inequality benefits the whole of our education system. When we improve standards for the most disadvantaged then standards improve nationally. As Lord Adonis, the pioneer of the original academies programme, understood, if you tackle problems at the bottom end there will be a trickle-up effect through the whole sector.

    One of my first acts as Chief Inspector was to assemble an expert panel of head teachers, academics and educational leaders to undertake an in-depth study into the educational achievements of England’s poorest children. This was a follow-up to the landmark reports published by 2 of my predecessors in 1993 and in 2003.

    My report on access and achievement, entitled Unseen Children, concluded that poverty of expectation had become a greater problem than material poverty. The children of poor parents with high expectations were doing much better academically than those whose parents and teachers expected little of them.

    The report also found that the distribution of underachievement had shifted. Twenty or 30 years ago, the problems were in urban areas, especially inner London schools. At that time these were the worst-achieving in the country.

    By 2013, schools in inner as well as outer London had become the highest performing in England. Instead, we found that many of the poor children being let down by the system in recent times attended schools either in generally affluent areas with small numbers of free school meal children or in places that were relatively isolated, such as rural communities and coastal towns.

    I made a series of recommendations for politicians and policy-makers on the back of these findings.

    Among the most important of these were:

    – the development of a number of sub-regional challenges aimed particularly at raising the achievement of disadvantaged children

    – a more strategic approach to the appointment of National Leaders of Education and their matching with schools in need of support

    – the creation of a ‘National Service of Teachers’ to direct ambitious and talented professionals to underperforming schools in less fashionable or more challenging parts of the country
    the reshaping of vocational education

    The report also recognised the fundamental importance of early years in shaping the future prospects of young people.

    Of course there is no magic bullet or shortcut to success. The Fair Education Alliance (FEA) itself sets out an ambitious array of recommendations for how we can make things better. Tonight I would like to concentrate on progress we have seen and the challenges that still lie ahead.

    We need to get the early years right

    I have said many times before that underachievement starts from birth. Too many children are given a poor start in the essential early years. I whole-heartedly support the recommendations of your report for more use of qualified teachers in this sector.

    Children who fall behind in the early years of their life struggle to make up for it in later years. If by age 7, a child cannot read, the odds are stacked against them. If children cannot count, sit still, follow instructions or hold a pencil properly when they leave Reception, they will always be playing catch-up.

    This is why I have long argued that effective nursery and primary schools are the best places for very young children from disadvantaged homes. In these schools, clear routines bring order and security into the lives of young children and help build self-assurance as well as awareness of the needs of others.

    In our last Annual Report for the Early Years, I suggested that there was a strong case for schools taking many more of the poorest children from the age of 2. Schools have the in-built advantage of being able to offer continuity across the transition to Reception, have more access to specialist support, employ well-qualified graduate teachers and are familiar with tracking children’s development.

    I also called for much more to be done to encourage parents of the poorest 2-year-old children to take up the offer of a funded place in a high-quality provider. We found that nearly half of all 2-year-olds (around 113,000) eligible for 15 hours of free early education had not taken up their place in any type of setting. It is essential that more is done, through children’s centres and health visitors, to promote greater take-up.

    We need to get the best leaders and the best teachers to the schools that need them most

    It is vital that we do far more to attract and incentivise the best people to lead underperforming schools in challenging areas. All my experience has taught me that when schools are chaotic it is the poor and vulnerable who suffer most. The lack of structure at home is replicated at school and, unlike their peers from middle class backgrounds, poor parents often lack the capacity to compensate for deficiencies in the school and in the classroom. Therefore getting good leadership into these areas is of fundamental importance.

    The government’s recently published White Paper talks about “rebalancing incentives” and “investing in targeted initiatives” to boost leadership capacity in challenging areas and to create career pathways for people who want to work in the areas where they are most needed.

    This is certainly something I welcome, along with the emerging National Teachers Service, particularly given they were a key feature of my report, and I look forward to hearing more detail about these measures and, more important, seeing them bearing fruit.

    The FEA proposals for incentivising teachers to different areas, with schemes such as mortgage-deposit support, are exactly the sort of innovative thinking that we should be exploring to help with this challenge. We need to get vocational and post 16 education right.

    The Unseen Children report expressed my concerns about the overall quality of provision for the many children who would prefer an alternative to university. Our system is adept at guiding students into higher education. However, as the House of Lords social mobility committee found last week, it still struggles, despite the recent focus on apprenticeships, to inform them about alternative career pathways available to them.

    We simply have to improve the quality of our technical provision and present it as a valid educational path if we are to equip youngsters – especially those from poorer backgrounds – with the skills they need and employers want.

