UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Charles Kennedy – 2005 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, to the 2005 Liberal Democrat Conference in Blackpool on 22nd September 2005.

    Splits,

    Plots,

    Rival camps,

    Backbiting,

    Leadership speculation.

    How I wish I could be a fly on the wall here at the Tory party conference in two weeks time.

    Some things just don’t change do they.

    The Conservatives are having yet another leadership election.

    Their fourth in seven years.

    I can see their conference slogan already.

    “We’re not sure what we’re thinking”.

    Meanwhile, back in Labourland, the jockeying goes on as ever between the Blairites and the Brownites.

    Tony Blair – desperate to protect his legacy.

    Gordon Brown – desperate to end it.

    The Prime Minister was delighted he had a hand in bringing the Olympics to London.

    It’s said on hearing the news he punched the air.

    He’s getting more like John Prescott everyday.

    But at least he’s not yet claimed credit for the Ashes.

    Even he has learned the lesson that you can’t win with a team of eleven spinners!

    Now, at the general election it was crucially important to see our liberal tradition again confirmed as the growing force in politics.

    Our championing of the individual and the community over the vested interests of the state.

    Our defence of human rights and fundamental civil liberties.

    Our innate sense of fairness.

    Our commitment to social justice.

    Our environmentalism.

    It is my determination that we, as a party, continue to make that fundamental restatement of liberal values in the politics of our country.

    LIBERALISM TESTED

    It’s remarkable the pace of events since that General Election.

    Some events of the most immediate and terrible seriousness – like the awful consequences of the hurricane in the United States.

    The continuing nightmare in Iraq.

    And of course, terrorism – here at home.

    Above all, the London bombings in July have made it critical for those liberal values to be re-asserted.

    The terrorist seeks to smash the most fundamental liberty of all – the right to lead our everyday lives on the basic assumption of safety.

    There can be no compromise with such a mentality.

    It is the Government’s fundamental duty to ensure the security of every individual citizen.

    And the responsibility of politicians is to frame laws which give effect to that principle.

    But the response must always be proportionate to the threat.

    That has always been our party’s approach.

    It long predates those appalling attacks in London in July.

    The Government’s reaction to those tube bombings has been mixed – but so typical.

    At first it was measured.

    Then it was muddled.

    Spin and counterspin.

    When what we really needed was leadership and clarity.

    This is no time for a turf war between No. 10 and the Home Office.

    And it is no time either for the Prime Minister to play politics with the leaders of the opposition.

    I believe when the country feels threatened it is important that we are seen to be working together to find an appropriate structure for dealing with terrorists in our midst.

    But I won’t play a walk-on part.

    This process can’t be all show and no substance.

    We now have the details of what the Government is proposing.

    And I want to make it clear.

    We shall not accept what is on offer.

    There can be no consensus on detaining people for three months without charge.

    That’s a prison sentence by any other name.

    This party will oppose any blanket extension of custody powers.

    This proposal undermines our most basic rights and eats into our most cherished freedoms.

    If we undermine the foundations of our legal system then we let the terrorists win.

    There is always a temptation for governments.

    See a problem and announce a quick fix.

    Labour’s gut reaction is to chase a headline.

    Where as I said earlier, leadership has to be about judgement.

    New law must be law which works – not a raft of unnecessary measures which simply sound tough.

    That is why we will oppose the unworkable offence of ‘glorifying terrorism’.

    It is a badly drafted proposal that frankly won’t stand up in court.

    The Government says ‘but we all know what we are talking about’.

    What complacency.

    That is no way to make laws.

    You can’t be vague when framing legislation.

    In fact the bill already contains a better solution that will serve the same purpose – that of the incitement to commit terrorist acts.

    It is my belief that how this administration deals with the ongoing threat of terrorism will be one of the defining aspects of this parliament.

    Ours will be a distinct voice in this debate.

    And just as we Liberal Democrats opposed the flawed logic of that war in Iraq – we will oppose the flawed Government claim that we have to surrender our fundamental rights in order to improve our security.

    And I will take no lessons from the Conservatives on these matters.

    They have only been consistent in their inconsistencies.

    There is just one party which has been tested again and again and stuck firmly to its principles on these touchstone issues.

    It’s our party, the Liberal Democrats.

    That is not to say we will oppose for opposition’s sake.

    Some aspects of the Government’s proposals are good.

    We agree it should be an offence to plan terrorist acts.

    We agree it should be an offence to provide training to terrorists.

    We agree it should be an offence to incite terrorism.

    But even if we can get our domestic response to terrorism right, we will not succeed unless, and until, we get our foreign policy right.

    Along with President Bush, Tony Blair’s so-called ‘war on terror’ has been so badly implemented that it has actually boosted the terror threat not diminished it.

    When they should have been concentrating on bringing a proper peace to Afghanistan – Bush and Blair waged war in Iraq.

    It is our stance on the war in Iraq which has defined the Liberal Democrats for so many people.

    And however hard this Government tries – it cannot ‘ move on’.

    It cannot move on, when the Prime Minister remains in denial.

    It can’t move on when people are dying every day.

    And it cannot move on when our British troops are still there in the firing line.

    It is absurd for this Government to pretend that what has happened in Iraq has no impact beyond its borders.

    The reality is that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake.

    And given all the warnings that I – and this party – made at the time – the failure to plan properly for the aftermath is unforgivable.

    The invasion of Iraq has created a volatile, fragmented country now facing the threat of civil war.

    The terrorists have been given a new lease of life.

    Thousands have been killed in Iraq since the elections there.

    The UN mandate is running out.

    So hard choices must now be made.

    Parliament must play a central part in those choices.

    The Government must confront the fact that the presence of British and American forces in Iraq is a part of the problem.

    After this week’s events in Basra we cannot sustain the myth that Iraqis see coalition troops as liberators.

    What they see is an occupation.

    The Government must wake up and admit its responsibility.

    The Prime Minster’s pride should not get in the way of finding a solution for the people of Iraq.

    His blind support for George Bush is continuing to cost lives –

    Iraqi citizens and coalition soldiers.

    It’s time he laid before parliament a proper, structured exit strategy for the phased withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.

    They have served there with distinction, courage and skill.

    But Prime Minister, what people are asking now is “when can our troops come home?”

    A LIBERAL BRITAIN

    Just as we showed over Iraq, we have achieved the most when we have stuck to our liberal values.

    Now, more than ever, we must avoid getting distracted by noises off about whether we are left or right.

    Viewing British politics through the prism of left vs. right is completely the wrong vantage point and it leads to quite a misleading view.

    Why?

    Because all experience shows that the vast majority of people no longer see their choices in old-fashioned left-right terms.

    It is no longer possible to categorise most issues like that.

    Just look at the things we have been discussing at conference this very week.

    Meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals and controlling the flow of small arms to regions of conflict.

    Maintaining both our security and our civil liberties.

    Getting rid of the obsession with central control and target setting.

    Race relations.

    School discipline.

    These don’t fall neatly into the old left/right axis.

    Our solutions are liberal solutions based on our liberal principles.

    Proposals to make the Post Office network viable and give Royal Mail the commercial freedom to compete.

    Not left – not right – but liberal.

    Proposals to reform the European Union budget.

    Not left – not right – but liberal.

    Proposals on tackling anti-social behaviour – solutions that Liberal Democrats in power up and down the country are already implementing.

    Not left – not right – but liberal solutions that actually work.

    Colleagues, we must not allow ourselves to be led by the media and define our debate in their terms.

    This left/right, either/or mindset is out of date and out of time.

    It is Liberal Democrat solutions that this country needs.

    Our take on things.

    Not the false interpretation of others, many of whom don’t wish us to succeed.

    And let me say this clearly and firmly.

    There is absolutely no contradiction between economic liberalism and financial discipline on the one hand, and fairness and social justice on the other.

    I find it deeply ironic that as we approach the centenary of the greatest reforming Liberal Government ever that some people still believe you cannot reconcile the two.

    Those who argue that somehow this party must choose one or the other would have received short shrift from Asquith and Lloyd George.

    They would have found that argument utterly ludicrous.

    We must display the liberal values that lie behind a particular stance on an issue, or a particular approach to a policy area.

    In doing so we achieve lasting political credibility.

    And it’s bringing results.

    We run cities – Liverpool, Newcastle, Durham, Cambridge, York.

    We run County Councils like Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.

    London boroughs like Islington and Southwark.

    Today we have MPs in almost every major city – Manchester, Leeds, London, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh.

    At the election we doubled our representation in Wales.

    And in Scotland the result gave us more seats and more votes than any party except Labour.

    The SNP down to third and the Tories a poor fourth.

    When you look at our record in Government in Scotland it demonstrates how successful we are at implementing our policies that spring from those liberal values.

    In Jenny Willott, Julia Goldsworthy and Jo Swinson we have the youngest MPs in Wales, England and Scotland – all women elected to parliament as Liberal Democrats.

    A LIBERAL IDENTITY

    So the political framework in Britain is changing.

    And we are an integral part of that process.

    But I believe the changes go deeper than that.

    A debate has now been joined about Britishness, about our sense of national identity.

    And what’s so telling are the morose tones of so many when they address the issue.

    They talk of a disconnected country; a society ill at ease with itself; a crisis in our national identity.

    Profound questions are being raised over race and faith as well; concerns which go to the heart of our multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-cultural society.

    Concerns which cannot adequately be addressed if politicians merely fall back on simplistic responses to complex questions, or speak in emotive or pejorative terms about what it should mean to be British today.

    I am far more an optimist.

    Perhaps it’s because I’ve been born, educated and brought up, and always considered home to be the Highlands.

    I think of myself as a highlander first.

    But with it a Scot – and with that I’m British.

    And through that a citizen of Europe.

