UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2014 Speech on Rail Investment

    Patrick McLoughlin
    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, at Derbyshire Cricket Club on 10th April 2014.

    Thanks for that welcome.

    And thanks for inviting me today (10th April 2014).

    It’s an absolute pleasure to be at Derbyshire County Cricket Club once again for the Rail Forum conference.

    A year ago I stood here and talked about some of the challenges, and opportunities, we face. First, as a government. Second, as an industry.

    I explained how it’s our job in government to create the right environment for your businesses to grow. And how it’s your job to compete and take advantage of opportunities as the economy recovers.

    Well 12 months on from that speech, we’ve made excellent progress.

    The economic outlook is considerably brighter.

    By sticking to the Chancellor’s plans, Britain is recovering far faster than anyone expected.

    Faster than Germany.

    Faster than Japan or the US.

    And three times faster than the independent Office of Budget Responsibility predicted at last year’s budget.

    We’ve helped build the right conditions for growth by cutting corporation tax and reducing regulation.

    Manufacturing is up.

    Unemployment claims have fallen by almost a quarter.

    And over the coming year, we expect to reach a key milestone – by cutting the deficit to half the level we inherited.

    But we didn’t just inherit a fiscal deficit.

    We inherited an infrastructure deficit too.

    And a crowded and congested transport network that was holding back our economy.

    So we’ve made a very significant commitment to prioritise infrastructure spending, particularly on the railway.

    And now we’re seeing tangible evidence of that investment benefiting Derby’s rail cluster, with many companies stepping up to the plate, innovating and competing for new business, and by doing so, further strengthening Derby’s reputation as a world class centre for rail expertise.

    Just last week, the Derby Telegraph reported on hundreds of new rail jobs that are being created in and around the city.

    With companies like Interfleet Technology and Van Elle expanding and gearing up for the electrification of the Midland Main Line.

    It quoted the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum, saying that the upgraded link to Sheffield and London would see “enormous opportunities” for the local supply chain.

    Of course that’s not the only piece of good news the local rail industry’s had recently.

    I was delighted to announce a few weeks ago that Bombardier had successfully landed the rolling stock contract for Crossrail.

    The benefits of this contract will be felt across the sector – and across Derby.

    Because Bombardier will channel at least a quarter of the contract value through small and medium sized companies.

    The challenge now is to build on these achievements.

    Because we’re entering a period of historic opportunity for Britain’s rail industry.

    And with the biggest conglomeration of rail firms in the country, it’s certainly a huge opportunity for Derby.

    Already, rail passenger journeys have doubled in just 20 years.

    And passenger and freight demand is going to continue climbing for the foreseeable future.

    We have to be ready for that growth.

    So Network Rail will spend £38 billion over the next 5 years on maintenance and improvements.

    Providing more trains, more seats, and better stations.

    Improving reliability and performance.

    But even this substantial figure won’t provide all the capacity we need.

    Busy arteries like the West Coast Main Line will be overwhelmed if we don’t take action.

    That’s why we need High Speed 2. To boost capacity on north-south routes by almost 20,000 seats an hour, and free up space on the existing railway for more commuter services.

    The construction of HS2 will also ensure a long-term pipeline of rail investment.

    To sustain thousands of engineering jobs across the country.

    This will be the biggest transport infrastructure project in Britain since the coming of the motorways.

    To equip the industry for the challenges ahead, we’re investing in training and skills.

    The Crossrail Tunnelling and Underground Construction Academy is teaching a new generation of engineers.

    And we’ve begun the search for a place to host the new High Speed Rail College.

    From 2017, the college will teach some of the brightest engineering and construction students in Britain.

    Providing them with the specialised training and qualifications they need to work on HS2 and other future infrastructure projects.

    As part of the bidding process, we want cities like Derby to tell us why they are best placed to shape and develop these young talents.

    And how their long established links with industry will help students find the right job.

    In the long term, we want to export British rail expertise gained with HS2 to other countries developing their own high speed rail networks.

    So the High Speed Rail College has an exciting future – as will the town or city which successfully bids to host it.

    Our ambition is to develop a world class railway for Britain once again.

    Managing such an ambitious plan brings its own challenges.

    So, as you’ve heard from Clare Moriarty earlier today (10 April 2014), we’re making some changes to the way we operate at the DfT, with the launch of our new Rail Executive.

    The Rail Executive is tasked with managing the relationships between different parts of the railway, getting better value for money for both the farepayer and the taxpayer, and focusing more strongly on the customer.

    Now that the investment for the network has been secured, the Rail Executive’s priority will be effective and efficient delivery.

    We’ve seen fantastic growth, for example in the King’s Cross and St Pancras area, which has become a destination in its own right; but also at Nottingham, and the Northern Hub. All of which means that the prospects for this industry are looking up.

    We’ve set out a programme to revitalise the railways.

    What we have to do now is put it into practice.

    And in doing so, help your businesses to grow.

    It’s fitting, perhaps, that 2014 marks the 175th anniversary of the railway coming to Derby.

    Because I think our Victorian rail pioneers, like Derby’s own Sir Charles Fox, can help inspire a new rail renaissance in this country, including the first new north-south railway line to be built for more than a century.

    The lesson we can learn from them is that we have to think big.

    We have to be ambitious.

    And we have to grasp opportunities while they’re available.

    So on that note, can I thank you for listening – and wish you all the best for the next year.

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2014 Speech on HS2

    Patrick McLoughlin
    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, in Manchester on 24th January 2014.

    I’d like to thank John Kershaw, Chairman, Manchester Civic Society, for inviting me here to speak today (24th January 2014).

    And it’s a great place to do it.

    This is a city built by transport – canals, railways, roads.

    After all, it was in this hotel, the Midland, in 1906 that Rolls first met Royce.

    And not far from here you can still visit the station of the world’s first passenger railway.

    Though, come to think of it, the day it opened a Cabinet Minister stepped in front of a train and was mown down. Not a precedent I want to see repeated!

    The fact is Manchester’s pioneering business leaders were powerful voices constantly and consistently advocating for the new railway’s construction. Because they knew it would transform commerce and open new markets.

    I’m sure you can see where I am going here.

    But before I get on to High Speed 2, I’d like to say a few words about why we are making a record investment in transport.

    What that means for Manchester and the north west.

    And later I’d like to take some time for your questions.

    In 2010 we inherited an economy that was heading for the rocks. According to the IMF, by 2007 Britain had the largest structural deficit of any G7 nation.

    And for too long growth was concentrated in London and the south east. Between 1997 and 2010 London’s economy grew a third faster than that of the north.

    We want to build a stronger, more balanced British economy. One that delivers long-term growth across the country.

    There are signs that the tough decisions we have taken are working.

    The deficit is already down by a third. By the end of last year business activity was growing fastest in the north west and we entered 2014 with the fastest growing economy in the western world.

    There was more positive news this week. The fastest quarterly growth in employment since records began and the IMF predicted that the economy will grow by 2.4 percent in the coming year.

    But we didn’t just inherit a fiscal deficit. We inherited an infrastructure deficit too.

    Demand for long distance rail travel has doubled, our roads have got busier and growth in demand will continue.

    But investment hadn’t kept pace.

    We were falling behind our competitors.

    By 2010 the World Economic Forum ranked the UK 33rd for the quality of our overall infrastructure. That’s well below the EU average.

    Already 4 out of 10 drivers on the M60 are delayed and Manchester has the most crowded evening peak time trains outside of London.

    Congestion alone is expected to cost business £10 billon a year by 2025. So we need to improve our infrastructure or the economy will grind to a halt.

    That’s why we will be investing more over this decade than over the whole period of the last government.

    We are making a significant investment in Manchester’s transport infrastructure and ensuring you can take the decisions needed to help business compete.