    We are making strides in the right direction here, with ambitious targets for the creation and quality of apprenticeships and a growing number of university technical colleges coming into the system.

    As the Alliance report card recognises, we need to ensure that careers advice in schools improves so that young people understand the different options in front of them and can make informed choices about their future.

    We need more political leadership and regional solutions
    We need more focus on those areas that are not delivering the necessary high standards for their children. I welcome the government’s White Paper proposals for focusing efforts in ‘Achieving Excellence Areas’. This version of my suggestion of ‘sub-regional challenges’ will only succeed if local politicians, be they mayors, council leaders or cabinet members, are prepared to take ownership of school performance no matter what the governance structure and status of the school.

    We need them to be visible, high-profile figures that people can recognise as education champions. The great success stories in London would not have happened without the drive and commitment of the likes of Jules Pipe and Sir Robin Wales in Hackney and in Newham, respectively.

    There is ultimately, however, only so much that the school can achieve without the commitment of parents and carers.

    We need to ensure schools do more to engage with those parents who don’t care enough about their children’s education.

    As the chief executive of Centre Forum observed last week, many white British pupils are falling behind students from other ethnic backgrounds by the time they take their GCSEs because of a lack of support from their parents.

    The family is the great educator. We need more leaders who have no qualms about reminding parents of their obligation to be a good parent – coming to open evenings, making sure their child does their homework, reading to them and listening to them read.

    I know this is a difficult task but it is not impossible.

    As I recounted in a radio interview just this morning, it can be tough to get these parents on board. I often speculate on how useful it would be for heads to have the ability to fine those who have the capacity but wilfully choose not to engage.

    Grounds for optimism

    Let’s not allow ourselves to be too pessimistic.

    I do not underestimate how difficult it is to educate children who are poor and who lack all the advantages that a more affluent background confers. I understand that it’s a lot easier to teach children who don’t come to school hungry, who live in homes filled with books, who have parents that are employed, let alone university educated.

    I spent most of my professional career trying to enthuse children whom others had written off. It isn’t easy for schools to compensate for social disadvantage. But never make the mistake that because it’s difficult, schools cannot make a difference. They can.

    We know that we can overcome the challenges of poverty because we have seen it happen. In London, with effective, tenacious leadership and political will, failure turned into stunning success over a relatively short period of time. There is no reason, in my view, that this sort of success cannot be replicated elsewhere.

    This FEA report has focused on the progress that is being made in the North East of England. We also know there are schools in places like Portsmouth and Barking and Dagenham that are now bucking the trend in terms of the achievement of poorer children, especially from white British backgrounds.

    Conclusion

    It is not only a moral imperative that we should do better for our poorest youngsters, but also crucial if we are going to become a more productive nation and a more socially-cohesive one.

    If we are to compete with the best jurisdictions in the world then we need more organisations, politicians and leaders to collaborate and support schools, and ensure that every young person gets the standard of education they deserve.

    It’s only through commitment, ambition and determination that we will break the pattern of underachievement in challenging areas of the country and create a more fair and equal society. A society where every child has the same life chances regardless of where they live.

    I commend all of you in this room for your commitment to those goals.

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2015 Speech on Manchester Victoria Re-opening

    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, at Manchester Victoria Station on 6 October 2015.

    Introduction

    It is a privilege to be here today.

    To declare open a renewed Manchester Victoria station.

    Manchester Victoria has been serving passengers for over 170 years.

    Designed as a grand station for the greatest manufacturing city in the world.

    It is a great station with a great history.

    Yet over recent decades, it had been allowed to decline, as successive governments failed to invest in northern transport.

    By 2009, Manchester Victoria was rated the worst station in Britain; a casualty of the north-south investment divide.

    A station fit for Manchester

    So 6 years later, and 3 years after work here began, it’s thrilling to see Manchester Victoria.

    Once again a station fit for the city of Manchester.

    No longer a symbol of northern neglect.

    But proof we are building a Northern Powerhouse.

    The north is receiving a wave of investment in its transport infrastructure on a scale not seen for generations.

    £4.5 billion in the north west alone.

    This region’s roads and railways, so important for prosperity, are being transformed.

    Everyone who uses Manchester Victoria is getting not just a stunning, upgraded station, but improvements to their journey.

    When we have finished, every line serving this station will have been enhanced with new infrastructure or better services.

    The line to Liverpool has already been electrified, so the journey takes less than 35 minutes.

    We are re-signalling the Calder Valley line to improve journey times and provide for more frequent trains.

    As I speak, a tunnelling machine built in Oldham, and bigger than those used to dig the Channel Tunnel and Crossrail, is boring a new tunnel at Farnworth so we can electrify the line between Manchester, Bolton and Preston.