    When England play Scotland at rugby, or much more rarely now, in football – I have not doubt who I want to win.

    But I cheered England through the Ashes.

    I got caught up in the national mood.

    I’m clear about my identity.

    And in that, I am no different to tens of millions of British citizens.

    We have recognise the complexity of our country – from city to city, community to community.

    We have to recognise that the best way to tackle the tensions in our society is community by community.

    We need stronger local politics.

    And that requires a changed mindset among politicians and civil servants alike.

    The truth is the gentleman in Whitehall does not know best.

    If he had then many of the present difficulties might have been addressed more successfully and much sooner.

    The same is true for our public services.

    Labour’s obsession with authoritarian central control – with this culture of target setting and micromanaging – distorts community priorities.

    It means that local people are making do with inadequate and badly structured services.

    Yet they feel they don’t have the power to make real change in their communities.

    That is why I am determined that in our policy review we will look at new and innovative ways of devolving power – of raising more money locally – to be spent locally – on what local people really want.

    Ours is the liberal conscience and the liberal voice.

    It’s vital and authentic.

    Because to a far greater extent than any of the others we are a political party that is instinctively decentralist.

    Community solutions are the first and best approach.

    And why?

    Because we trust people.

    THE HEALTH OF BRITISH DEMOCRACY

    But what trust can people have in our electoral system in return.

    Let’s be clear about one unarguable conclusion of this year’s general election.

    Ask yourself – how many votes did it take to elect a Liberal Democrat MP?

    Well it was 96,000.

    And to elect a Labour MP? The equivalent figure? Just 26,000.

    People have every right to feel cheated by a system in which 4 out of 5 eligible voters did not vote Labour, yet people woke up the next morning to find a majority Labour government.

    After all the other arguments collapsed over Iraq, Tony Blair fell back into saying that it was essential to help establish democracy.

    He might have had a bit more credibility if he set an example here at home.

    Because what kind of democracy was it that delivered back in May?

    A democracy which returns an outright majority on little more than a third of the popular vote.

    How can we any longer call something like that “the popular vote”?

    How “popular” was the Government – even among those who did vote Labour?

    That’s Blairite democracy for you.

    This Prime Minister has got to realise – he may have a working majority, but he cannot claim any moral mandate.

    This argument – about Westminster voting reform – just won’t go away.

    And we’re not going to let it go away.

    Even with the odds stacked against us, the truth is, at this election, Labour became just as worried about the Liberal Democrats as they ever were about the Tories.

    And in that they were undoubtedly correct.

    We represent a change to the status quo.

    An end to their comfortable two party system.

    We threaten directly their arrogance in power.

    And I say to all those who held their nose last May and voted Labour without conviction – don’t get fooled again.

    But you know what I reject most of all is the idea of British politics being a desultory contest between two essentially conservative parties.

    One calls itself Conservative.

    The other conducts itself as conservative.

    I don’t care if one is led by a Davis or a Clarke.

    I don’t care if the other is led by a Blair or a Brown.

    What people don’t want, don’t deserve and don’t demand is yet another conservative party in British politics.

    Small c or capital c.

    That part of the pitch is already overcrowded.

    And I can assure all of you – I did not enter public life with the ambition of leading yet another conservative party in British politics.

    I’m happy to leave it to others to compete over a law of diminishing returns.

    One where the level of Labour support is on the slide.

    And the Conservatives cannot break through a losing glass ceiling.

    At the next general election you could well be looking at a situation where it is understood that the Conservatives cannot win –

    But that Labour can certainly lose.

    That’s our opportunity.

    That’s our challenge.

    AMBITION FOR BRITAIN

    When this Labour Government falls – which one day it surely will – the party that is ready for the challenge of government will be ours.

    I will lead this party into the next election as the clear alternative to a discredited Labour Government.

    It’s my ambition to lead the first government in the liberal tradition in the 21st Century.

    Because, it is my ambition to restore to government in Britain the fairness, the decency and the tolerance that should be the hallmarks of our democracy and our society.

    I want a Britain that tackles poverty – and with it the poverty of ambition.

    I want a Britain in which every one of our children has the opportunities I had growing up – and more besides!

    A Britain in which ambition and opportunity is not diminished by the circumstances of birth.

    I want a Britain which pays its debt to our older generation.

    Which looks after them when they are ill and in need.

    Which provides our pensioners with dignity, security and peace of mind.

    I want a society that tackles crime – but really does tackle the causes of crime.

    I want a Britain where older people again feel safe to answer their doors.

    Where parents can let their children walk to school – or play in the park – without the incessant worry.

    Where our streets and town centres are free from fear at night.

    And I want a system of prison, punishment and rehabilitation that produces people fit for work not just fit for re-offending.

    I want a Britain with first class public services, so that people can be treated well in a local hospital, and they don’t have to shop around for a decent school – they are there on the doorstep.

    I want a Britain that has a vibrant growing economy – that rewards success, not penalises it.

    That encourages innovation and entrepreneurs, setting them free from over-regulation and the dead hand of government.

    Only in that way can we hope to generate the revenue to afford the world-class services we need as a country.

    I want my child to grow up in a Britain in which the environment is protected.

    I want him to enjoy our natural landscape every bit as much as I do.

    To breathe clean air.

    It will be our children and their children who will feel the full consequences of climate change.

    We have got to get serious about this.

    I’m sick and tired of hearing Tony Blair make excuse after excuse for George Bush.

    We need action and we need it now.

    I want a Britain that is pro-European and proud of it.

    That lives up to its responsibilities on the international stage – that values international law – that is genuinely outward looking and emphatically internationalist.

    Because, I want a Britain that is respected around the world.

    These are the ambitions that brought me into politics in the first place 25 years ago.

    These are the things that have driven me over those years – and still drive me.

    They are what I want the Liberal Democrats to achieve.

    Not for me, not for us, but for Britain.

    A Liberal Democrat Britain.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2002 Speech to the TUC

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, to the 2002 TUC annual conference.

    It gives me great pleasure to be the first leader of the Liberal Democrats to be invited to address Congress, although it’s by no means the first time that I’ve been in attendance.

    This is, of course, a day of commemoration. I have my own indelible memory of visiting Ground Zero not long after September 11th. I had the privilege of meeting the members of the emergency services who had been there that day, risked their lives and seen so many of their colleagues and others forfeit theirs. It was a day which saw unimaginable horror but also unimaginable courage which will never be forgotten.

    Two years ago, John Monks became the first TUC General Secretary to address a Liberal Democrat annual conference. So this speech, if you like, is a return match. A significant proportion of trades union members now regularly vote Liberal Democrat. So good, constructive dialogue is important and I’m grateful to the TUC for keeping us well briefed on issues of mutual concern.

    The fruits of our cooperation have been seen at Westminster. We’ve continued our long campaign alongside the nurses’ unions against the disgracefully low pay which has led so many people to leave that vital profession.

    We’ve supported the teachers in their attempts to reduce the bureaucracy which has demoralized their profession so much.

    In industry, we backed the demands which were successfully made by a number of unions for more flexible working. That’s especially important to women.

    And we’ve also campaigned alongside you for Britain to adopt the European directive on Information and Consultation. Personally I thought it was a scandal that, when Vauxhall decided to shut a plant down, the first the workforce heard about it was on the radio.

    We’re strongly in favour too of tougher action on health and safety.

    And we share your anxieties about company pensions. Some employers have arbitrarily curtailed pension entitlements in an outrageous way. Liberal Democrats believe that members of pension schemes should have much clearer rights and much better legal protection.

    Such attention to detail is extremely important. But so is the big picture. There’s an emerging consensus between us – from Europe to environmental responsibility, from employee rights to worker participation, from public services to the welfare state.

    I’m a lifelong believer in trade unionism. When I was given a job as a shelf-stacker as a teenager, I immediately joined the shop-workers union USDAW. And from my first days as an MP – facing the onslaught of Thatcherism – I was convinced that strong trades unions were healthy for society.

    And that strength derived from being accountable to and representative of their individual members. And such strength gave greater legitimacy to the vital role of modern, progressive trades unionism in the national agenda of democratic governance .

    In those days we were way behind too much of continental Europe in this respect.

    So I was delighted when Jacques Delors as Commission President addressed this Congress. That was a real turning-point. Remember how infuriated Mrs. Thatcher was? Satisfaction enough in itself for many of us.

    But there was also great long-term benefit to all the progressive forces across the British body politic. It began to help shift the rhetoric – and the real agenda followed on.

    There’s a pleasing sense of historical continuity here. The earliest trades union members were Liberals; Liberals in government pioneered the state pension; it was a Liberal, Beveridge, drawing on the work of the trade unions, who went on to lay down the intellectual foundations of the welfare state, enacted by the Attlee government.

    Our party is strongly attached to the ideal of freedom. But that doesn’t mean simply leaving everything to the market.

    As Beveridge said himself: ‘Liberty means more than freedom from the arbitrary power of Governments. It means freedom from economic servitude to Want and Squalor and other social evils.’

    We Liberal Democrats believe in dialogue. We believe in cooperation with both sides of industry and between both sides of industry. And we believe in the language of cooperation. We reject the language of confrontation.

    Of course we’re not going to agree automatically with everything you say.

    But we’ll listen. You won’t catch Liberal Democrats describing trade unionists as wreckers.

    And I believe that the momentum of public opinion is swinging towards both of us –

    Liberal Democrats and trade unionists alike.

    When John addressed our conference two years ago he spoke tellingly about different approaches to capitalism. He rejected – and we do too – what he called ‘the deregulated wild-west devil take the hindmost style of the US.’

    Two years on and the American model is looking distinctly shop-soiled and tarnished.

    Slowly, but surely, the more socially-orientated European approach is coming to be appreciated. Not least when it involves a degree of social and environmental responsibility.