    We are investing £267 million to improve the M60, reducing congestion on that vital road artery.

    Demand for international travel is growing rapidly and we want to help you get the best from the new Enterprise Zone. So we are improving links with the airport. By extending Metrolink and building the long-needed link road east to the A6.

    We will also deliver the £530 million Northern Hub rail programme. It will unlock capacity between Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds and Sheffield and finally bring back non-stop services to Liverpool from May this year.

    The Northern Hub will deliver more trains and faster journeys on transpennine services, cutting ten minutes off journeys from Manchester to Leeds and more, quicker services to Bradford and Sheffield.

    In total 700 more trains will run between the major towns and cities in the North every day.

    We are also investing almost £50 million rebuilding Manchester Victoria station.

    From a station the public rated Britain’s worst, to a modern gateway the city can be proud of.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the engineers from Network Rail and its suppliers who worked so hard over Christmas and New Year at Manchester Victoria – and across the network. They did a fantastic job in tough circumstances.

    But it’s just one of those investments – High Speed Two – that I want to focus on because improving our existing infrastructure will only get us so far.

    The West Coast Mainline serves half of the ten largest cities in Britain and at some point carries almost half of rail freight.

    And that combination of long distance, local and freight traffic means the line is filling up. And like any system run at near capacity, the West Coast mainline is vulnerable to snarl ups and delays.

    Of course, some people say we don’t need HS2 to provide the additional capacity that is needed. For example, we could lengthen some trains and encourage people to travel at different times.

    And where we can, we will do all this. But quick fixes will not solve the long term problem.

    We’ve already spent £9 billion upgrading the existing West Coast mainline.

    Twenty years ago there were fewer than 20 trains from Manchester to London each day. Now there are more than 45.

    The cuttings, tunnels and viaducts that remain are Victorian masterpieces. But they’re not simple to extend. Widening the existing line would be like trying to drive the M6 down the Wilmslow Road.

    Longer trains alone will not create the additional capacity we need to move more freight. That means around half a million truck journeys on the roads that could be carried by rail.

    And it doesn’t create the additional capacity required for new routes. That will leave Lancashire towns like Blackpool without direct mainline services.

    So we need a new north-south rail line.

    More capacity will benefit inter-city, commuter and freight services, links that will support enterprise and change the UK’s economic geography.

    But I know that capacity isn’t the only thing that matters about HS2. We need to build it within or under budget. We will.

    The budget for HS2 is £42.6 billion. Not £80 billion. That is an upper limit including £14.4 billion contingency and we will reduce costs where possible. I have also asked the new Chair, Sir David Higgins to look at where we can speed up construction.

    Because I am absolutely determined High Speed 2 will be delivered on time and on budget and get the benefits to the Midlands and the north as soon as possible.

    That’s one reason why I was disappointed that we were taken to the Supreme Court this week – though not disappointed by the outcome.

    It was seeking Judicial Review on a technicality. They had already lost at the High Court and then lost again at the Appeal Court. But still they appealed to the Supreme Court. It was a waste of their time, of your time and of taxpayers money. I’m pleased the Supreme Court has now found in our favour so we can get on.

    HS2 will generate approximately 20,000 additional jobs for Greater Manchester and add £1.2 billion to the regional economy over the long term. This is an investment we can’t afford not to make.

    We are proposing 2 stations in Greater Manchester, one in the city centre and the other at the airport. And we are nearly at an end of the consultation on the second stage of the route.

    You are the experts at what Manchester needs to thrive.

    If you have not done so, I want to encourage you to respond to the consultation. It closes at the end of the month (January 2014). It is your knowledge and expertise that will help ensure Manchester gets the best from HS2.

    In conclusion, for Britain to succeed, Manchester has to prosper. I believe this great city will be as much of a powerhouse in twenty-first century as it was in the last. That’s why we are investing in Manchester’s success.

    We are building HS2 so even more people can see Manchester’s past and become part of its future growth. Manchester’s Victorian leaders left us a lasting legacy in the shape of Britain’s railways.

    I hope you can continue to be just as powerful advocates for the benefits of HS2 – advocates for its importance to this city and to our country’s future.

  • Patrick McLoughlin – 2013 Speech on Rail Privatisation

    Patrick McLoughlin
    Patrick McLoughlin

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, on rail privatisation. The speech was made on 12th November 2013 at the European Rail Congress.

    Thanks for that introduction.

    It’s a pleasure to join you today.

    This is an industry with an increasingly international – indeed global – outlook.

    So it’s great to welcome delegates and speakers from across Europe to London for this inaugural European Rail Congress.

    It is fitting that the subject of my speech this afternoon is “rail growth through competition.”

    Because the UK railway was privatised almost exactly 20 years ago.

    In fact the Railways Act came into effect on November 5 1993, breaking up the state-run British Rail, and transforming the face of our railway for ever.

    Nobody back then could have predicted the extraordinary changes that have taken place over the subsequent 2 decades.

    So today I want to reflect on the UK’s experience of privatisation.

    On the many benefits that it’s brought to us as a country.

    But I also want to talk about the challenges we’ve faced.

    And the lessons we’ve learnt along the way.

    Let me start by taking you back to the late 1980s.

    I was a junior transport minister in Margaret Thatcher’s last government.

    And I remember what our railway was like under a single, publicly-owned operator.

    Rail was an industry in decline.

    In fact it had been declining since the motorways were built in the 1950s and ‘60s.

    The infrastructure was in need of urgent attention.

    Reliability was poor.

    And like other monolithic state institutions, British Rail had a culture that hampered rather than encouraged innovation.

    It’s true that public subsidy under British Rail was comparatively low, but that reflected underinvestment in tracks and trains, rather than an efficient and sustainable business model.

    We knew things could be better.

    Because we’d already successfully sold off other utilities, like British Aerospace, British Gas, and Rolls-Royce.

    Introducing competition.

    Improving performance.

    Widening share-holding.

    And reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

    It was against this background that we privatised the railway.

    But expectations weren’t high.

    Rail travel had dwindled to such an extent that most people thought the private train operators would manage a decline in both passenger and freight traffic.

    How wrong they were.

    Privatisation sparked a railway renaissance.

    Since 1993, passenger journeys have doubled in the UK to a level not seen since the 1920s.

    On a network roughly the same size as 15 years ago, today our railway is running 4,000 more services a day.

    And rail freight has grown by 60%.

    Revenue is up more than £3 billion since privatisation, almost all of it due to higher passenger numbers rather than fare rises

    Safety levels are at an all time high.

    Punctuality is at near record levels.

    And passenger satisfaction is up by 10% over the past decade.

    None of this would have happened without privatisation.

    Without competition.

    Without franchises investing in better services.

    Without an industry structure promoting accountability and incentivising growth.

    Yet the job is far from over.

    We still face some considerable challenges – challenges that must be met if we’re to build on the achievements of the past 20 years.

    The first is: how to meet rising demand.

    Because we didn’t just inherit a record public deficit in 2010 – we also inherited an infrastructure deficit.

    Our main intercity network was built to serve a Victorian economy, not a 21st century one.

    Historic underinvestment left the railway ill-prepared to meet soaring demand – which was triggered not just by privatisation, but also by 15 years of subsequent economic growth.

    By 2010, the railway was in need of urgent investment, both in the short term, and in the longer term, to achieve a step change in capacity.

    We therefore embarked on an unprecedented rail modernisation programme.

    Between 2014 and 2019, infrastructure operator Network Rail will spend over £38 billion running and expanding our railway.

    Improvements include an extra 140,000 seats on peak services by the end of the decade.

    A major electrification programme.

    A multi-billion pound deal to replace intercity rolling stock.

    And a new high capacity railway for London and the south east called Crossrail.

    But even this ambitious package of improvements will not provide us with the space we need to grow.