    On the Metrolink, Transport for Greater Manchester is building a 2nd City Crossing from this station, which will increase the capacity and reliability of the Metrolink network.

    And last week I was pleased to announce that work to electrify the TransPennine route to Huddersfield, Leeds and York is to resume.

    This picture of change is repeated across the north.

    Over the year to December, over 85 additional carriages will have been added to Northern Rail fleet for services in the north west.

    From 2018, new InterCity Express trains will replace the existing trains on the East Coast Mainline.

    Overall, by the end of 2019, there will be an increase in peak capacity into the big cities of the north of over one third.

    Providing an extra 200 services every day.

    And Pacers will have been removed from the Northern franchise.

    Then looking further ahead, there’s HS2.

    The tendering process for construction has begun.

    And work will start in just 2 years.

    Conclusion

    So this magnificent station is the evidence.

    The Northern Powerhouse is being built.

    And the benefits are already being delivered.

    There are 71,000 more businesses in the north west than in 2010: a clear sign our long-term plan to secure a stronger, healthier economy is working.

    So, thank you to Network Rail.

    Transport for Greater Manchester.

    The Railway Heritage Trust.

    The main contractor, Morgan Sindall.

    And the staff of Northern Rail who have kept trains running throughout.

    You have done a brilliant job.

    You have made Manchester Victoria a station for the future.

    I have no doubt that it will continue to serve the people of Manchester for another 170 years.

    Thank you.

  • Sheryll Murray – 2015 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sheryll Murray in the House of Commons on 27 May 2015.

    It is an honour to be invited to second this Humble Address, which was proposed so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). He has the pleasure of representing an area that differs considerably from my own, although I am sure many of his constituents have had fantastic holidays in the beautiful Duchy of Cornwall.

    This honour really belongs to the people who live in South East Cornwall, and I am proud that they have chosen me to represent them in this place for a further term. South East Cornwall is where I have always called home: it is where I was born, where I was schooled, where I have worked and where I am proud to call home. Anyone who has visited my beautiful constituency, who has walked the rugged coastline or explored the wonderful countryside and met the warm, genuine folk of Cornwall will understand why it is where my heart lies.

    I think I am right in saying that I am the first Cornish maid to second the Loyal Address, although back in 1971 the proposer was the Member of Parliament for St Ives. I am pleased to welcome the new Conservative representative, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), although he did keep us waiting: his constituency was the last to declare.

    During the election campaign, the Prime Minister visited Cornwall on a number of occasions. On one occasion, a group of enthusiastic party supporters were summoned to a large cowshed to meet him: that is the way we do things in Cornwall. In his rallying speech, he mentioned how glad he was to be in the county of Poldark. Like Poldark, the Prime Minister rode into Cornwall—not on a horse, but on a bus—where he was introduced to all those who were waiting by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who himself has been likened to Aidan Turner, the actor who played Ross Poldark.

    On the morning of 8 May, as votes were counted in that same cowshed, it became evident that true-blue representation throughout Cornwall was on course to double when my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) was elected. The Prime Minister can now tell his wife that, like Ross Poldark, he has his own six-pack—six blue constituencies in Poldark’s county—and that three new Conservative Members are joining me and my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).

    The result of the general election was a surprise to many people. Cornwall is surrounded by blue water, and the blue tide rose, sweeping across the duchy, but it did not stop at the Tamar. It crossed into Plymouth, where a new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), joined my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). The tide swept across Devon, and halted only when it reached the constituency of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), where his defences could not quite be penetrated. I know from experience in my own constituency that water does have a way, so he should be warned.

    I look forward to working with colleagues from Devon, and with other west country Members, but I want to set a clear ground rule for my right hon. and hon. Friends. Given that I am Cornish born and bred, it will comes as no surprise to hear me mention clotted cream. I say to my colleagues, “Please note: the jam must come first on the scone, before the cream.” If they agree, I am sure that we shall get along fine. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for putting his jam and cream on a scone in the proper way. It has been said that the only reason those in Devon prepare their cream teas incorrectly is their wish to hide their use of clotted cream with the jam.

    A number of dairy farmers in my constituency and elsewhere have diversified, producing not only cream but cheese. The Gracious Speech supports aspiration and small businesses like those producers, and I am sure that they will welcome it.

    Many of my constituents told me that they had been waiting for an EU referendum Bill for a very long time, and were fed up with hearing that it would be provided directly by Opposition Members. I am delighted that the Bill is at last going to happen, and I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has changed her mind and decided to support it. I shall not dwell on the fact that she has changed her mind; women do.