    Consider these words:-

    ‘In business, the warts on the face of capitalism – every Enron story, every bit of creative accounting, every shoddy or overpriced product, every little exploitation of an employee or a supplier, every unjustified increase in executive remuneration, every bit of damage to the environment – each one of these has a cumulative, corrosive effect.

    ‘A company that simply dances to the fickle tunes of the financial markets does itself no good – nor the wider interests of business, nor the cause of capitalism.’

    Karl Marx? Arthur Scargill? Tony Benn?

    No, in fact I’m quoting from this year’s personal valedictory address by the retiring President of the CBI, Sir Iain Vallance. Incidentally, Sir Iain has subsequently

    joined the Liberal Democrats.

    It seems that Sir Edward Heath’s ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’ is still with us.

    But it’s not mission impossible to transform its appearance.

    Of course we believe in markets. Nobody’s talking about a return to old fashioned state run bureaucracies. But the European approach to markets is preferable to the American model in almost every way. It treats workers decently. It protects their rights. It delivers quality public services. It’s better at long-term planning. And it makes for a stronger and more stable economy.

    It would be better still for Britain to join the euro – at the right exchange rate. We look to the Government to give a lead.

    But I’m not convinced that Ministers sufficiently grasp the broader merits of Europe.

    Take the public services. Britain has fallen woefully behind our European partners when it comes to the standard of our hospitals, schools and transport system.

    We Liberal Democrats – like you in the TUC – called for the Government to put in the investment needed much earlier and faster than they have.

    But now at last they’ve done what we asked them to do. So it’s become a question of how the money’s best spent.

    I don’t say that everything should be done through the public sector. I have no ideological hang-ups between public and private. What I do say is that there shouldn’t be an automatic American-style assumption that the private sector is always better.

    So let’s retain all our collective, critical faculties over the next few years over the funding and the delivery of the public services.

    I welcome the extra investment the Government has belatedly promised for public services.

    But I am concerned about the fairness and transparency by which the sums involved are being raised. I fear that Gordon Brown’s extra billions for the NHS will be squandered unless we reform the tax system to make sure the taxpayer gets value for money. That’s why I shall strongly support a proposal to be put to our party conference later this month to take health funding out of general taxation.

    Our proposal is to turn National Insurance into National Health Insurance. That would give people a cast-iron guarantee that the money raised for health is actually spent on the NHS – not sucked into the Treasury.

    Earmarking National Insurance – perhaps to be renamed the NHS Contribution – can easily be achieved because it raises almost exactly the amount of money that needs to be spent on the NHS. What’s more, it’s set to rise above inflation in years to come. This way, we’ll guarantee extra funding for health in the long-term, regardless of the Chancellor’s short-term calculations at budget time.

    Far too many decisions over public services are taken behind closed doors by the man – and, all too often, it still remains the man – in Whitehall. So the second part of our reform plan for health – and indeed for education too – is for a major shift in power away from Whitehall to each locality in Britain.

    I want to see far more decisions taken far closer to the patients, the passengers and the pupils. Far more power for locally and regionally elected politicians who understand best the needs of their areas. And far more say too for the dedicated staff at all levels in health and education.

    That way the extra resources stand a far better chance of getting through to the front line rather than being swallowed-up by bureaucrats in quango-land. The Liberal Democrats and the TUC are never going to be in each other’s pockets. From our financial point of view, chance would be a fine thing!

    But just as we have to build a party that’s in no-one else’s pocket, largely by digging into our own, so the progressive forces in our society can only stand to mutual benefit by a principled process of cooperation.

    Thank you for your invitation today. I hope that this contribution assists towards that highly desirable social and political aspiration.

  • Charles Kennedy – 1983 Maiden Speech

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Charles Kennedy to the House of Commons on 15th July 1983.

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for recognising me on this the occasion of my maiden speech. I think that the House, and especially the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), will agree that it is appropriate that I should deliver my maiden speech during a debate on the future of the younger generation. As fate would have it, I find myself the youngest Member of this distinguished House. I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will find it interesting to witness a live specimen of today’s subject matter.

    Although the younger generation is a concern of the present and even more so of the future, as the new Member for the new constituency of Ross, Cromarty and Skye I find myself deeply aware and conscious of the past and of those who have preceded me in representing the old constituency of Ross and Cromarty. As many Liberal Members will be aware, it was represented from 1964 to 1970 by the late Alasdair Mackenzie, who was a distinguished and highly thought of Member of this place during his time in it.

    From 1970 until this election it was represented by the Conservative Member, Mr. Hamish Gray. I congratulate him on his peerage and movement to another place. I congratulate him equally on his appointment as Minister of State at the Scottish Office. As many know, there was considerable interest and, indeed, controversy not just in the Highlands but in Scotland generally about his appointment. I am optimistic and encouraged by what happened to Lord Gray, and I hope that it sets a trend by the Government. I hope that 3 million people, many of whom lost their jobs largely as a result of Government policies, will shortly be placed, as a result of Prime Ministerial decision, in much better jobs.

    One figure who is certainly not a name or force of the past but very much of the present, to the extent that he is sitting behind me, is my hon. Friend who was the hon. Member for Inverness—with the boundary changes parts of his constituency have been moved into Ross, Cromarty and Skye — and who is now the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston). I pay tribute to him and promise that I will try to follow in his footsteps with the diligence that he has shown to the parts of his former constituency that I have inherited.

    William Lyon Mackenzie King, who was Prime Minister of Canada, once said that the problem with that country was that it had too much geography and not enough history. The problem with my constituency is that it has more than its fair share of both. My constituency and the Highlands generally have had more than their fair share of a bad deal in recent years in their chances and opportunities, especially for the younger generation.

    A perennial problem that has faced the Scottish Highlands is that, time and again, too many of the more talented young people have had to move elsewhere—even abroad — through a lack of opportunities that should have been available. In the 1960s we believed that there was a golden opportunity for that part of the country. However, under the previous Conservative Government’s policies that golden opportunity has turned to dross, largely as a result of the Government’s economic approach and social disregard. The pulp mill in Fort William has been closed. In my constituency, the Invergordon smelter closed and, more recently, there have been lost opportunities with the abandonment of the gas-gathering project, although there are still strong signs that that project should go ahead.

    Despite their vast majority and the convincing lead, which they will have for the next four or five years, in the Division Lobbies, the Government must display greater sensitivity to the problems of the Highlands, and especially of its young people. I make that sincere plea on behalf of my constituents. The alliance will work constructively during this Parliament to assist and support, with any help that the Government can give, the Highlands and this group of its people. One example of a scheme that will provide job opportunities is the Ben Wyvis development. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland’s comments on financial commitment will be supported and that we shall see a more pragmatic and less doctrinaire approach from the Government to the traditional concerns of the Highlands, such as farming, fishing and forestry.

    In the few short weeks since I was elected the Forestry Commission has proposed to sell Ratagan forest in Glenelg. That is a product of the constraints that have been placed on the commission by the Government. There is considerable local opposition to the proposed sale, and I hope that the Government will rethink their attitude and take stock generally of the problems faced by the forestry, fishing and farming interests in the Highlands. Young people, hoping to enter those industries, have been discouraged. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East will agree that our subject for debate is extremely relevant to my constituency. It is fair to demand more pragmatism and constructive thinking of the Government.

    I have two basic observations, which I formulated during my election campaign, on the attitudes of young people. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members reached the same conclusions during the constituency campaigns. First, there is a yawning gap in outlook between those who have a job and those who have not. Some Ministers are fond of talking about a return to Victorian values. We must realise that those Victorian values are being expressed by some of the younger people in this society in shameful and disturbing disregard for other members of their generation who are not as fortunate as they are in having a job. That is disturbing for a Government of any political complexion. The yawning gulf is becoming wider as, each month, the unemployment total increases. I hope that the Government will take cognisance of that during this Parliament.

    My second observation is relevant to my party and the Liberal party. We have heard much from the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, and I do not doubt that we shall hear even more in future, about the iniquities of our electoral system. Under the present system many people are effectively disfranchised—the Whip will be pleased to know that I will not comment on that today. However, voluntary disfranchisement is also taking place. During my campaign people of my age and younger said consistently that they would not vote because their votes simply no longer matter and because no Government or Member of Parliament cared a whit about their problems and their striving for employment. That is disturbing for all of the parties and all hon. Members. Those who will contribute most to British democracy in the future are extricating themselves from the system already because they believe that it is no longer relevant. Part of the solution to that is electoral reform, but even more urgent is the need for a more tolerant, caring and compassionate Government. Sadly, we do not have that at the moment. I hope— I say this to the Minister in a constructive fashion—that we shall have it in due course.

    To involve young people and make sure that the system is more relevant to them in Scotland, we have a clear obligation to implement a policy of home rule. Lord Home said not so many years ago that there was a genuine grass roots desire in Scotland for more decisions to be taken by the Scots. If that were implemented and the Government made a compromise or concession on that issue, young people in Scotland, and in the Highlands as much as anywhere else, would feel more affected by and therefore more involved in our political institutions. Home rule was supported by voters across a broad spectrum of parties in Scotland, which received significantly more support than the Conservative party. It is a legitimate demand, which is backed up in the ballot box. I hope that if the Government care about the younger generation they will see it as a way forward and a means to improve young people’s involvement in our political institutions.

    The hon. Member for Eltham alluded to this. Throughout Britain over the past few years there has been a considerable decline in our fortunes. There has been a considerable decline in manufacturing, matched by a lost generation of younger people who are now unemployed and who, in terms of training and skill, might be fated to be classed as unemployable. The great sadness about the economic policy of the past four years is that when the recession bottoms out and when the world economy begins to pick up, we shall not have a skilled work force of the right age group to take advantage of it. That, coupled with the manufacturing decline and the rundown and closing down of industry, will mean that we shall lack the right blend of manpower and machinery to capitalise, as we should, on the improvements in our economic fortunes.