    Major routes like the West Coast line will be overwhelmed by 2025 if we fail to act.

    So we are currently taking a Bill through Parliament to deliver HS2 – a new high speed rail network for the UK.

    With construction due to start in 2017, HS2 will connect London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

    It will boost capacity by almost 20,000 seats an hour.

    And it will slash journey times between 8 of our 10 biggest cities.

    HS2 will free up space on the existing network for more commuter services and freight.

    It will give customers more choice about how to travel.

    And it will make our railway more competitive.

    And that brings me onto the second major challenge.

    Getting down costs.

    By 2010, our railway was the most expensive in Europe.

    At a time when we faced the largest public deficit in UK history, and when we made a commitment to tackle waste and profligacy across government, reducing the cost of the railway became an urgent priority.

    We’ve made good progress.

    The rail subsidy for England and Wales fell from £4 billion in 2009 to 2010 to £3.2 billion in 2011 to 2012.

    We’ve tasked the industry to make savings of £3.5 billion a year.

    And we’ve put a lid on expensive fare rises.

    This is just the start.

    There is still a long way to go before we hit our cost saving targets, and before we can achieve our goal of ending above-inflation fare increases.

    Turning round the performance of such a huge industry is a big job.

    But it’s one we are determined to finish.

    The final big challenge is modernising the railway for the customer.

    Fares and ticketing, for example, is still complex and impenetrable.

    So we’ve recently completed a major review of the fares and ticketing system.

    By making it simpler and more user-friendly, more people will travel by rail, and they’ll also have a much better experience.

    So we’re trialling a flexible ticketing system which will meet the needs of individual travellers.

    Ultimately, we would like to see passengers use smartcards for use across the network, and on different types of transport.

    Operators are investing in better stations, better trains and better facilities.

    But to improve the railway for passengers, we’re also encouraging them to collaborate more closely with Network Rail.

    One operator, South West Trains, has joined with Network Rail to create a single management team responsible for both trains and track.

    This kind of joined-up working isn’t bad for competition.

    Neither is it an end to the market.

    It’s an example of how to make things work.

    And how to respond to the needs of passengers.

    There are enormous gains to be made from aligning objectives, so that different parts of the industry do what they do best for the benefit of passengers – whether it’s selling tickets, running signals or fixing track.

    So 20 years on, what have we learnt from privatisation?

    Well, we’ve learnt that it can transform the fortunes of the railway.

    Turning decline into growth.

    Boosting revenue, and passenger satisfaction.

    But we’ve also learnt that growth must be managed in a sustainable and responsible way.

    We failed as a country to plan for growth.

    To look beyond our immediate needs and build for the future.

    And to keep a close control of costs.

    Now we’re sorting out these problems, our railway is in a better position than it has been for decades.

    Franchising might still be criticised by those who want to turn backwards.

    Who haven’t learnt any lessons from the past.

    But now we’ve got a structure that’s working.

    Encouraging innovation through competition.

    Allowing the private sector to do what it does best.

    But also collaborating for the benefit of the customer.

    And building the capacity we need to grow.

    Rail privatisation has made Britain a better country.

    But if we heed the lessons I’ve talked about today, then we can look forward to an even brighter future.

    Thank you.

  • Ann McKechin – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ann McKechin to the 2011 Labour Party conference on 26th September 2011.

    Conference, without any doubt 2011 has been a very tough year for Labour in Scotland but it has been an even tougher year for the people of Scotland.

    Jobs disappearing – more and more in long term unemployment; incomes frozen; hours cut and the highest youth unemployment since the 1980’s.

    Along with rising inflation in the items we need the most – food; energy bills and transport, people across Scotland are really feeling the squeeze on their living standards.

    Not surprisingly after the May elections, our critics rushed to claim that labour would never recover; that we no longer have a vision for Scotland’s future; that we have lost our way.

    But conference the task to protect what is best about Scotland and to tackle the enormous problems we face today is one where Scottish labour should be at the heart. Be in no doubt that we are determined to be Scotland’s voice for social justice.

    Since May our members have shown with an amazing determination that this party will not simply fade away.

    When we were hit by the tragic death of our colleague and friend, David Cairns, our activists came from across Scotland and were out in the streets of Inverclyde through wind and rain to secure an impressive victory and the election of Iain McKenzie as our newest Member of Parliament.

    Our members have also actively engaged with our party review ably chaired by Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack, which has already introduced substantial changes to the way we work and there will be more change to come.

    By the end of this year, we will have a new Scottish Labour Leader, to lead us in our fight against the equally narrow visions of the Tory-led Government and the SNP Government.

    Being a leader when your party is in Opposition is a tough job particularly when you have to cope with disappointment and setbacks. But I want to thank Iain Gray today for his unstinting commitment and loyalty to our party over the last few years – Iain, I know that your lifelong drive for social justice will continue to ensure that you make a difference to our country.

    And this year, conference has been one where the constitutional future of Scotland and that of the UK has again been dominant.

    Our nationalist opponents don’t miss an opportunity in repeating the constant refrain of our separate history and culture, be it Bannockburn or Culloden.

    Yes, conference these were momentous battles but there are many battles which have moulded our lives – much more recent; just as impressive and much more relevant to the way we live now.

    All of us wherever we live in the UK share the heritage which began with the Industrial Revolution that witnessed working people taking the opportunity to organise and agitate for a better future:

    Votes for women, the creation of free universal healthcare and education, equal pay and the birth of the Trade Union Movement which in turn led to the formation of our great Party.

    And Scotland was always integral to these advances for working people.

    Keir Hardie recognised that the social challenges of poor working conditions, insanitary housing and inadequate education were problems not just faced by Scots but shared with the whole of the United Kingdom.

    His call to arms for social justice is one that this Labour Party still heeds today.

    Just 2 weeks ago we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the world’s first ever “work-in” at the Upper Clyde shipyards.

    That movement was supported at the time not just by Scots but by thousands of people throughout the UK and it became a potent symbol of the fight by ordinary people against Tory complacency.

    Conference, just like 40 years ago, ordinary people want to work and live their lives in dignity.

    And yet again we have a Tory-led Government failing to reflect established Scottish values of responsibility and community.

    It too often rewards an irresponsible minority at the top of our society while leaving hardworking Scots to feel the squeeze of frozen wages and spiralling costs of living. This is a government that has sat idly by and has watched from the sidelines while its cuts, which went too far and too fast, choked off Britain’s recovery last autumn.

    It’s time for action. It’s time to heed Labour’s call to temporarily reverse the VAT hike to get people spending again and to re-introduce the banker’s bonus tax to provide a job guarantee for every young unemployed Scot.

    Instead of sitting on their hands, it’s time for Cameron and Osborne to act now.

    And Conference, the Scottish Government too has to live up to its responsibilities.

    The time for playing games with the people of Scotland should now be over.

    Are we seriously to believe that the First Minister, who has spent most of his waking hours for the past 30 odd years on how to achieve separation, doesn’t know the question to ask the Scottish electorate?

    Does anyone in the Scottish Government believe that this constitutional uncertainty is a good thing for Scotland?

    The Scottish Government has spent the last four years having a national conversation with its citizens but still can’t answer basic questions on defence policy, our currency or our relationship with Europe?

    What will it take for the SNP to come clean?

    Conference, let us be clear – Scottish Labour have never played games with the electorate on our country’s future and we never will.

    We judge the argument for change on whether it will be help secure the social justice we fight for and if it is in Scotland’s interests.

    And when there is a convincing argument for change we seek political consensus and objective hard evidence.

    That is why Scottish Labour was the party of devolution and gave Scotland its parliament; that is why we have supported the aims of the Scotland Bill and that is why we reject debates fixated purely on process rather than real policies of change.