    I cannot end without passing on special thanks to the Prime Minister from the residents of my home villages, Kingsand and Cawsand. Last Saturday, I attended the reopening of the newly repaired clock tower, and the Prime Minister’s help in making this historic building survive was acknowledged. The building was reopened by 102-year-old Doll Jago, who is the oldest resident in the village. It was extremely special for me because Doll’s late son, Tony, first introduced my late husband Neil to commercial fishing.

    It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of Cornwall, to commend the Gracious Speech to the House.

  • Simon Burns – 2015 Speech on the Loyal Address

    simonburns

    Below is the text of the speech made by Simon Burns in the House of Commons on 27 May 2015.

    I beg to move,

    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

    Most Gracious Sovereign,

    We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg to leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

    It is a great honour for me, and for my constituents, to propose the Humble Address, not least as this is the first majority Conservative Government elected since 1992—and one should not lose sight of the historical context of this achievement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister who served a full term to win his second general election with more seats and a higher share of the vote since Lord Palmerston in 1857.

    It is a pleasure to be called first in a debate by you, Mr Speaker, though I suspect this will be the last time.

    I must confess that I am finding this a nerve-racking experience, because I am not used to addressing such a packed Chamber. In fact, I feel a bit like a very young British diplomat serving in our mission in Beijing in the mid-1960s who at a diplomatic reception found to his horror that he was standing next to Chairman Mao. He was terrified that whatever he said would be inadequate and he desperately racked his brains to try to find something intelligent to say. Finally, he found what he thought was intelligent and asked Mao, “What do you think would have happened if Khrushchev rather than President Kennedy had been killed in Dallas.” There was total silence and he felt that he had committed the diplomatic faux pas that he was trying to avoid. What he did not know, as all too often I do not know, but certainly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows, is that wise men always think before they speak. After what seemed like an eternity, Mao turned to the young man and very quietly said, “I don’t think that Mr Onassis would have married Mrs Khrushchev.”

    Talking of diplomats, I would like to pay tribute to our former colleague William Hague. He was a great parliamentarian and an outstanding Foreign Secretary who will be sorely missed. I am personally indebted to him for arranging for me to meet Hillary Clinton at the Foreign Office four years ago. Towards the end of the meeting, William grabbed my arm, pulled up my jacket sleeve and thrust my wrist in front of our distinguished American guest. At first, I was worried that William was wanting to demonstrate his judo skills, but it soon became clear that he was attempting to show Hillary my watch, which features a picture of her on the face of it. Hillary looked at it and literally screamed with laughter—I knew it was laughter, but her secret service protection officers were not so sure; they immediately stepped forward, and one of them was heard to mutter, “What the hell’s he done to her?” Fortunately, calm was restored before what could easily have been an untimely by-election in Chelmsford.

    Despite the security scare, I thought the meeting had gone pretty well. I was therefore taken aback when William called me a few months ago with some unsettling news. Hillary had got wind of my desire to help her 2016 presidential campaign, and it was not good news he had to convey to me. She told William she had heard about my record: “He worked for McGovern’s campaign in ’72, and he lost; he worked for Ted Kennedy’s campaign in 1980, and he lost; he worked for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s campaign in 2002, and she lost; and he worked for my campaign in 2008, and I lost. For goodness’ sake”, Hillary pleaded with him, “please find Simon something—anything—else to do, away from the United States in 2016.”

    Proposing the Humble Address is a great honour for me. In many ways, this is a kaleidoscope Queen’s Speech—people can twist it as much as they want, but all the patterns are blue, without a hint of yellow, red or purple. I was brought down to earth, however, when I reread the excellent seconding speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) in 1992, when he defined the role of the proposer and seconder. He said a seconder had the opportunity to shine and further advance their career, so I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has a glittering future ahead of her, but as he explained, the proposer is

    “some genial old codger on the way out”.—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 56.]

    I now know my role in life. Never again, when the word “reshuffle” permeates Westminster, will I sit anxiously by my telephone, because I now know that old codgers only have a past to look forward to.

    In recent years there have been dastardly rumours that you, Mr Speaker, and I do not get on, or even—heaven forbid—that we do not like each other. Just before Dissolution, I read an article by your biographer, who bizarrely suggested that I might be ugly, but, as you know, it is said that politics is show business for ugly people, so, Mr Speaker, I would say that we are all in this together.

    It is time, Mr Speaker, that we buried the hatchet—preferably not in my back—so I would like to offer an olive branch by clearing up a rumour about your car. As you will know, in recent years my relationship with cars has not been an altogether happy one, but it has been said that a few years ago my car reversed into yours in Speaker’s Court. You apparently saw the incident through the window of your apartment and hurried out shouting at me, “I’m not happy”, to which I am reputed to have replied, “Then which one are you?” If it is helpful to you, Mr Speaker, I want categorically to confirm that this incident never happened.