    Equally important is that there is surely a moral responsibility for any Government and any Parliament to try to represent legitimate interests. What interests could be more legitimate than the interests of the younger generation who represent the country’s future? Yet, despite the best-laid plans of mice and even Ministers on youth training and youth opportunities, there is not enough for young people. That undermines the moral basis of government. It undermines respect for and participation in the democratic process. As a result of both those present tendencies, there is a disturbing implication for the country’s social, political and economic future. I feel most strongly about that and I urge the Government sincerely to address their priorities to the matter during this Parliament.

    I hope that the Government will take heed because, if they do not, many Opposition Members will continue to remind them of it. I hope that, as the leader of my party said in his recent speech in the House, the Government will succeed in their objectives because that is in all our interests. It is from that constructive position that we approach the whole issue and from which I give my wholehearted support to the motion of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East.

  • Paul Kenny – 2012 Speech to TUC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Kenny to the 2012 TUC Conference on 9th September 2012.

    I am proud and honoured to address this 144th Congress of the TUC as President.

    This past year has flown by. A year in which our trade union movement, mobilised millions of people into campaigning for pensions justice.

    The biggest demonstration of civil and political defiance in living memory brought home to politicians and pundits that trade unionism was alive, well and kicking.

    The Prime Minister called last November’s demonstrations ‘a damp squib’.

    Sounds of laughter over his ill-advised refusal to acknowledge the two million plus people taking action could be heard from Glasgow to Gloucester, Cardiff to Carlisle.

    Predictions of our demise as a movement were again somewhat premature!

    One hundred years ago in Newport, the TUC held its 1912 conference. The President that year was Will Thorne, acknowledged as a founding figure of the Gas Workers Union which today has become the GMB.

    Thorne was from the new breed of trade unionism, gas workers, labourers, dockers and general workers whose struggles culminated in the formation of new unionism, which by 1912 had come of age.

    The TUC met in 1912 in good heart, membership was up by just under 350,000 to two million, a staggering increase in just a year. Membership at two million, and it was said in the years up to that milestone that trade unions were spent, a thing of the past, trade unions were a dying breed.

    Will Thorne, Ben Tillet and others did not buy into that defeatist propaganda of one hundred years ago and we reject those same attacks today.

    Two million became 12 million and today we stand above six million.

    The challenge to us, with all the physical, financial and organisational assets the movement possess, is to recreate the energy, vision and political will to define ourselves clearly again.

    This movement can be proud of what it has achieved for both the prosperity and people of our nation.

    Many things taken for granted in today’s society did not land courtesy of politicians’ slumbers.

    They came from the passion for social justice which has been at the forefront of our movement for the last hundred years and beyond.

    I have never been lucky enough to have worked for any employer who came in on a Monday morning and confessed they had been unable to sleep all weekend worrying about whether I had enough pay, holidays, sick pay, pension benefits, respect at work, dignity and rights to be treated fairly.

    These are the values our movement stands up for and it has been trade union collective bargaining and action which has secured work and social benefits which so many today rely on.

    It is easy to remember just a few short years ago how those trade union voices which called for equality in our society were rounded on.

    How trade union campaigns for gender, race and sexual orientation rights and an end to the discrimination endured by so many were attacked as political correctness and just plain loony left grandstanding.

    Who today would take anything other than pride for the changes in attitude and process achieved by those campaigns?

    But a word of caution, admiring what has been achieved must never slide into a failure of purpose over that which is still to be gained.

    It is also clear, as we know only too well, that hard won advances and rights through industrial and political actions have to be defended, particularly where such advances edge into the power of such vested interests as those employers and politicians who argue for a ‘no rights culture’ of exploitation, insecurity and social conflict.

    This year’s Congress badge is a simple message ‘Union and Proud’, because we should be. What working people have created by way of social change through their membership of trade unions is truly remarkable and deserves celebration.

    As trade unionists we are a particular type of human being, it is our values for fighting injustice, campaigning for others, and our vision of a society based on equality of opportunity, which drives our agenda.

    That is why so many in Government, the CBI or the IoD do not understand what makes us tick.

    Their values are based on individual wealth gathering and free market exploitation with some lip service to the deserving poor!

    Every essential requirement of a modern democracy is seen as a business opportunity to be exploited and ransacked, irrespective of the long-term costs to the economy or its citizens.

    The destruction of social housing, energy policy, rail and transport infrastructure, were all carried through for reasons of commercial exploitation and those basic tenets of a planned economy which require long-term planning and investment, swept away in favour of the quick buck.

    And see if you can guess who warned successive governments of the disasters of such moves.

    Who said PFI would be a financial disaster?

    Who said the culture of bankers’ bonuses was wrong and dangerous?

    Who said paying billions to the private landlords instead of building affordable social housing was nonsense?

    Who was it said that if you do not carry out maintenance on our railways, safety for passengers and staff would be compromised and, were we right?

    Who for years has demanded action over the tax avoidance and evasion schemes so beloved of certain politicians and the City?

    Who has led the charge for action on the scandal of over a million young people who are victims of this government’s economic experiments?

    On jobs, public services, welfare and so much more, it has been the trade union movement centre stage and sometimes the only voice.

    And who has been solid in demanding decent pensions for all?

    And our movement’s gains on health and safety in the workplace did not land from outer space.

    They arrived by way of a road built with the blood and broken bones of those thousands of victims of avoidable accidents, employer negligence and political indifference, which we continue to campaign against.

    Trade unions are often the only course of support a person has when it comes to defending themselves against bullying at work or when seeking training, parental leave or plain old fashioned respect.

    Trade unions are the largest collective body for good and social justice in the world and, if as a movement we do not stand for social justice, then we stand for nothing.

    Our challenge is to grow, to organise those industries and workers which in some cases we have avoided, perhaps because of the difficulty of the task.

    In the run up to the Pensions Day of Action, some unions discovered what some others had forgotten, people joined the union movement in their tens of thousands because we both spoke up for their interests and organised on a scale not seen for quite a while.

    This historic year for the TUC has culminated in the election of Frances O’Grady, the first woman to occupy the office of TUC General Secretary.

    Congratulations to Frances and best wishes for the future. But I hope that one day soon the election of a woman to leadership will create no more interest, comment or surprise, because it will have become far more frequent in all walks of life.

    And a brief word of thanks to Brendan Barber, history will show that a transformation took place under his time in office.

    Brendan leaves with the respect and thanks of us all for his contribution and help.

    The fact that he announced his retirement after spending twenty two hours in a plane with me, on route to Australia is merely coincidental.

    And a big thank you to all the staff at Congress House and in the regions for their wonderful dedicated work on our behalf. We truly have some very talented, principled, passionate people working for us all at the TUC and I for one am grateful for all they have done.

    To my own union, the GMB, thank you for giving me the support to carry out at least parts of the duties of President this past year.

    I end this address with a single message. Our trade union movement has so much to be proud about. We do not need to hide or apologise for who we are or for what we seek.

    Are trade unions, a vested interest?

    You had better believe it. We are.

    But for a better, more equal society.

  • Ruth Kelly – 2006 Speech on Sports Colleges

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Ruth Kelly, on Sports Colleges. The speech was made on 3rd February 2006 in Telford.

    Thank you for inviting me to address your conference.  I am really delighted to have been able to make it this year!

    Your conference – the Sports College movement – is nothing less than inspiring.  You are a community of schools: determined to move forward; determined to push the boundaries; and determined to strive for excellence.

    I want to acknowledge today, and pay tribute to, the contribution that Sports Colleges are making.  You are using physical education and sport to drive up whole school standards, improve attendance and behaviour and, of course, play a significant and valued role within our national school sport strategy.  A lot is asked of you.  And you continue to rise to that challenge.

    You have proved – time and again – that you are a dynamic movement, capable of changing as priorities alter, but your focus – your driving force – is a desire to bring out the potential of every child.  That is an ambition we share.

    Indeed, it is at the heart of your conference’s theme – ‘Every Child Matters’.  For me – and I know for you – it is about giving every child the best opportunities and ensuring the highest standards, irrespective of where they live and the nature of their backgrounds.

    And that ambition is also at the heart of our White Paper – Higher Standards, Better Schools for All. In it we set out our vision for the next phase of reform – a vision of strong, self-confident schools working collaboratively and in partnership with other organisations to raise standards and improve opportunities for children. As Sports Colleges you have a strong history of working with external partners and I want to explore with you, today, how we can take that even further.

    But first of all, I want to take a moment to look at the considerable achievements of the Sports College movement.  In particular, I want to offer my congratulations to the 14 schools whose successful designation for Sports College status was announced earlier this week.  I know that you are all represented here today.  The application process is tough and rightly so.  You can all feel justly proud of your success.  Very many congratulations – you have joined a winning team.

    In 2005 Sports Colleges achieved their best ever exam results.  That is a credit: to your movement; to those working in your schools; and to the young people you serve.  Overall, Sports Colleges out performed non-specialist schools by almost 3 percentage points.  And 2005 value added data suggests that Sports Colleges add considerable value between Key Stages 2 and 4 – you will know this already.  It shows that, on average, pupils in Sports Colleges achieved one grade more in a GCSE subject than pupils with similar prior attainments in all schools.

    Your successes are many, but there is, of course, more to be done.  I would like to see the gap between your results and the national average narrow even further.  I understand and accept the challenges many of your schools face.  Often your journey has been further, and the rate of improvement faster, than any other type of specialist school.