    Conference, it is clear that Scots want us to focus on meeting the challenges of unemployment, the cost of living, protecting our public services and ensuring that the next generation in Scotland do not miss out.

    These are shared challenges within the UK and, as we have in the past, we will meet them together.

  • Anne McGuire – 2006 Speech to the RNIB

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anne McGuire to the RNIB ‘Focus on the Future’ Conference held in Aberdeen on 31st August 2006.

    It is a great pleasure to be with you all in Aberdeen and I would like to thank John Legg, RNIB Scotland and Grampian Society for the Blind for inviting me to speak at this important event. The conference is an important step in highlighting the employment needs of blind and partially sighted people and I hope that the presentations here today will provide much food for thought and fresh perspectives into addressing the currently low rates of employment for blind and partially sighted people.

    As the UK’s Minister for Disabled People I have been asked to set the scene and cover what the UK Government has been doing to improve the employment opportunities of disabled people generally. Although we have been doing a lot I think we would all agree that much remains to be done for disabled people generally and for blind and partially sighted people in particular.

    Undoubtedly, we are going through a period of change as we review our services to disabled people and the means by which those services are delivered. I recognise that change can give rise to uncertainty. But change can also provide us with an opportunity.

    – an opportunity to build on the progress that we’ve already made;

    – an opportunity to shape a new, active inclusive welfare state and to contribute to that goal;

    – and an opportunity to support a dramatic extension of individually tailored support that has the potential to transform the life chances of disabled people in our workplaces; in our communities and in our society as a whole.

    I want to say a little about that change and the context within which it is taking place.

    Since 1997, we have set about implementing the most profound extension of disability rights this country has ever seen. We have strengthened civil rights for disabled people in such areas as access to goods and services, and to public transport, and we established the Disability Rights Commission in April 2000 to help disabled people understand and enforce their rights.

    In October 2004, we extended the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to provide protection against discrimination for an additional 600,000 disabled workers. A further 7 million jobs and 1 million employers were brought within the scope of the employment provisions of the Act.

    Most recently, amendments made to the Disability Discrimination Act in 2005 require public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people – a real milestone in helping people to eliminate the institutional disadvantage that many disabled people still face. The legislation will ensure greater opportunities for disabled people to work by tackling discrimination in recruitment and employment.

    The Act completed the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has so far put in place and fulfilled our commitment, my commitment and Anne Begg’s commitment to deliver enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. It represents a major landmark on the road to a society which promotes equality for all people and in which disabled people can be empowered to live independently, fully recognised and respected as equal members of the community.

    But for all the legislative progress that we have made – we know that we have very much further to go if we are to achieve our goal of substantive equality for disabled people. That is why the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit report published in January 2005 was a milestone in Government’s approach to improving the life chances of disabled people.

    Developed in partnership with disabled people themselves, we recognised that unless we changed the way we as public authorities worked, we could not put in place true equality for disabled people.

    That is why we are as a result of the Strategy Unit’s report:

    – working to promote independent living with the individualised budget pilots currently in England and being watched closely by the government in Scotland and the Welsh Assembly, and we;

    – established the new Office for Disability Issues and a new Great Britain-wide National Forum for Organisations of Disabled People which will enable the views of disabled people to be heard by policymakers at the highest level to ensure disabled people really are at the heart of public policy – able to influence the development of policies and service delivery that will affect every aspect of their lives.

    But one of the greatest challenges that we face is in trying to ensure that more disabled people get the opportunities that many of us take for granted – access to a good education and being able to move on into a job.

    Recent statistics showed, that although we are making tremendous strides forward in tackling poverty:

    – disabled people are still more likely to be trapped in poverty than non–disabled people;

    – and a quarter of all children living in poverty have long-term sick or disabled parents.

    The government is determined to tackle child poverty and to do that, we need to tackle parents’ poverty.

    We know that:

    – disabled people are more than twice as likely to have no educational qualifications as non-disabled people

    – that they are over three times as likely to be economically inactive

    – and when they do have a job they earn less on average than their peers. Indeed around a third of young disabled people actually expect by age 30 to be earning less than non-disabled people of their own age.

    As a Government and as a society we simply cannot accept this situation.

    I think that all of us here today recognise that work is the best route out of poverty; the best route to confidence, self esteem and ultimately independence. The right to work is the bedrock of individual independence.

    But we all also know that there are still barriers that prevent disabled people from exercising that right. Disabled people looking for work can still encounter a range of barriers – from policy design and delivery of services, to physical and environmental barriers, to outright discrimination.

    This not only compromises our ability to respond to the challenges of economic and demographic change – we simply cannot afford to ignore the skills and contributions of all those who can and want to work – but it also fundamentally undermines that very precious goal of true equality and opportunity for all.

    We need to continue to work together to change current culture and raise the expectations of employers, health professionals and disabled people themselves so that these barriers can be overcome.

    Our efforts to help disabled people get a job are crucially dependent on employers being prepared to give individuals a chance to demonstrate what they can do in the workplace. I urge more employers to give blind and disabled workers that opportunity.

    This cultural and attitudinal shift is precisely what the Welfare Reform Green Paper sets out to do.

    We know the vast majority of people who start receiving incapacity benefit want to go back into work – but the system currently provides them with little help to do so.

    In early January this year, John Hutton wrote to 100 constituency MPs with the highest levels of people on incapacity benefits setting out research that very starkly demonstrated the clear link between the high concentration of benefit dependency and hardship and poverty.

    The country has paid a heavy price for this policy failure over the years. We know that individuals, families and communities suffer when people get stuck on benefits. The previous system has dissuaded aspirations.

    Over the last few years thanks to our investment in the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus, the employment rate of disabled people has risen as twice as fast as for the population as a whole. The New Deal for Disabled People has seen over 90,000 job entries since its launch in 2001 with a further quarter of a million disabled people helped into work through the other New Deal programmes. But we all know that blind and partially sighted people still lag behind non-disabled citizens when it comes to job opportunities.

    We now want to build on the active labour market policies we have introduced and put in place a network of support that will help people overcome the barriers to moving back to work.

    Our Green Paper strategy has three clear aims.

    We will take steps to reduce the number of new claimants.

    We will provide greater help for those on the benefit to return to work.

    And, for the most severely sick and disabled, we will provide greater support.

    The new Employment and Support Allowance will;

    – be paid to eligible claimants, with an enhanced employment support component for the majority of claimants who will be undertaking mandatory Work Focused Interviews and later activity, and importantly

    – include an enhanced support component for those individuals who are unable to engage in any activity because of the severity of their condition

    We are also going further to activate the system – to make sure that back to work support is available to people on incapacity benefits.

    In 2003 we set up our first Pathways to work pilots – combining employment and health support.

    We are now expanding Pathways more widely. By October this year Pathways provision will be available to around one third of all those on incapacity benefits. A key area in its success is engaging with employers.

    We need to emphasise the importance of education and the transition into work. We need to challenge the stereotypes of what blind people can and cannot do. We have help and support available through programmes such as Access to Work. We need to re-emphasise to employers the benefits of new technology. We need to work to raise the expectations of disabled people themselves and to provide support when it is needed and with all of that, the sky is the limit.

    But we can only do this in partnership with the representatives here today – with workers, with companies, with providers and with trades unions. I look forward to working with you, so that together we can play our part in achieving that ambition of true equality for disabled people in Britain within a generation.

    With your support I know we can build on the improvements we have already achieved for disabled people. Improvements which bring greater numbers of disabled people into the mainstream, securing economic and social inclusion for them and their families and contributing to the economic life of our nation.

  • Anne McGuire – 2005 Speech on Disability Discrimination Act

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anne McGuire, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Work and Pensions, on 22nd September 2005.