    It is also said that anyone wanting to keep a secret should mention it in the Chamber of the House of Commons. As I trust all right hon. and hon. Members here today, I would like to make a confession—[Interruption.] When I first came to this House, two MPs a week had to queue overnight in armchairs in a room upstairs for ten-minute rule Bill slots because of the high demand for them. Believe it or not—this is true—the night I chose was with Ann Widdecombe. If Jack Kennedy was the man who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to Paris in 1961, I am the man who spent the night with Ann Widdecombe in 1991!

    I am very proud of my constituency, which is set in the heart of Essex. It is the home of “Essex man” and “Essex girls”, who like to work hard and play even harder. It might have caught on only over the last few years, but I have been saying it since 1987—“The only way is Essex!” My constituents fully embrace the work ethic: they are aspirational for themselves and their families, believing that the harder they work, the more they should benefit, without losing sight of helping those who are genuinely in trouble or need assistance.

    My constituents understood the scale of the economic mess that we inherited and they accepted the measures my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took to establish the firm foundations of our long-term economic plan. That has meant for my constituents: unemployment down; inflation down; the deficit down; income taxes down—and growth up. They welcomed the income tax cuts through the significant raising of personal allowances each year of the last Parliament. For these reasons, they will warmly welcome the tax lock Bill, which will ensure no tax rise on income, VAT or national insurance contributions throughout the lifetime of this Parliament. They will also welcome the childcare Bill, which will double free childcare for three and four-year-olds to 30 hours a week, as this will help a tremendous number of young mothers in my constituency who would like to get back into work but find it difficult because of the cost of childcare.

    My constituents are forthright in their views, and what will impress them about this Queen’s Speech is that we have kept the faith by honouring our election commitments. During the election, the media and the pundits said we would not be able to deliver. This Gracious Speech disproves that fallacy, and I commend it to the House.

  • John Woodcock – 2016 Speech on Poppi Worthington

    johnwoodcock

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Woodcock in the House of Commons on 11 February 2016.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will heed your very appropriate warning on these matters. Indeed, the precise nature of what can and cannot, and should and should not, be disclosed is an important issue in this debate, as I will go on to discuss. I want to thank colleagues who have been right behind the push to try to salvage some justice after the death of Poppi Worthington and to press for the changes that this investigation clearly must lead to, both in the way the police operate in these matters and in social services. I am grateful to the Minister for her time today in the meeting, and it is good to be able to follow on so directly with this public debate.

    Poppi Worthington died in December 2012, when she was 13 months old. We are now in February 2016, so more than three years later I am still having to come to this House for answers. Indeed, it has been only weeks since it has been possible to discuss this matter in public, because of the extensive, deeply surprising and in many ways concerning injunction that was placed upon reporting this matter. That was only partially lifted by Mr Justice Jackson’s ruling last month.

    I will briefly go through some of the key facts, before moving on to the questions I hope the Minister will answer. On 11 December 2012, Poppi Worthington was put to bed by her mother a perfectly healthy child. Eight hours later, she was brought downstairs by her father lifeless and with troubling injuries, including significant bleeding from her anus. She was just 13 months old when she died. It then took until June 2013 for the full post mortem to declare the cause of death as “unascertained”.

    In August 2013—eight months after Poppi’s death—Paul Worthington, her father, was brought in for questioning. That was the first time he had been questioned by police. He had twice before been questioned in relation to different child sexual abuse allegations. Critical evidence, such as Poppi’s clothes and last nappy, had been lost or never gathered by police. The media have reported that Mr Worthington’s laptop was not requested by police at the time, and by the time they eventually asked for it, the device had apparently been sold and sold again and so was unavailable to the police’s store of evidence.

    In March 2014, a fact-finding report was delivered in private in a family court. Court records dated 18 December 2014 make it clear that lawyers acting for Cumbria County Council originally applied for a 15-year ban on the disclosure even of Poppi’s name. In the judge’s words, their case for secrecy included the claim that

    “disclosure of alleged shortcomings by agencies might be unfair to the agencies”.

    The coroner’s inquest in Barrow town hall took just seven minutes to declare her death as “unexplained”. That is less than a quarter of the time we have for this debate.

    It took legal action from a variety of media organisations to force a second inquest, after the first was declared insufficient and therefore unlawful. I pay tribute to several people in the media who have pushed for this tirelessly, particularly Clare Fallon of “BBC North West Tonight” and the North West Evening Mail, whose Justice for Poppi campaign is still gathering signatures on the Downing Street website for the full and independent investigation that I believe is necessary, given the scale and breadth of the failings.