    Together, we must deepen the impact of the sports specialism and ensure an even greater focus on the basics of English and maths.  Excellence in sport should translate into excellence throughout the school, especially in these vital subjects.  Of course, there are already some outstanding achievements at GCSE among sports colleges:

    – Madeley Court School, here in Telford, achieved a huge 33 percentage points improvement on its GCSE results since last year;

    – And Brookfield Community School in Derbyshire achieved an excellent 19 percentage point’s improvement over the previous year when English and maths are included in the indicator.

    Of course your success isn’t just about sporting or educational excellence.  You’re also using your sport specialism to develop citizenship and leadership and prepare your young people for the many challenges of adult life.  Sport – through its rules and tactics – helps instil discipline and a sense of what is right and wrong.  That has a major impact on behaviour and I am sure there is much that other schools could learn from your approach.

    I also want to recognise the leading role that Sports Colleges are playing within the national school sport strategy.  A lot has been achieved in the three years since the strategy was launched.

    – Overall 69% of pupils in partnership schools – that’s 11% more than last year –  are spending at least 2 hours in a typical week on high quality PE and sport;

    – The biggest gains have been across the primary sector where take up has risen by 23% – in just one year – to 64%;

    – and while progress across the secondary sector has been more modest, it has reached the 75% target a whole year early.

    Participation in club sport, competitive school sport and sports volunteering and leadership are all increasing, year on year.  Our investment of £11.5 million over two years will ensure that all partnerships can employ high quality coaches to widen after-school activities even further.

    2006 will be a critical year for the national school sport strategy.  The first milestone within our Public Service Agreement target falls this year.  It is essential that we press on and ensure that at least 75% of school children spend a minimum of 2 hours each week on high quality physical education and sport.

    In the longer term, we should, and can, be even more ambitious.  That’s why we want to work with you to offer all children at least 4 hours of sport a week by 2010.  This will include the 2 hours of high quality provision at school.  But it will also include 2-3 hours outside of curriculum time, to be delivered by a range of school, community and club providers.

    So, with improving results, together with your contribution to the wider sports strategy, you are showing that you are ahead of the game, demonstrating what can be achieved, and just what Sports Colleges are capable of.

    And Sports Colleges are, I believe, showing too just what can be achieved when schools work in partnership with each other and with other organisations to raise standards. Of course, as Specialist Sports Colleges you all already have relationships with external partners or sponsors but many of you are taking these relationships a step further. I have been delighted to hear about the range of innovative partnerships you have been involved in with all sorts of partners – from Universities to businesses to leading sporting organisations – harnessing expertise and energy and turning it to the task of raising standards with considerable success.

    I wanted to share just a few of the interesting examples I have heard about:

    – Biddick School in Washington – the first school nationally to receive support from the Lawn Tennis Association in its bid to become a Sports College. Since 1997 the school has extended its relationship with the LTA to the benefit of students at the school and the wider community.

    And to quote an example of successful collaboration with business:

    – Holloway School in London has been working with the Microsoft Foundation and Arsenal. The school receives IT support, training and software from the Foundation.  Indeed, a number of Sports Colleges where IT was a key feature of their bid have been supported by the Microsoft Foundation in this way.

    There are also excellent examples of Sports Colleges working collaboratively with higher education institutions:

    – Hayesbrook Sports College – also a recently designated high performing & training school – has an innovative partnership with Brighton University.  They deliver modules for their teacher trainees (over 70 a year) at Hayesbrook School, with placements in all the West Kent Learning Federation schools. Recruitment of newly qualified teachers from Brighton to schools in the Federation has increased significantly.

    A number of schools have gone even further and have sponsors involved directly in the governing bodies of their schools – that brings invaluable business expertise and leadership directly into the running of these schools.

    – For example, HSBC Education Trust have part sponsored 16 Sports Colleges and a feature of the partnership between school and sponsor is that HSBC Education Trust provides a sponsor governor  – the  school benefits from business expertise and the sponsor inputs to the development of the school as a Sports College.

    Our White Paper will build on this excellent work and spread it wider into the education system.   Our task – and one which we all share – is to raise standards for every pupil, and particularly for disadvantaged groups.  That is the purpose of the White Paper.  At its heart is the premise that strong, self-confident schools with greater freedoms and the ability to harness the expertise and energy of external partners will provide the framework to create the next step change in standards.

    And I think we all agree that a step change is needed. We want all children to have the best opportunities and the highest standards. Standards in schools have risen enormously, and children and young people are achieving more. But we cannot be satisfied that 56% of children get 5 good GCSEs or the equivalent, especially when only 26% of children on free meals do so. And there is too much variation in schools – all children deserve good schools.

    I know there has been a lot of debate recently about the White Paper, particularly in relation to Trust schools, so I want to spend a few minutes clarifying some of what it is putting forward.

    Trust Schools are a key element of the White Paper proposals and one that I hope all schools will consider very seriously.  As we’ve just explored, through your specialist status and your leadership of school sport partnerships, you have a proven record of working with external partners and other schools to benefit young people.  Trust status will allow you to build on this further.

    Acquiring a Trust is a way for schools to raise standards, strengthen collaboration and draw on the expertise and energy of their partners – including universities, colleges, business foundations, other schools and the wider community. We know from your experience and that of other specialist schools that the external perspective has a real impact on pupils’ achievement.

    For the school I saw last week – Thorpe Bay in Southend – acquiring a Trust and working with external partners gives it the best chance it has had for years.  That’s a single school model.  But many schools might want partnerships with other schools in a Trust.  What is more important than the model is that there is a renewed energy, a shared ethos and support for the school leadership.

    Trusts build on the experience of the 75% of secondary schools that are now specialist, Voluntary Aided, Voluntary Controlled, or schools which have joined federations and experimented with new approaches to governance.  But they go further, because the Trust can appoint the majority of governors, if the school so agrees, and have even greater support from the school leadership team.

    And Trusts bring extra stability to relationships – putting existing partnerships on an even securer footing; broadening partnerships and spreading influence.

    There has been much ill informed comment about Trust schools though, and I want to take this opportunity to put to bed some of the myths:

    – No school will be forced to set up a Trust;

    – Trust schools will remain part of the maintained sector and part of the local family of schools;

    – They will operate under the same local fair funding system as other schools;

    – They will remain a full part of our capital spending programmes.

    – And Trust schools will work under exactly the same code of fair admission as other schools.  There will be no new selection by ability. They will also take part in the local admissions forum. I believe that admission forums have a key role to play in making sure that every child has the chance of a school place at a good school. And they will be an important influence in promoting admission arrangements that reduce social segregation and making sure that schools are discouraged from using any practices which could result in some parents being put off from applying for them – such as expensive uniforms or requesting a financial contribution.

    I would argue that Trusts are the natural extension of what so many sports colleges have been seeking to do. You already have a proven track record of successful delivery.  And you have always been prepared to tackle new challenges and explore new ways of working in your quest for improvement.

    The Trust School Prospectus – published earlier this year – sets out the potential of what they can achieve for pupils.  Copies of the prospectus are available at the national school sport strategy zone, here at the conference. Do, please, look closely at the Trust School Prospectus and consider how Trust school status can help you to improve things even further for all at your school.

    I’m almost out of time but before I finish I want to say quick word about the Olympics. Lord Coe will be taking the stage after me and I know we all share his vision of the Olympic Games providing inspiration to all our young people. We were all delighted by the success of London’s bid to stage the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.  It was amazing how the country got behind the bid and rejoiced in London’s success.

    The Sports College movement has helped breath life back into competitive school sport.  Through the work you lead in the network of school sport partnerships we have seen the amount and quality of inter school competition rise year on year.

    All children have the chance to participate in competitive sport through the National Curriculum.  Not only traditional sports like football and hockey, but less common disciplines for this country like handball or volleyball which can help inspire more youngsters to take up competitive sport regularly.  I know partnerships schools in Nottinghamshire have set up five new leagues which have enabled thousands more youngsters to play competitively.  Through these leagues they are learning valuable life skills – teamwork, leadership – how to win with grace and lose with dignity.

    Our new competition managers will help to widen access to competitive sport even further.  I know Dame Kelly Holmes was with you last night.  I am delighted that she has agreed to be our first national school sport champion.  As one of our best ever women Olympians she will be a powerful role model to help inspire and motivate our young people to take up sport or do even more of it.

    Sports Colleges are well positioned to help us ensure a lasting legacy.  The link between the Games and sport is an obvious one.  But we want to use the Games to inspire young people in other ways as well.  So, together with LOCOG (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) and others, we will be:

    – encouraging young people to make healthy living choices more generally;

    – supporting learning both in and outside the classroom;

    – increasing the number of people learning languages; and

    – broadening young people’s personal development and cultural understanding.

    Last year also saw the announcement that every School Sport Partnership will be able to appoint two Youth Ambassadors to act as community champions for the games.  This will be a great opportunity for them.  And in the run-up to the games we are establishing a national school sport festival to showcase sporting competition and talent.

    These are exciting times.  Sports Colleges have demonstrated time and again the ability, desire and passion to innovate and drive up standards.  The national school sport strategy, specialist status and our White Paper proposals allow us to move to the next level.

    There are genuinely tough challenges to be faced. I know that last term was particularly difficult for many heads and teachers in terms of implementing new policy.  The issues were well articulated to me by a group of Sports College heads I lunched with just before Christmas.  But the reforms are essential if we are to transform the life chances of every child in every school.

    I know you will, again, rise to the challenge. Thank you.

  • Chris Kelly – 2010 Maiden Speech

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Chris Kelly in the House of Commons on 29th June 2010.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech, and I congratulate you on your new position. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) on his excellent maiden speech earlier.

    Today is an Opposition day, so there are even more Labour Members than usual on the Opposition Benches. I am therefore more grateful than colleagues who made their maiden speeches in earlier debates that it is a tradition of the House to listen to a maiden speech without interruption or intervention. I am also pleased to see several fellow black country Members. I am incredibly proud to be black country born and bred. In fact, I could not be more proud of the area I have always called home.