    There are important challenges we must face if our society is to become more equal – and if all parts of our community are to be able to fulfil their potential.

    Today’s event is about the public sector disability duties in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 – and about how the new duties will help public bodies to rise to meet those challenges.

    The event will hopefully give us all the opportunity to learn about what the new duties will require and to think about what they will mean for your organisations – as well as giving you the chance to ask a few questions.

    The need to think ahead and plan is, of course, fundamental to these duties – and I know for many of you here today, you’ve already started thinking and this event is a vital part of that process.

    I hope my contribution this morning will help to set these duties in context for you – to explain where they come from, what they mean and why we think they were necessary.

    When we took office in 1997, disabled people had only limited civil rights.

    Where those rights were in place, they had only been granted reluctantly – after many frustrated attempts to bring forward legislation. So our challenge in Government, after years in opposition, was to put that right.

    I think we made a good start in establishing the Disability Rights Taskforce – to recommend the changes that needed to be made to advance disability equality in our country.

    Amongst other things, the Taskforce recommended that we establish the Disability Rights Commission – to act as a champion for disabled people.

    Well we did that – and this year the DRC celebrates its fifth anniversary. With the new legislation establishing the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to replace the current equality commissions, we are working to ensure that disability will be at the heart of the new Commission.

    I’m delighted that the DRC are represented here today – because in their short five years of existence, they have played an important role in helping us develop the duties, and in producing the code of practice which will shortly be laid before Parliament.

    And, of course, we have worked very closely with the DRC in delivering the biggest extension of disability civil rights this country has ever seen.

    So there has been progress towards our goal of equality for disabled people. The legislative measures we have taken have driven real change in the way that both public and private organisations conduct their business.

    Thankfully, I think we are also starting to see that society as a whole is starting to change.

    I think everyone in this room would agree that it can’t change fast enough. Some might even say that, in spite of advances, the pace of change has been painfully slow.

    The challenges are certainly still enormous.

    Disabled people are still more than twice as likely to have no educational qualifications.

    Disabled people are still less likely to be in work – and when they do work, they earn less than non-disabled people.

    Disabled children are still more likely to live in poverty – and the children of disabled parents are more likely to live in poverty.

    Here in London, the Greater London Authority found that one in three disabled people face discrimination on a regular basis. Half experience abuse or bullying – being laughed at, spat at and even physically attacked.

    Shockingly, disabled people are still more likely to die from conditions unrelated to their disability than other people.

    We must ask ourselves why – for example – people with learning difficulties are many times more likely to die young from physical illnesses which have nothing to do with their impairment.

    Many of you will be all too familiar with these facts. But I set them out because they demonstrate the scale of the challenge that faces us.

    And they also demonstrate that in areas where the public service has a key role – in education, in healthcare, in work – disabled people still do not get:

    – the same services and opportunities;

    – the same support; and

    – the same treatment that non-disabled people get.

    It is not just in those areas of course. Wherever you look, you will find that disabled people are comparatively worse off.

    There can be no single answer for overturning generations of disadvantage – as a Government, as a Minister, there is no magic formula for making equality a reality.

    But we have put measures in place which enable disabled people to challenge discriminatory behaviour and the cultures which perpetuate exclusion.

    Around 10 million people have individual rights under the DDA to get adjustments made when it is reasonable to do so – and to obtain compensation when these rights are breached.

    Yet, as I hope I’ve already demonstrated, disabled people still face disadvantage in public services.

    One reason for this is that individual rights cannot easily address a fundamental generic issue which leads to many of the problems faced by disabled people.

    That is – how do we ensure that the culture of our public institutions is one where consideration for disabled people, the barriers they face and how they are overcome is integral to how people do their jobs.

    We know that this does not always happen now. Everyone – from the Chief Executive to the shopfloor – needs to ask difficult questions of ourselves as individuals and of our organisations.

    Do we give enough thought to the impact of new policies, new procedures and new services on disabled people’s lives?

    Worse, might we, in fact, be putting fresh barriers in place which prevent disabled people from enjoying opportunities we all take for granted?

    Let me give you a real life example of what I mean.

    A local authority – I’ll spare their blushes by not saying which one – contracted its refuse collection service on the basis that all residents would leave their rubbish at the border of their property, dragging their wheelie bins up their garden paths for collection.

    No regard at all was given to the fact that some residents would find that difficult or impossible.

    The local authority then – in order to avoid discriminating against disabled people – needed to either negotiate a change to the contract or make alternate provision, both of which were costly.

    A simple example, but if things had been done differently – if, for example, the need to ensure disabled people get their refuse collected without unreasonable difficulty had been a priority at the beginning – the local authority need not have been burdened with the extra costs of putting things right.

    The bottom line is quite simple – proper regard should be had to the needs of all residents, whether disabled or not, 100% of the time.

    The measure that we are discussing today is designed to ensure that this happens. From December next year, the DDA 2005 places a legal duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

    It will no longer be legal for public bodies to design services or carry out functions without thinking about how disabled people are affected.

    Public bodies will have to demonstrate that – in everything they do – they are considering the impact on disabled people and that they have due regard to the best ways of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity.

    These new duties must make us work and do things differently. If they result in box-ticking exercises – without effecting real change to the lives of disabled people – then sadly we will have failed.

    I said that making our society more equal was a great challenge: in fact, it is a central challenge for the public sector.

    We in Government are not complacent – and the new DDA 2005 is only part of a broader strategy.

    However, I can reassure you that I am not asking you as representatives of public authorities to do something that we in national government are not prepared to do ourselves.

    Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit published a report called “Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People” which set out our ambition.

    An ambition that – within a generation – disabled people should have the full opportunities and choices necessary to improve their quality of life.

    An ambition that – together – we can build a society where no-one is written off.

    A key part of the strategy we have set to help achieve that ambition is the reform of Incapacity Benefit. We want to make sure that disabled people have the appropriate support – financial, advisory and rehabilitative – when they need it, when they want it, which would allow them to move towards work.

    The Strategy Unit report also sets out other practical measures including:

    Establishing an Office for Disability Issues to help coordinate and promote change across Government;

    Creating a National Forum for Organisations of Disabled People to ensure that disabled people are involved in developing policies that impact on their lives; and

    Moving towards individual budgets – leading to more choice for disabled people about the way they receive the support that is provided for them.

    As with the new public sector duties, we know that disabled people must be right at the heart of all these initiatives if they are to make a difference.

    I want to be very clear about our agenda. It is not about burdening public authorities with extra layers of bureaucracy: it is about achieving greater opportunity and fairness in our society.

    The principle behind the new duties is that we must plan for a more equal future – where the needs of all our citizens are anticipated and, where possible, accommodated.

    We must address the ignorance and prejudice which holds disabled people back. And we must give disabled people confidence that they can rely on public services – and not be an afterthought, as has often happened in the past.

    This is a massive challenge. The legal framework is there – what we now have to do is to change the culture of our organisations as a step towards changing society. This challenge is one that I’m sure very many of us welcome. It is one that I am confident we will all rise to meet.

  • Michael Martin – 2009 Resignation as Speaker

    Below is the text of the resignation statement made by the then Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, on Tuesday 19th May 2009.

    Since I came to this House 30 years ago, I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday 21 June. This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday 22 June. That is all I have to say on this matter.

  • Michael Martin – 1979 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Michael Martin in the House of Commons on 17th May 1979.

    It is a privilege to represent the Glasgow, Springburn constituency. I have lived in the constituency for more than 13 years, and before that I resided in the neighbouring constituency. Therefore, I know of the good work that my predecessor, Dick Buchanan, has done for the area. I was pleased to learn that he was held in high regard in the House. He had many fine qualities. I was always impressed by his willingness to give service to the community. As a young man he was a shop steward in the local railway workshop, and he fought for, and succeeded in getting, better conditions for his workmates. When he was city treasurer in the old Glasgow corporation he was responsible for many projects which are still of benefit to the people of Glasgow. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him well in his retirement.