    It then took until July 2015 for the High Court to order the second inquest. In November, Mr Justice Jackson in the family court released part of his original fact-finding judgment from the March before. This revealed that Cumbria police conducted “no real investigation” into Poppi’s death for nine months, despite a senior pathologist at the time raising concerns that Poppi might have suffered a serious sexual assault. It then took until this January—just last month—for Mr Justice Jackson to give his final, very clear verdict: based on medical evidence, he believed that Poppi had suffered a penetrative sexual assault before her death. It was only after this judgment that the second coroner’s inquest could get off the ground. It had been requested in January 2015 and confirmed in July.

    We heard earlier this week that the second inquest would commence in March and that we would find out the timetable soon. Worryingly, the senior coroner has indicated that it might not even be concluded this year. Meanwhile, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has put together a report into failings by Cumbria police that names several officers. The report was finished last March—nearly a full 12 months ago—and leaked to the BBC, but the IPCC is currently still refusing to publish it. Similarly, a serious case review by Cumbria Local Safeguarding Children Board is being withheld, despite the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) making it clear that the publication of neither of these reports could prejudice the coroner’s second inquest.

    In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing the evidence to see if a criminal prosecution is possible. The fact that it is in doubt is surely largely the result of the astounding failures by the police in their handling of this case. The clear question to the police, which must now be taken up, is why they did not act immediately after a pathologist raised the prospect of a serious sexual assault. Why did they not keep hold of vital evidence from the scene?

    Those questions demand serious action from the force itself and from the Government. That brings me to the following serious issues: the nature of and justification for the refusal by the IPCC to publish its completed report; and the appointment and continued tenure of acting Chief Constable Michelle Skeer.

    We are told that lessons have been learnt by the force, but we cannot judge because we are not permitted even to see the IPCC report into what went wrong. We do not know exactly why these failures occurred. We do not know if those responsible have been held properly accountable. Most importantly of all, we do not know if new systems have been put in place to stop this happening again.

    I have written to the IPCC to ask for the release of its report. It refused on the grounds that it could prejudice the second inquest, the disciplinary processes that have yet to be fully undergone or a future criminal investigation. My case to the Minister today is that none of those three potential justifications holds any water.

    Let me deal first with the idea that the report could prejudice the second inquest. The inquest, by definition of course, looks at the cause of death. It looks at the period of time up to death occurring. The IPCC report is concerned exclusively with the police investigation into that death, so there is zero overlap between those two periods of time. One cannot logically prejudice the other. While I understand that the Minister cannot command the IPCC, as it is currently constituted, to do anything—it is an independent body for justifiable reasons—I urge her to comment on her view of the logic of that case.

    Neither is it legally possible to prejudice disciplinary proceedings, which are yet to get under way. That is my clear legal understanding based on evidence I have seen provided to the BBC. I would like the Minister to confirm that. The key failure we face is whether there is the prospect of mounting any criminal investigation at all.

    When I was first able to question the Minister a couple of weeks ago after Mr Speaker granted me an urgent question on this matter, I called for a separate force to be brought in, given the manifest failures of the original investigation. I wanted a separate force to be brought in to take over this investigation. The Minister and I have been able to discuss this outside the Chamber and I understand that she does not yet have the necessary information to make a judgment on that, but part of the necessary information will be the IPCC report that is currently being withheld. Every day that goes by, the evidence trail gets colder, and every day without justice for Poppi is a day in which her killer, if she was unlawfully killed, is able to walk free.

    Will the Minister confirm that she wants to see the report as quickly as possible, preferably through full and open publication? If that is not possible, is she prepared to ask for a private copy like that provided to the police and crime commissioner, who has confirmed that, although he is not allowed to refer to it publicly, he is able to use it to make judgments?

    It has become apparent that the police and crime commissioner, Mr Richard Rhodes, had not received the report when he endorsed the temporary promotion of Michelle Skeer from deputy chief constable to acting chief constable after Chief Constable Jerry Graham was forced to stand down temporarily on the grounds of ill health. Regulations state that the PCC should be given an unpublished report only if it relates to the chief constable, but he was not made aware of the contents of this report, even though he was required to endorse the temporary promotion of a woman—this is clear, because the report has been leaked to and reported on by the BBC, and it has been shown to me—whom it directly names and criticises for her actions in this case. She is now overseeing the force’s path of improvement from the case, despite the fact that she was directly implicated in it.