    As the new Member for Dudley South, I thank my predecessor, Ian Pearson, for his service to my constituency and its residents. From the moment that I was selected in September 2007, Mr Pearson was always courteous towards me-so courteous that in February this year he announced he would not contest the general election against me. Mr Pearson was elected in a by-election in December 1994 in Dudley West, and went on to hold several ministerial posts between 2002 and 2010. If I may say so, Graham Postles fought a valiant campaign for the Conservatives in 1994, but so much in politics is down to timing, and Dudley West was Tony Blair’s first by-election as leader of the Labour party. It was therefore the first significant victory of the new Labour era, when Labour Members declared that they were the political wing of the British people. As they left the country on the verge of bankruptcy, that claim now has a hollow ring.

    I also wish to pay tribute to the former Conservative Member for Dudley West, Dr John Blackburn, who sadly died following a heart attack in the Palace of Westminster in October 1994. I never had the pleasure of meeting John, but I know that he was widely admired by his constituents and even by his political foes. He was a hard-working local MP, and I intend to conduct myself during my time in this Chamber very much in the same manner. John’s widow, Marjorie, is a supporter to this day and has been extremely kind to me during my time as the candidate in her late husband’s old constituency.

    If I may, I wish to pay tribute to the late former Member for Coventry South-West, John Butcher, or Butch as I knew him. If I won my seat, Butch and I were due to have dinner to celebrate and to discuss what he called the pitfalls of being an MP. Sadly, we never had the opportunity to dine together in this place.

    Dudley South lies between Birmingham and Wolverhampton on the western fringe of the west midlands conurbation. We local people are fiercely proud of Dudley’s own distinctive identity and heritage. The constituency is situated to the west of Dudley town centre and largely consists of residential suburbs and some rural fringes on the border of glorious south Staffordshire countryside. Wards include Brierley Hill; Brockmoor and Pensnett; Kingswinford North and Wall Heath; Kingswinford South; Netherton, Woodside and St Andrews; and Wordsley. Within my constituency, we have the Merry Hill shopping centre, now managed by Westfield, as well as the largest secure trading estate in Europe in the Pensnett estate, along with dozens of smaller trading estates employing many thousands of people in small and medium-sized businesses.

    The businesses of Dudley South are the backbone of the British economy and typically employ no more than a dozen people each. It is the creativity and ingenuity of so many of my constituents-making, designing, building and fabricating myriad goods-that is so important to the viability of the British economy. I come from a business background and can see all around my constituency that the entrepreneurial spirit of local people is undimmed by 13 years of red tape, bureaucracy and increased taxation.

    Many families in Dudley South are football households. The vast majority of my residents support either the Baggies-West Bromwich Albion, for those who do not know-or Wolves, as I do. In fact, I went to my first game at Molineux when we were in the old fourth division, and three of the four stands were then crumbling wrecks. Many of my constituents know me as a businessman from a well-known local company, headquartered literally in the shadows of the Hawthorns. However, for those constituents who are not Albion fans, I should add that the business also employs people in Kingswinford.

    Not only am I proud of my constituency and my area, I am proud of my country. I am fortunate to have travelled extensively, but no matter how exotic or cosmopolitan the destination, I have always yearned for England. Part of that is the people. The people of my borough are decent people who strive to do the right thing by society and, most importantly, by their families. As they told me during the general election, they get frustrated when they see others ahead of them who have not “done the right thing”. Their sense of fairness was seriously challenged by the last Government. I am pleased to see this coalition Government restoring that sense of fairness and balance while addressing the scale of the deficit and debts bequeathed to us. That sense of fairness has been severely tested over the last 13 years as we have seen neighbouring Sandwell metropolitan borough council receiving far more per head from Whitehall than Dudley metropolitan borough council. That massive disparity cannot be fair, and my constituents have also expressed their unhappiness in large numbers about many of the local government funded quangos with questionable track records of productivity and efficiency, and a democratic deficit, when my constituents struggle to make ends meet and pay their council and personal tax bills.

    I was born in 1978 under James Callaghan, but I am a child of Thatcher. I was honoured to receive letters from the former Prime Minister both during and after the election, and they now hang proudly on my wall. Baroness Thatcher truly is a guiding inspiration. She comprehensively proved that one person can make a positive difference. My political interest began at the age of 14, when I wrote to the Express and Star, still the largest circulation local paper in the country, about the increase in the entry fee at the local swimming baths. I then joined the Conservative party in 1996 at the age of 18 when I arrived at university in Headington in Oxford, to be greeted by the beaming faces of my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). The former was at that time the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Oxford East, and the latter was the chairman of the university Conservative society. In 1996, who would have believed that, come 2010, Justin Tomlinson and I would join Jon Djanogly, who has been an MP for nine years already, on the Government Benches?

    It is a huge honour to represent Dudley South in this Chamber, and I will work tirelessly to get a fair deal for my residents.

  • David Cameron – 2013 Press Conference with President Hamid Karzai

    Below is the text of the press conference held with the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai.  The press conference was held in Kabul on 29th June 2013.

    Hamid Karzai

    In the name of God, members of the Afghan and international press, you’re all welcome to today’s press conference between His Excellency, very respected Prime Minister Mr Cameron, and me. His Excellency the Prime Minister is a friend of Afghanistan, and has helped tremendously with Afghanistan’s reconstruction and especially in terms of the betterment of the contacts between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the last time we met was in Chequers in London, for which we are grateful, and we’re happy to see him again here in Kabul.

    Mr Prime Minster and me discussed on a wide range of all issues of interest and we also talked about the concern in Afghanistan, which is there on the peace process, and that the foreign hands in – should not be able to abuse the peace process in Afghanistan, and I also discussed this with the Prime Minster that, while Afghanistan is happy, and is pleased with its strategic relations with the world, it also believes that the bilateral security agreement with NATO and the United States be based on the interests of Afghanistan, something that could guarantee and assure us peace and security in Afghanistan, and something that provides for a centrally strong and united Afghanistan. And an agreement in which Afghanistan can gain further strength and can walk towards prosperity and stability.

    Mr Prime Minister and I also talked about our relations with Pakistan. We exchanged our views very, very clearly that it’s important for both of us to have good relations and friendly relations with Pakistan, and not that Pakistan makes efforts for strategic depth against – in Afghanistan, because neither Afghanistan soil would be used against Pakistan, nor Pakistan’s soil should be used for activities against Afghanistan. We are seeking strong and friendly relations between the two countries, something based on mutual respect to interests, to mutual interests, so we also talked about all the aspects of the peace process, and that we need to co-operate with each other in moving forward.

    And His Excellency the Prime Minister reaffirmed all the commitments he has previously made to Afghanistan, and also talked about the best wishes and the good wishes to Afghanistan, and I thank him again for the renewed expression of his commitment, and I thank you for all the efforts you’ve made to Afghanistan. And this time too his visit was aimed on how UK can help in, helping the peace process and how they could work with Pakistan and Afghanistan on – in expediting the peace process, and so that we could all be hopeful of ourselves, thank you.

    Prime Minister

    Thank you very much Mr President, and I’m delighted to be back here with you in Kabul. This is a city where Britain and Afghanistan have so much vital work going on. We had very useful talks today, and we share a common goal: a secure, stable and democratic Afghanistan. A country that is no longer a haven for terrorists, that no longer harbours threats to either of our national securities, a country where Afghans themselves are in control and building the peaceful and prosperous future that they deserve.

    We’ve discussed three key issues: our progress towards that shared vision; the challenges ahead; and the role that the United Kingdom will continue to play as a strong friend of Afghanistan after our combat troops have left. Let me say a few words on each.

    First on the progress we have made. This morning I was in Helmand Province, where Afghan troops are now the lead force responsible for security in that province, and for taking on the insurgents. This is the case right across the country – in each and every province and city, Afghan soldiers and Afghan police are assuming responsibility for keeping Afghanistan’s 27 million citizens safe. This is a remarkable transformation. When I first came to Helmand in 2006, there were almost no Afghan forces at all. Today, there are over 340,000. These are capable, determined troops, and we’re on track for them to take over full responsibility at the end of next year.

    But progress is not just limited to the battlefield. In Helmand, 130,000 children are now in school, including 30,000 girls, when under the Taliban there were none. 80% of the population can now get healthcare within 10 kilometres of their home, and, crucially, support for the Taliban has plummeted, from over 20% two years ago to just 5% today.

    And this progress is not just limited to daily life. The political process is moving forward too. Preparations are underway for next year’s presidential elections, which will mark the first peaceful constitutional handover of power in living memory, and it will be a vital part, sir, of your legacy. Afghans are already registering to vote; over 50,000 new voters have already registered, including over 10,000 woman.

    And I believe that the Taliban, watching all this progress, are beginning to realise that they are not going to secure a role in Afghanistan’s future through terror and violence, but by giving up their arms and engaging in a political process. But let me make absolutely clear, this peace process is for Afghanistan to determine; it must be Afghan owned, it must be Afghan led, there is no other agenda that Britain has, that America has, that any country in the West has – no other agenda, other than your stability, your security, and your prosperity. That is why we wish this peace process well, but it must be your peace process and not anybody else’s.

    Now, of course there will be challenges ahead, and there is a lot still to be achieved. We discussed the need for a peaceful, credible election next year, in which Afghans across the country can vote freely, and Mr President, I welcome your commitment to a democratic succession after your second term. The forthcoming elections present an opportunity for Afghanistan to demonstrate its democratic progress, both to its own citizens and to the world. Britain stands ready to assist the Afghan government and the Independent Electoral Commission to achieve this. We are providing financial support for the process, including £4.5 million specifically targeted to increase women’s participation.