    At one time Springburn had a thriving railway industry which produced steam locomotives. In fact, Springburn made more than half the number of steam locomotives produced in the world. Many of them are still in use in Africa, India and South America. The industry not only employed thousands of skilled and semi-skilled workers but provided work for the smaller firms in the area. I am convinced that had the private railway companies ploughed their profits back into the industry Springburn would not have the unemployment problem that it has today. I hope the Government recognise the need to strengthen the Scottish Development Agency so that it can bring new industry to Glasgow and to places such as Springburn. My constituency needs industrial revitalisation to prevent its becoming an industrial graveyard.

    The constituency has various types of housing. In the Dennistoun district there is a mixture of private and local authority tenements. In Petershill we have the highest multi-storey dwellings in Europe—33 storeys high. In Germiston, Balornock and Barmulloch we have mainly council housing stock. The Cow-lairs area consists of private tenements, where many of the tenants are suffering from landlords and property owners who have neglected their properties and refused to carry out repairs for more than half a century.

    Recently an organisation known as Norman Properties operated in the area. Its activities were questionable, to say the least. Young couples, desperate for a house of their own, had to pay as much as £1,000, only to find that they had no legal rights when the local authority introduced compulsory purchase schemes. The good people of Cowlairs deserve better, but the private sector has failed them miserably.

    The only hope for the people in this area is for council house building to be speeded up and for encouragement to be given to community-based housing associations, which have an expertise in the modernisation of older tenemental properties. I hope that the Government do not intend to make cuts in the Housing 496 Corporation’s budget, because it does an excellent job in building up such organisations.

    Reference is made in the Queen’s Speech to the sale of council housing. It worries me considerably that the Government may feel that they are giving some sort of freedom to the sitting tenant. Have they considered what it will mean to the types of tenants whom I have just described? The sale of council housing will mean that the good-quality housing stock will go to the highest bidder and not to those in need. Have the Government considered the consequences of selling houses in a city such as Glasgow, which consists largely of tenemental properties? Who will ensure that the owner-occupier maintains his share of the council tenement? Who will ensure that the owner-occupier looks after the communal facilities, such as the back greens and the drying areas, or even the paths leading up to the tenements? Who will make sure that these communal facilities are looked after? I foresee many practical difficulties in the proposal to sell council housing.

    I should like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that less than a year ago every party on Glasgow district council called upon the Government to make Glasgow a special case. Glasgow has many problems, and it needs a massive injection of capital to revitalise the city and attract new industry. I hope that the new Government will give Glasgow such consideration.

  • Hilary Benn – 2015 Speech at Coventry Rising 15

    hilarybenn

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at Coventry Rising 15 on 11 November 2015.

    It is a great honour to have been invited to contribute to Rising 15 and to do so on 11 November here in Coventry.

    This cathedral – the old and the new – stands as a reminder both of the consequences of war and of the enduring power of faith to inspire.

    Two weeks ago I was in Jordan listening to a mother describe how she fled there from Syria with her children after her husband, a baker, was arrested, tortured and killed by President Assad’s forces.

    There is not one of us who does not ask why human beings do this to their brothers and sisters? Maybe we shall never know, but there is another question that we can try and answer. What should we do when these things happen ?

    I was brought up on the parables of the New Testament, and the one that left the greatest mark on me was the Good Samaritan.

    St Luke’s gospel records that it was the question “And who is my neighbour?” that prompted Jesus to tell the story of the man on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho who was robbed and beaten and left for dead by the side of the road.

    While the Priest and the Levite both, separately, chose to pass by on the other side, it was the Samaritan who stopped to help.

    And having told the story, Jesus then asked his questioner:

    “Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves ?

    And he said, He that shewed mercy on him.

    Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”

    I have chosen this parable as my text for today.

    When we see the extreme suffering of others, what is our responsibility to our neighbours?

    For some, this is an uncomfortable moral choice and they hope it will pass them by.  Some say it is none of our business. Others respond by renouncing violence – an aspiration we should all share – but until all 7 billion of us do so, we have to face up to the effects of violence on its victims.

    War is often the handmaiden of poverty and civil wars on average result in 20 years of lost development.

    It is no accident that Afghanistan and Somalia have the highest rates of infant mortality in the world.

    Both are poor and both have been wracked by conflict.

    The causes of war are many. The legacy of colonialism. Resources. Ethnic and regional tensions. Politics. Nationalism. Ideology. Religion. Terrorism.

    And in the years to come, we may see added to this list people increasingly fighting over energy, land or water.

    So when is it right to act to prevent these things?

    Looking back on the Second World War which led to the bombing of this cathedral, did more people die than would have lost their lives if Hitler had not been confronted? Maybe. Was the war an expression of failure? Most certainly. And yet, was the second world war justified?  In my view, it was.

    And from its ashes came a determination that such a conflict should never happen again.

    Its expression was the founding of the United Nations in 1945 and three years later, the UN General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Article 3 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

    Article 28 says: “Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised.”

    And yet, for millions of people these rights – so nobly expressed – have remained just words on paper.  The refugees from Syria I met in Jordan could not have been clearer. They said simply: “The world has forgotten us”.

    Why is this so? Because those affected lack the means to do anything about these conflicts themselves and because we, the rest of the world, lack the will or act imperfectly or not at all.

    This will not do.

    First, and most importantly, because we should uphold the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They mean something as the ultimate expression of our responsibility to one another. And yet without the rule of law and peace in all countries they mean nothing.

    Imagine if the world consisted only of the United Kingdom and someone argued that it would be alright to have peace in Coventry, but civil war in Leeds and genocide in Glasgow. What would we think ?

    Of course, this doesn’t happen because these rights are enjoyed in all parts of our country. And yet, we are one world and having created the United Nations, we have a duty to ensure these same rights are available to our fellow humans whichever part of the  planet they were born on

    The second reason why this matters is because  interdependence defines the condition of humankind today more clearly than at any other time in human history.

    The effects of conflict elsewhere are felt here, whether it is watching it on television, seeing the flow of refugees, feeling the repercussions in our politics or experiencing the impact of terrorism on our own lives. And as the world’s economies become more dependent on each other, the consequences for trade and travel are increasingly serious.

    The third reason is that no country can progress while it is mired in conflict.

    So those who care most passionately about overcoming the scars of poverty, disease and squalor, must be equally passionate about the part that peace and stability play in helping to bring this about.

    And the fourth reason is that new threats beckon.  Unchecked, climate change will affect our future security. If people can no longer live where they were born because their homes are under water or it has stopped raining, then they will do what human beings have done throughout history. They will move in search of a better life. They may be coming to live near you or me. And their number will dwarf anything we have seen thus far.

    What recent history teaches us is that whether it was Sierra Leone under the RUF and the West Side Boys, the Rwandan genocide, Kosovo when Muslims were being murdered in Europe’s backyard or Syria today, the world needs to find a way of dealing with crimes against humanity.

    In some of these cases we did act; in others we failed.

    It is not that the international community does not care. But there is not yet a settled and united will to act, and we lack the capacity to do so in an effective way.

    So how can we build this capacity?

    One of the problems we face is national sovereignty. A country invading another is one thing, but when terrible events happen within a country some still say that this is an internal matter and none of anyone else’s business.

    We used to hold the same view of domestic violence here in the UK. Forty or fifty years ago, if the police were called because of reports that a man was beating up someone in the street, he would be swiftly arrested. But if the victim was his wife or his partner behind a closed front door, then the prevailing attitude was ‘it’s a domestic dispute and not for us to get involved.’