    Is the Minister as troubled as I am by this situation, and will she agree to re-examine the regulations and procedures, to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen again? If a report relates to someone who may be promoted to the position of chief constable, the police and crime commissioner should automatically be given sight of that important evidence.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is unsustainable for Michelle Skeer to continue in the post of acting chief constable, because that is to the detriment of restoring confidence in the police force and the process of change that it now needs to carry out. She was named in the report from which the police force needs to recover, and the manner of her appointment was flawed. The Minister will probably say that that judgment is not for her, but for the PCC to make. However, if the PCC reaches that view, will the Minister at least pledge to give him her Department’s assistance in finding an alternative acting chief constable while the permanent chief constable returns to health?

    These are incredibly difficult and distressing matters. No professional intentionally allows such horrific cases to go without justice. Police officers go to work to prevent and to solve crimes, and social workers go to work to protect children, but that has not happened in this case. Although this is a difficult and complex issue, the Government face a binary choice: either they must be prepared to step in and do all they can to increase transparency and to remove the logjam and the cloud of secrecy hanging over the case, or they will end up being part of a system that perpetuates that secrecy.

  • Barbara Woodward – 2016 Speech on Inspiring Women

    barbarawoodward

    Below is the text of the speech made by Barbara Woodward, the British Ambassador to China, in China on 2 April 2016.

    I want to start by thanking Yang Lan not just for convening this forum today, but also for all the inspiring work she and Her Village do to inspire us all and bring out the best in us day after day.

    Being able to share experiences and support is critical to all our success. Zhang Xin, another wonderful speaker who will be talking the floor later today, reminded us all of that in her inspiring remarks in Davos earlier this year when she referred to the importance of support groups.

    We have just heard from Kevin Rudd about Advancing the Rights Interests and Role of Women Around the World. Since the Beijing UN Conference on Women, there have been important strides. President Xi Jinping’s commitment at UN GA last year reemphasised China’s commitment to this agenda.

    I have to pay tribute to Australia and China. As many of you know, I am the first female Ambassador to China. Of course, we are behind China already as State Councillor Mme Fu Ying was the first female Chinese Ambassador to London. And of course I am embarrassed to say that we are behind Australia too in this respect, as Australia has just sent their second female Ambassador to China.

    No matter. We have at least made some progress. I was very amused last month to hear this anecdote about Lord Killearn. He was a former British Ambassador in Cairo and earlier in his career, he was an official, a 1st Secretary in Peking. In 1933, he’s reported to have said, when he confronted with the possibility of a future with a female ambassador to China, this would be ‘’unsuitable and highly inadvisable’’!

    Well, if I hadn’t already been Ambassador, I would have been inspired right out there to go out and do the job and prove him wrong!

    And that’s what so many great women have done. Prove people wrong and challenge stereotypes.

    We are all familiar with Nobel prize winner Malala Yousafzai who refused to accept that girls could not have an education. She – and her classmates – went to school, day in day out. She wrote about her experience. Then one day in 2012 she was shot by a gunman on her way to school. She made a miraculous recovery- and I pay tribute to medical professionals in Pakistan and the UK. She has continued not only to pursue her own education, but also to press the right of all children to education. The youngest ever winner of a Nobel peace prize in 2014 and one whose work continues to inspire us today.

    Progress/the remaining challenge

    We are currently living under a record-high number of simultaneous female world leaders. The UK’s own Queen Elizabeth, who visited China in 1986, 30 years ago, and who celebrates her 90th Birthday this year is one. But that’s still only 20 or so out of more than 200. That’s 10%! But who knows if the next US President or the next UN Secretary General might be a woman?

    There are more women leading business. Our host today, Yang Lan, and many wonderful colleagues joining us are included in that number. In the UK, all FTSE 100 companies have at least one female board member and last year 33% of appointments were to women. But around the world somewhere between 8 and 15% of top executive jobs in business are held by women.

    Between 1901-1920, 4 women won Nobel prizes. Between 2001-2015, 19 women won prizes, including Chinese scientist Tu Youyou last year. That’s progress! But let’s bear in mind that in the whole history of Nobel prizes, 822 have been won by men and only 48 by women: that’s quite an imbalance!

    In sport, at the London Olympics in 2012, for the first time, women competed in as many sports as men, and every team sent at least one female athlete. That’s not equality, but it’s progress.

    That’s for leaders. What about the rest of us? Well, there’s still scope for progress.

    There is still not a single country in the world where women have equal economic and political power to men.

    What does that mean? Let me give two concrete examples.

    First: although women in sub Saharan Africa manage 80% of the farmland, they access only 10% of the credit available for smallholders.