    We’ll also do all we can to support an Afghan led peace process. This will not be easy. It will take courage and conviction on both sides. There will be setbacks. But there is, I believe, a window of opportunity, and I’m going to urge all of those who renounce violence, who respect the constitution, who want to have a voice in the future prosperity of this country, to seize that opportunity.

    Finally, the President and I discussed our shared commitment to a strong partnership between our two countries beyond 2014. While our combat troops will return home, we have already committed to support and sustain the Afghan security forces with financial support long after 2014. The Afghan National Army Officer Academy, which you specifically asked Britain to take the lead in, where we will help to train the Afghan army officers of the future. It will take its first students this Autumn.

    And we will continue to support the vital building blocks for growth: the rule of law, the absence of corruption, the presence of property rights and strong institutions. We will maintain our development assistance, and co-chair a ministerial conference next year, to agree the international community’s future support for Afghanistan.

    Finally, here in Afghanistan on Armed Forces Day, I want to pay particular tribute to the 444 British men and women who have died serving our country here in Afghanistan. I think of their family and friends, of all who’ve been injured, whose lives have been irrevocably changed by the role they have played here. We have paid a high price, but since British troops arrived here over a decade ago, we have dramatically reduced the terror threat emanating from this whole region. We came here to make Afghanistan safer, to make Britain safer, and together, we are achieving that. Thank you.

    Hamid Karzai

    Welcome, Mr Prime Minister. Now Prime Minister, would you like to have the first question?

    Question

    If you wouldn’t mind speaking in English, sir.

    Hamid Karzai

    Please, do.

    Question

    We would be grateful. Given the recent attack by the Taliban on your own presidential compound, how realistic is it that you will be sitting down with the Taliban any time soon?

    Hamid Karzai

    Ma’am, the attack that was organised near the presidential palace will not deter us from seeking peace. We have had them killing the Afghan people, but we still ask for peace. This was peanuts, comparatively speaking, quite an irrelevant attack. We’re more concerned when they attack the Afghan civilians; we are more concerned when they attack Afghan schools and children. I wish they would spend all their time attacking the presidential palace and leave the rest of the country alone.

    Prime Minister

    Let me make the point that the Afghan security forces dealt with this attack without any military assistance from others, and they dealt with it very effectively and very swiftly.

    Hamid Karzai

    And very promptly. So I wish they would concentrate all their energies on attacking the Presidential palace and leave the rest of the country alone, leave all children and women and schools alone, not kill them. Even then, we want to talk peace because that’s what we are seeking, because that’s what the country needs, that’s what also the Taliban need. I would ask them once again to free themselves from foreign influence, from the grips of foreign intelligence agencies, and to return to their own country in dignity and honour and work for their own people.

    Question

    Thank you very much Mr President, from [Inaudible]. First, I welcome Prime Minister Cameron to Afghanistan and then, very briefly, what do you think, Mr Prime Minister, about the role of Britain in convincing Pakistan as your traditional friend to help sincerely in ensuring a real peace process for the interest of Afghanistan and of Pakistan?

    And my other question is to President Karzai. There are countries like Britain, UK and Pakistan involved in the peace process in – of Afghanistan. There are – it’s said that there are efforts of these countries that a federal system of governance be introduced in Afghanistan.

    And the other question is about the Taliban’s office in Quetta. Following that, the government of Afghanistan suspended the talks on the bilateral security agreement with the United States. And, a few days ago, you also had a video conference call with President Obama and you talked about – was there any contact on resumption of such talks on the bilateral security agreement, and what agreements have you reached?

    And the third point is that the Pakistani Taliban announced that they welcome the office of the Taliban in Quetta, and they are all led by one single group of the Afghanistan Taliban – Mullah Omar is their overall leader – and say that they will take their commands from Mullah Omar of Afghanistan. What do you think of all this? Thank you.

    Prime Minister

    Well, perhaps I can answer my part of the question first, which is: what is the role of Britain in terms of our relations with Pakistan? We have a good relationship with Pakistan; it’s a long-standing relationship. And we have a very clear view, which is that it is in Pakistan’s short, medium, and long-term interests to have a secure, stable and prosperous Afghanistan, with which they have a good and strong relationship. That is the sum total of what we say to Pakistan about Afghanistan.

    That is why I helped to put together the trilateral talks process between Britain, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I believe that process has made some assistance in the development of good relations, but we need to keep on. We need to keep on this journey. But I think it is absolutely clear that it is in the long-term interest, short-term interest, medium-term interest of Afghanistan to have a good relationship with Pakistan, and Pakistan to have a good relationship with Afghanistan.

    And I pay tribute to the President for his longstanding leadership and vision on this issue. And I know that he will keep up those efforts. There are always difficulties; there are always blocks in the road, but I know that the President sees past them and knows that this long-term relationship is in both countries’ strong interest.

    Hamid Karzai

    [Inaudible] establishing the so-called federally administered system in Afghanistan, or leading Afghanistan towards such a system, or – or the rumours that we’ve heard and we’ve also seen efforts being made by some outsiders, by some foreign countries. So such efforts into leading the country into a federally kind of a system is not welcome in Afghanistan. We’ve seen such efforts have always failed in the country. So – but recently we’ve seen that efforts are being made to promote such desires for an establishment of such systems through the Taliban.

    So this is – this is an issue that we have spoken about with other countries. Today we also spoke about this with the Prime Minister today on the lunch, and he assured us that not such a thing exists on, of course, their agenda. We too have also heard such things from Pakistan that efforts are being made to that effort. And I don’t know what interests Pakistan is seeking in such a situation. So we believe that would be in the damage of Pakistan; it would be in the loss of Pakistan, not in the interest.

    And the other point you raised about the Pakistani Taliban’s movement, who announced that they fall under the Afghanistan’s branch of the Taliban and that they would accept the Afghanistan Taliban leader as their own leader, so they’ve like separated themselves from Pakistan. So they too can then reach an approach Tal – Quetta’s office of the Taliban too, and then they could – they could sit together in that, and then the government of Afghan would sit with them and talk.

    So we’ve heard of such efforts. We’ve also seen some signals, but such efforts will not yield any results, will be of no avail, so we – and the countries that we – that we know are involved, we are in very clear contact and in relationship with them and we will act based on the Afghanistan’s interest and the unity. So we’ve seen such efforts even very long back, when such efforts came ahead. Even the Taliban themselves then contacted us and said that they were against it.

    So the – the negotiation on the bilateral security agreement is still suspended. I – as you pointed out, I had a video conference – contact with President Obama where he hoped that the negotiations would resume on the bilateral security agreement between Afghanistan and the US, and that if we could reach an agreement by October this year, but I noted and reminded that Afghanistan continues to hold its unchangeable conditions and principles that seeks Afghanistan’s interest, and Afghanistan’s centrality and central government. And Afghanistan’s unity lies in the heart of such conditions.

    So if these conditions and if these principles are met, we definitely – the nation of Afghanistan will definitely be ready to agree or to accept the bilateral security agreement with the US. Anyway, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to decide so the loya jirga, the grand council, will decide on how to move ahead with a bilateral security agreement, and then they will advise their government on that. So they will make the final decision. Thank you.

    Question

    Mr President, if I could just pick you up on the concerns you raised about efforts to create a federal system. Is it for you a red line that the constitution should not be changed, and what do you say to people who say that the constitution vests too much power in the presidency and if you are having a process of reconciliation you need to look at that?

    And Prime Minister, if I could ask you, I believe this is your first visit to Afghanistan since the sort of formal opening of dialogue with the – with the Taliban. What do you say to families of British soldiers, the 444 British soldiers, who may feel that once again a British government has held talks in secret with an organisation that it asks its troops to put their lives on the line to fight? And once again, just with the IRA, you’re now having talks in the open with that organisation whilst your troops, British troops, are still on the line. Thank you.

    Hamid Karzai

    The right question.

    Prime Minister

    Shall I go first?

    Hamid Karzai

    Please, sir.

    Prime Minister

    Thank you. Well, what I would say to everyone in the United Kingdom, and perhaps particularly to British forces and British forces’ families, is that we should be very proud of the work that British armed service personnel have done here in Afghanistan. We came here in 2001 with a very clear purpose, and that was to stop this country being used as a base for terrorist attacks against Britain.

    And we have been successful in that task. The Afghan government, with our assistance, has managed to deliver security and stability across much more of this country than was ever possible in the past, and it is no longer a haven for terrorist plotting and planning. And yes, of course we now believe alongside our security approach, which is about training up the Afghan army and police force, we believe yes, there should be a political process as well, but a political process that will only succeed if those involved in terms of the Taliban put down their arms and stop fighting.

    Now, the encouraging thing about the process so far is the Taliban statement that they made was that they didn’t want Afghanistan anymore to be a haven for terror. They didn’t want it to be a country that caused pain to other countries in the region or in the world. So I think people would expect the Afghan government and its allies and friends to have that sort of political process.

    But I think above all, we should be proud and grateful for what our armed service personnel have done here. We should be very clear that any peace process has to be Afghan-owned and Afghan-led. And let me just make absolutely clear beyond any doubt about the timetable for British troops leaving Afghanistan. I set this out in 2010, and it has not changed: there will be no British combat troops after the end of 2014. British troops are coming home. That is happening right now. Until recently, we were in 130 different patrol bases; we’re now in just over ten. By the end of the year, that will be something like four bases.

    And let me also be clear that after 2014, we have said that our contribution will be the officer training academy that President Karzai asked us to establish. We have not made any other commitments, and nor have I been asked to make other commitments. Now, of course, other NATO countries may choose to do more things to help assist the Afghan forces; not in a combat role, but to assist the Afghan forces post-2014. But from everything I’ve heard today, the Afghan forces are doing a good job, they are highly capable, highly motivated, and they are capable of delivering security for this country.