    That doesn’t happen anymore. A crime is a crime, and the sovereign state of the kitchen or the bedroom no longer provides any protection against enforcement of the law.

    I think we are currently witnessing the world going through exactly the same process internationally for exactly the same reason. An increasing number of voices are saying that leaving people by the roadside of conflict to fend for themselves simply cannot be right.

    And so was born the concept of Responsibility to Protect – the idea that the international community does have a responsibility to stop people becoming victims of the most terrible crimes.

    Developed by the Canadian Government’s International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001, it led – following Ban Ki Moon’s report on implementing the Responsibility to Protect – to the UN General Assembly adopting a resolution in 2009.

    Seeing state sovereignty not as a privilege but a responsibility, R2P seeks to prevent and stop genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. And it explicitly accepts that the international community does have a responsibility to act in certain circumstances.

    I support R2P very strongly, but it is not without controversy, so I want to try and address directly the reservations and concerns people raise about it.

    The first is authority. Who is to decide what should be done?

    For me the answer is clear. It should be the Security Council of the United Nations. That is why we created it. The UN has both a unique responsibility because of its authority and a unique legitimacy.

    And yet we see from history that the UN has not always been capable of agreeing on what should be done or of acting effectively when it has.

    We have to accept that the veto exists to bind the world’s major powers – the five permanent members of the Security Council – into the United Nations, but with it comes a great responsibility. That is why the French Government has proposed that in cases of mass atrocities permanent members of the Security Council would voluntarily agree not to use their veto. I think this is an important proposal and it should be strongly supported by the UK and others.

    But what if the UN will not or cannot act – then what?  Is that an argument for standing on one side?  Not in all cases some would argue, including me, as our support for intervention in Sierra Leone and Kosovo demonstrated. Others, however, take the view that in the absence of a UN mandate there can be no legitimacy for any action.

    The second issue is that people fear premature military intervention. That’s why diplomatic and public pressure should always be the first resort. It can work.

    Western sanctions have played an important part, for example, in persuading Russia to implement the Minsk Agreement in Ukraine.

    We have also learned that a single camera or a single reporter bearing witness to an atrocity – and the shame that can be brought upon those responsible – can have a power equal to a thousand resolutions. The reason why the UK Government changed its mind in September about Britain taking more Syrian refugees was that photograph of little Aylan Kurdi’s lifeless body lying on a beach in Turkey.

    The third issue is deciding when states should act.

    Agreeing a threshold is difficult and highly contentious and achieving consensus about whether or not diplomatic options have been exhausted is fraught with difficulty. And yet, if we wait for evidence of genocide to become conclusive then it may be too late to do anything or to save anybody.

    The fourth issue is practicality. If a decision is taken to act, then who is going to undertake the work? If it involves military intervention, then whose troops will be used?  How many?  Under whose command?  With what resources and what mandate? And what is the plan for after military intervention?

    One way of answering these questions is to continue to build capacity regionally to be able to handle  peacekeeping. Was it right for the African Union to take the lead in Darfur and Somalia? Absolutely.

    Both because western forces in an Islamic country in those circumstances would not have been accepted and because these were conflicts in Africa’s backyard.

    On mandate, peacekeepers need the tools to do the job, and that includes the ability to protect and intervene if necessary under Chapter VII.

    Where there are people to protect or a peace to keep, we need more peacekeepers. At present there are close to 125,000 military and civilian UN peacekeepers compared with only 11,000 a quarter of a century ago.

    Despite this, there still aren’t enough for all the missions the UN would wish to run, and to the high standards we expect of them. For as well as numbers, there is also the question of training, equipment, and capacity, particularly as regional institutions build their own peacekeeping.

    This is an area in which Britain could and should play a much bigger part given the skill, experience and expertise of our armed forces. There are currently just under 300 British peacekeepers contributing to UN missions although another 300 are soon to deploy to South Sudan and Somalia. That simply is not good enough and I call on the Government to set out in the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review how the UK can play a much bigger part in UN peacekeeping in the years ahead.

    And when action has been taken, it needs to be followed up with stabilisation, a political process and decent governance. There is no substitute for the parties to a conflict finding their own way out of it.

    Lastly, what is the consequence? There are two types of consequence; that of acting and that of not acting.

    In the case of Sierra Leone, the outcome of British and UN intervention was beneficial. The country remains poor but it is largely free of violence now and has taken the first steps on the road to recovery.

    In the case of Afghanistan, where the world responded to 9/11, the removal of the Taliban enabled about three and a half million of the estimated four million refugees who had fled the country to return. The conflict however continues – many lives have been and are being lost – but the aim remains enabling the elected Afghan government to look after its own security as politics brings a peace settlement.

    In Somalia, the American troops who went in to help with humanitarian relief ended up in a gun battle. They were replaced in time by African forces, but despite recent progress, parts of the country remain deeply troubled and insecure as the recent attack by al-Shabab in Mogadishu demonstrated. More positive has been the impact that international co-operation has had on piracy off the country’s coast. And, by contrast, Somaliland shows what can be done if politics is made to work.

    For the people of Rwanda the consequence of our not acting was devastating. In 100 days just under one million people were killed – the equivalent of 6 million people being murdered here in the United Kingdom on our street corners, and in our schools and on churches – as the world stood by and watched.

    Anyone who has read Romeo Dallaire’s book ‘Shake Hands with the Devil: the failure of humanity in Rwanda’ will weep with him in rage at what happened while we failed to help.

    And while the Syrian civil war has continued, over 200,000 people have been lost their lives, half the population have had to flee their homes and the barrel bombing by the regime and brutality of ISIL/Daesh continue.

    The world has to be much more effective in dealing with conflicts like this before they turn into brutal and bloody civil wars. The responsibility to protect was meant to be about that, but let us be honest: in Syria, no-one has taken responsibility and nobody has been protected.

    Now we do also have to deal with charges of selectivity and, at times, hypocrisy; that we have not been consistent in our choice of when to act, or that countries have chosen to act when there is much at stake for them but not when there isn’t.

    It is a reasonable criticism, and it has on occasions force.

    And yet the argument that just because you have failed to do the right thing everywhere you should not attempt to do the right thing anywhere is one I find profoundly unconvincing.

    Of course, in the case of all conflict, prevention is better than cure. There is nothing more important than putting time, effort and energy in trying to prevent violent conflict in the first place.

    Particularly important is the UN’s capacity to mediate and so help the parties to resolve their differences without turning to violence. So we need skilled, readily deployable teams able to go and support peace talks around the world, as Staffan de Mistura and Bernardino Leon are currently trying to do in Syria and Libya.

    Few civil wars arise from nowhere. So we need to be better at monitoring and understanding the causes of tension; the exclusion and injustice that makes people angry.

    The establishment of the Atrocity Prevention Board by the US Government is a particularly good example of what can be done.

    If all this sounds depressing, two decades ago things were much worse. Half of the countries in Africa were then affected by violence – many in regional conflicts across West and Central Africa.

    Now, we can look back and say that sub-Saharan Africa was the only region in the world to see a decline in violent conflict at the start of the 21st century.

    Much of that is down to the pioneering work of the African Union and its Peace and Security Council. It can deploy military forces in situations which include genocide and crimes against humanity and can also authorise peacekeeping missions. The AU has put troops on the ground in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Darfur, and most recently in Somalia in the form of AMISON – a regional mission operating under a UN mandate

    We are getting better at negotiating peace. According to the Human Security Report, the international community has negotiated more settlements to conflict in the last 15 years than in the 185 years previously.

    Finally, when all of this is done, we need to end up where we started – with the rule of law so we can call those responsible to account.

    That is why the UK has been such a strong supporter of the International Criminal Court. The message it sends is clear and simple. Anyone who is planning crimes against humanity will think twice because they will know that the international community will in the end catch up with them, as Slobodan Milosevic and Radko Mladic both discovered.