    Second: The recent World Economic Forum Report (Nov 2015) suggests it will take another 118 years to achieve pay equality between men and women. That means even those girls born today may still not achieve equal pay before they die, even if they live to a ripe old age.

    But by narrowing the gender gap in work, as much as $12 trillion could be added to annual global GDP in 2025. Adding another economy the size of China’s must be something worth us all pursuing. And if China were to succeed in breaking down gender stereotypes and unleashing women’s economic potential, $2.5 trillion could be added to China’s own annual GDP . That’s a prize worth having for men and women.

    So what are we going to do about it?!

    The good news is that we all hold the power to accelerate change.

    Today I want to introduce three ways to accelerate change.

    Government and company policy

    First, Obviously governments and companies have a critical role to play. Equality is enshrined in China’s constitution. In the UK, women won the vote in 1918. In the 1970s the UK passed key legislation on equal pay and on sexual discrimination.

    But it takes time to implement legislation and catch up. It requires each organisation to have policies to make these laws work in practice. In my own organisation, the UK Foreign Ministry, now 35% of the FCO Board are women. More than 20% of Ambassadors and Heads of Mission are women. This number will continue to rise.

    Because we encourage flexible and remote working.

    Because we have career breaks and unpaid leave for up to 10 years.

    Because we have a nursery in the FCO where staff can leave their children while they work.

    Because we check every job advertisement to make sure it does not put women off.

    Because we have committed to having a woman on the shortlist for all senior jobs.

    Because we are committed to mentoring and coaching to develop women’s talents.

    Because we insist on diverse interview panels (not just men conducting the interviews).

    But it takes more than that….

    So, second let me talk a bit about

    Peer support.

    Following your dream, building your career, facing the challenges as knowing how and when to seize the opportunities involve tough choices. Since I came to China, I’ve been the very lucky beneficiary of support from a group of talented and supportive women.

    I have also met inspired and motivated members of Lean In Groups followers of Sheryl Sandberg’s seminal advice.

    Last month, the British Embassy in China organised a month long campaign “Be Yourself”. The aim of our campaign was empowering women to fulfil their potential, to break down barriers and be themselves.

    By the end of the month, our energetic, talented and committed staff had organised more than 20 events in 7 cities in China, including in Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan Chongqing and Guangzhou.

    Over 1500 people had participated directly.

    Over 4m had participated on line.

    That was our small contribution last month to inspiring and empowering women through peer learning and mutual support.

    Third, we need to smooth the path of the next generation- of boys and girls.

    We all know the value of education. I was very struck by what the First Lady, Madam Peng Liyuan said last autumn in New York, to mark the 20th anniversary of the Beijing Women’s conference.

    After generations of hard work, China has come a long way in education. I myself am a beneficiary of that progress. Otherwise I would never have become a soprano and a professor of music.

    I myself started my work in China as an English teacher. I am passionate about education. I’m delighted that the UK is renowned as a world leader in education and that students from around the world, including 150,000 from China, many the beneficiaries of scholarships without which that study would not be possible, come to study in the UK.

    Why? Because education, for boys and girls is a route to opportunity, to realising dreams, and ultimately to the security of society. Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen maintains that “if we continue to leave vast sections of the people of the world outside the orbit of education, we make the world not only less just, but also less secure”.

    Education and the skills you learn in the classroom are important. But it’s not just about the learning.

    I was delighted last autumn to become the patron of a new British Council initiative, which is taking up the challenge for action by launching Inspiring Women China.

    Inspiring Women China is based on a successful UK-led model launched in 2013. Its aim is to break down gender stereotypes through real-life examples of what is possible.

    Inspiring Women provides an opportunity for female professionals from a wide range of occupations to volunteer just a small amount of time a year – to go into schools to talk with young people about the job they do and the route they took to get there.

    As the film so vividly portrays, research shows that children as young as 6-years old are already classifying particular careers as ‘male’ or ‘female’. If children hold on to this stereotyping, young women may never fulfil their true potential. They may rule themselves out of careers in which they might have otherwise excelled. Industries and employers fail to benefit from all the talent that is potentially available.

    Already over 20,000 women volunteers in the UK, from apprentices to CEOs, women from all walks of life are talking to 250,000 children.

    By rolling out Inspiring Women in China, the British Council and the British Embassy are supporting our country’s and our organisation’s commitments under the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

    I am delighted that Yang Lan has joined me as patron of this wonderful programme. And this is the young entrepreneur and philanthropist He Lan at the first Inspiring Women talk in Beijing last month!

    Let me conclude then by saying this. The world has much to gain from women fulfilling their potential and realising their dreams. All the women here are role models for achieving that. Thank you for getting involved with our peers and by inspiring the next generation, that is how we can truly accelerate progress.