    The reason why we should want international action at the UN to succeed is that this is all about demonstrating that multilateralism – countries working together – can provide the answer to that uncomfortable question – what is to be done?

    And the more it does succeed, the stronger is the argument we can make with those who would act unilaterally that there is another way.

    I would like to end on a note of optimism. 100 years ago this year my grandfather William fought in Gallipoli in the First World War. He lost his younger brother in that campaign and his eldest son in World War Two. This is what he wrote about war:

    “Is there anyone, now, who will deny that, step by step, warfare degrades a nation? …[Soldiers] know from bitter experiences what militarism really means; its stupidity, its brutality, its waste. They are chivalrous because they have learned the one good thing that war can teach, namely that peril shared knits hearts together – yes, even between enemies. They have mingled with strangers. They know that common folk the world over love peace and in the main desire good will.”

    Nearly a hundred years after he wrote those words, they remain true.

    Human beings everywhere yearn for peace and if together we can make our politics work in the service of humankind then we will bring nearer the day on which that hope is realised.

    Thank you.

  • Hilary Benn – 2013 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hilary Benn, the Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to the 2013 Labour Party conference in Brighton.

    I want to begin by thanking David Sparks and all our Labour councillors, including the 291 newly elected last May, for the terrific job they do standing up for our communities and flying the flag for Labour values.

    We may not be in government nationally, but we are increasingly in government locally and in exceptionally tough times our councillors are leading the way.

    I would also like to thank my great team in the Commons and the Lords for holding this awful Government to account.

    Three years on, we now know exactly whose side they’re on. And what they think.

    Do you know what, Michael Gove actually said recently that the reason people have to go to food banks – I know it’s hard to believe it – is because they can’t “manage their finances.”

    No, Mr Gove, that’s not why they swallow their pride and ask for help. It’s because they haven’t got any money, and they haven’t got any food. And instead of you patronising them, we should be helping them.

    And what about Eric Pickles? He told us he was protecting people from council tax rises, but what did he actually do in April? He imposed a hefty increase in council tax on over two million of the very poorest households.

    Nearly half a million already in arrears. Thousands of summonses issued. People facing fines and even the threat of jail. Mr Pickles, you should be ashamed of your new Tory poll tax.

    And then there’s Iain Duncan Smith, the man who came up with the hated bedroom tax. Hated because it hits families, and widows, and disabled people. Hated because it’s unfair, immoral and doesn’t work. And who helped him do it?

    Forget all those troubled consciences you saw paraded around Glasgow last week. It was the Liberal Democrats who helped him to do it and they should be ashamed of themselves too.

    Well, I’ll tell you what we’ll do. The next Labour government led by Ed Miliband will stop taxing the bedrooms we have and start building the homes we need.

    Conference, our housing system is broken. Parents and grandparents worry. “Where are our children and grandchildren going to be able to afford to live?”

    Young couples unable to buy their first home. Families forced to pay spiralling rents and wondering if they’ll still be in the same home next year when their tenancy ends.

    This is the reality of the cost of living crisis for many people.

    And what’s the Government done? Cut the affordable housing budget cut by 60 per cent.

    And when the IMF said to the Chancellor that Britain should be investing £10 billion in infrastructure – that would build 400,000 affordable homes – what did the Government do? Nothing.

    No wonder housing completions are at their lowest peacetime level since the 1920’s.

    But there is hope. Labour councils. Labour councils building council houses.

    In Liverpool and Leeds, Stevenage and Southwark, Manchester, York, Exeter, Nottingham, Ipswich and in many other Labour areas our councillors are building social homes on a scale we haven’t seen for a generation. Tackling the cost of living crisis by building homes that families can afford.

    And, Conference, that’s why a Labour government will help councils to build more affordable homes by reforming the Housing Revenue Account.

    And for the 8.5 million people who now rent privately, we will tackle the unfair fees charged by lettings agents. We’ll introduce a national register of private landlords. And we’ll fight for longer tenancies and predictable rents so that families can put down roots.

    And for the millions of people who dream of owning their own home, Labour will get Britain building again. We’re just not building enough homes and yet, in the last few years, the profits of the big housebuilders have soared.

    Land is too expensive. Too often developers hang on to it hoping for the price to rise. And communities feel powerless.

    Today Ed Miliband will pledge to change that.

    So what will a Labour Government do?

    First, we must admit that we can’t carry on saying on the one hand “where are the homes for the next generation?” and on the other “please don’t build them near me”.

    Nor will we get more homes by top-down targets. Councils and communities must take that responsibility but they need more power to be able to do so.

    Communities should know where land is available. That’s why we will ensure developers register the land they own or have options on.

    And where land is not brought forward for homes, communities should be able to do something about it.

    And when communities have given planning permission they should be able to say to developers: we’ve given you the go ahead so please get on and build the homes you said you would. And if you don’t then we’ll charge you and, if you still don’t, we’ll sell the land on to someone else who will.

    Secondly, there are areas in the country where councils and communities see the need for more homes but there just isn’t the land to build them on. So the next Labour government will give those communities a new ‘Right to Grow’, allowing them – if they want – to expand and ensuring that neighbouring areas work with them to do so.

    Thirdly, conference, it’s time to build new communities – new towns and new garden cities. That’s what the great Attlee Government did as they started to rebuild Britain and we need that same spirit again. So we will invite local authorities to come forward, and in return, we will make sure that they get the powers and the incentives they need to acquire land, put in the infrastructure and build. Build those new communities.

    Getting Britain building, with communities taking the lead. People deciding where the new homes will go and what land they want to preserve.

    Passing down power is the answer to many of the great challenges we face as a nation.

    With an ageing population we need Andy Burnham’s revolution in whole person care with local government and the NHS working together.

    We need more school places. That’s why Stephen Twigg will get rid of Michael Gove’s absurd ban on local councils opening their own schools for their own children in their own area.

    Too many people can’t find jobs, including nearly one million young people. So, Liam Byrne wants councils to take a lead in helping people to find work, get skills and deliver Labour’s jobs guarantee.

    We need to get the country moving. So why do we tolerate the endless journey back and forth to Whitehall so that ministers can decide on local transport schemes when we all know – as Maria Eagle says – that local government could do it faster and better?

    Now, what about fairness. This Government has imposed the deepest cuts on our most deprived communities and they have the nerve to give David Cameron’s council an increase.

    It’s just not fair and a Labour Government will change it. Money should go to meet need.

    And why do we need to do all this? Because of what Ed calls the new politics.

    We have reached a defining moment for our country.

    A fork in the road.

    A moment of huge danger but also of great opportunity.

    The financial crisis rocked the foundations of our banking system and our economy. But it did far more than that.

    It undermined people’s sense of hope and their confidence in a better future.

    It damaged the faith in politics to make a difference.

    It has left a generation unsure that their children’s lives will be better than the life they have enjoyed.

    And that’s why these days there is so much despair.

    I get that, but despair didn’t inspire the previous generations who first brought gas, electricity and clean water to our homes. The schools that teach our children, the parks in which they play, the hospitals that treat us when we’re sick and the libraries that transform lives.

    And it won’t help us – our generation – to build the homes we need. To care for our Mums and Dads as they get older. To bring fast broadband to every city and village. To kick out the local sharks and bring in the credit unions. To generate our own energy to keep down the bills.

    Our task is to turn despair into hope.

    For with hope comes confidence. And with confidence comes trust.

    And if we, as Labour, are going to win people’s trust, then we must trust the people. We must be the movement that helps people to change their own lives.

    Money may be short, but in every community – every village, every town, every city – there is an inexhaustible supply of energy and of ideas.

    That’s how we helped to change the country for the better before.

    And that’s how we will make our country One Nation again.