    Hamid Karzai

    You asked about federal system in Afghanistan. Federalism is run quite successfully in some countries. You have it in the United States, you have it in India, you have it in Germany and – in a more liberal way – in Switzerland. The Afghan experience is different. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and after the years of interference from abroad and the internal incoherence in Afghanistan, it was exactly the nature of a fragmented system in Afghanistan that caused so much bloodshed and misery to the Afghan people. Therefore, the Afghan people are looking forward to a strong unitary form of government that would deliver them to services, that would provide them the goods for a better life.

    Any system that is imposed on us or effort is made to be imposed on us from abroad – federalism or any other structure – the Afghan people would reject. Especially an effort for federalism through delivering a province or two to the Taliban will be seen by the Afghan people as an invasion of Afghanistan and as an effort from outside to weaken and splinter this country. Therefore, there will be a strong opposition to that. Therefore, there was the massive, strong reaction to the manner in which the Taliban office in Doha was inaugurated.

    So our message is clear. The constitution is the work of the Afghan people; they are empowered to bring any changes in the constitution that they want. The Taliban, once they’ve joined the peace process, once they’ve begun to talk to their Afghan brothers and sisters, if they have any demands, they should put them forward, and then there is a mechanism provided in our constitution for amendments in the constitution through the Afghan loya jirga, and the Afghan loya jirga can look at all those questions as the right given by the Afghan people to it. The power to the President of Afghanistan? The constitution, well, it’s a presidential system. Therefore, the President has powers.

    Any more questions, Mr Prime Minister? One more?

    Prime Minister

    It’s for you to decide.

    Hamid Karzai

    Well, Mr Prime Minister, I will decide on your instructions. So…

    Question

    I would ask my question in English. What specific actions should be taken in order for negotiations to begin? What does Taliban want? What does US want? And what does the Afghan government want? And also, what does the US, Taliban and Qatar government want the Afghan government to do? Thank you.

    Hamid Karzai

    Well, sir, who is this question asked for, Prime Minister or myself? Alright. Well, we know what we want, the Afghan people, from the peace talks. We want peace and stability in Afghanistan, we want the return of the Taliban back to their country. We want them to be part of this society and this policy and to work for their own country. That’s our desire, and we hope the peace talks will begin as soon as possible.

    As to what the Taliban want, we will hear it from them once the – once the peace talks start. Our desire is for a unified and strong, peaceful Afghanistan. Thank you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Mr Prime Minister?

    Prime Minister

    It was very good to see you again. I hope to see you again soon. Keep in touch? [Inaudible] as soon as possible.

    Hamid Karzai

    It did, a lot. And more of that to come from the Americans.

  • Michael Kane – 2014 Speech after Winning Wythenshawe and Sale East By-Election

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Kane after winning the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election on 13th February 2014.

    Tonight the people of Wythenshawe and Sale East have sent a very clear message – they want a government will to stand up for us all – a One Nation Labour government.

    It’s a result which emphatically demonstrates that people here know the NHS is not safe in David Cameron’s hands, and that we’ve had enough of his utterly out of touch government.

    But tonight we are thinking of those across the country affected by storms, by flooding and by the dreadful weather which we also experienced in Manchester on Wednesday.

    I will be an MP speaking out on the issues that matter to you:

    Fighting for a fair deal for Wythenshawe A&E.

    Exposing the cost-of-living crisis felt by families and pensioners across our area and beyond.

    And on the unfair and disproportionate cuts to local services – Wythenshawe and Sale has said tonight: enough is enough.

    This was the by-election nobody wanted.

    My dear friend Paul Goggins achieved so much for the people of Wythenshawe and Sale East, and their love and respect for him will be one of my abiding memories of the campaign.

    Paul’s legacy is matched by the legacy of my mentor and my inspiration Alf Morris, who championed the rights of the chronically sick and disabled.

    To be returned as MP for the area both Alf and Paul served so well, the constituency in which I’ve lived all my life, is a humbling moment for me.

    My message to you tonight, whether you voted for me, for one of my opponents, or you didn’t vote at all, is that I will represent everyone in this constituency and I will be your voice in Westminster.

    Almost 200 years ago Benjamin Disraeli stood on a spot across the road from here and spoke of One Nation – and he said “What Manchester does today, the world does tomorrow”.

    Well, Manchester has rejected David Cameron today…and the rest of Britain will tomorrow.

    Today’s Tories have abandoned Disraeli’s principles.

    It’s the same old Tory attitude of “them and us” , and people here are sick of their constant attempts to divide our communities.

    But as Ed Miliband told Wythenshawe when he came here during the campaign: we are a party for everybody – uniting communities, building on the best of Britain … not pandering to the worst.

    That’s what One Nation Labour is all about.

    I want to thank the returning officer, Sir Howard Bernstein, the staff and the police who have all worked hard at the count tonight.

    And thank you to my opponents for what has been predominantly a robust but fair contest … I wish them a safe journey home.

    I’d like to thank my agent and all those who have worked so hard on my campaign, so often battling the elements…

    And I want to pay special tribute to my wife Sandra who has been at my side all the way and without whom I wouldn’t be here tonight.

    But most of all I’d like to thank the people of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

    They have rejected the failed policies of the out-of-touch Tories…

    They have rejected the isolationism and scaremongering of UKIP.

    Labour is proud of Wythenshawe and Sale, and this is the place I am proud to call my home.

    Today the people have said loud and clear: Labour is on your side.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2003 Speech on George Bush

    jc-small

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jeremy Corbyn in November 2003.

    Tomorrow the streets of London will be filled with a cross-section of the entire community as we march from Malet Street to Trafalgar Square via Kingsway, Waterloo and culminating in a march along Whitehall. This itself is a product of weeks of negotiation with the Metropolitan Police, to try and protect the right of free speech and assembly in our capital city. Having been a party to all these talks I have always had the feeling that there were huge pressures being placed on the Police to try and prevent any access to London by anybody whilst Bush was visiting.

    Bush’s visit, the first state visit by a US President (as opposed to the lower status ‘Head of Government’ visits by Carter, Regan, Bush Snr and Clinton) is really bizarre for any observers of this scene. Refused an open procession in the State Landau with the Queen, Londoners will at least see a horse and carriage, with appropriate cycling outriders when the Stop the War Coalition put on this event later this morning.

    All visiting heads of state or Government visit the Palace of Westminster and make an address to an assembly of both Houses, and some even answer questions. President Mandela came twice and happily answered questions on one visit for over an hour; he led no one into war, showed the courage of the South African people to oppose, and defeat the vile apartheid system. His State visit was the most popular ever. Bush Jnr on the other hand has no history of ever standing up for anything, unless avoiding being drafted into a war which he claimed to support counts as principle.

    Since he is the centre of attention this week, and those of us who oppose his visit are being accused of “crude anti Americanism”, it is worth looking at his record.

    On Sunday evening I was privileged to meet Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic and introduce him to the audience at the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square, and then watched the film with him. The film is really a journey of discovery of a young man growing up in a patriotic American household in the sixties. Convinced of his country’s rightness and opposition to the communist menace he joins the marines, and in his fervour, does two tours of duty. Almost killed and paralysed in 1968, he comes home to indifference and hostility and in time, becomes opposed to the brutality of the Vietnam War.

    Ever since that time Ron has devoted his life to opposing the military policies of the United States. On Monday morning he led a delegation to Downing Street to ask that Bush’s visit be cancelled.

    Tomorrow the march will be led by a group of United States citizens who are opposed to the war. Far from being anti-American, the peace movement has united the ordinary people on both sides of the Atlantic, in the cause of peace.

    George Bush, for the red carpet and £4 million worth of security and hospitality being spent, is the only US President to be elected by the Supreme Court, and as a result of the greatest ever expenditure, by Corporate America, on his campaign. Since then he has repaid with interest: tax cuts, welfare cuts, huge arms budgets, oil drilling and now contracts to rebuild Iraq to the same companies who provided the weapons to destroy it.

    Globally, his administration has opposed the Kyoto protocol, supported cruel World Trade Organisation conditions and methods, and continued dumping surplus US food on the poorest countries – destroying much sustainable agriculture.

    Post September 11th the US never took stock and looked at the world; war in Afghanistan followed; the Axis of Evil speech; and then the build up to Iraq. Afghanistan is presented as a victory, yet 8000 died and opium production is soaring, so it is hardly complete.

    In Iraq, the military ‘victory’ of May, and the premature celebrations have been brought to a halt, as the casualties mount, and the effects of cluster bombs and Depleted Uranium are felt by thousands of wholly innocent Iraqis and their children.

    Bush’s cabinet contains those who met and financed the Saddam Hussein section of the Ba’ath Party and they will be well aware of the problems that the unilateral and illegal war has created. Nobody who opposes the war ever supported the regime, but most people want to see a peaceful Iraq with an accountable Government.

    In his determination to go to war in Iraq, Bush flouted the UN, and now wants the world body to pick up the pieces, without any legal authority.

    Whilst the war in Iraq and Afghanistan gain all the publicity, we should not forget the on-going gruesome and grim conflict in Colombia, where the pro US Government is rapidly losing support as the US maintains its military presence on the pretence of being part of an anti drugs crusade.

    Whilst many issues unite the peace and anti-war movements in this country, the Government’s support for the Bush-inspired National Missile Defence system has mobilised many members and supporters of CND; we opposed the US inspired cruise missiles in the 1980’s; NMD is equally as dangerous to world peace.

    Amidst all the opposition to Bush we should reflect on one positive aspect: the world, as John Pilger reminds us, is divided into one superpower and world opinion. The unwanted visit of George Bush has helped to create a huge Trans Atlantic movement for peace and justice. Merely being allowed to hold the march tomorrow shows the strength of public opinion and the power of peaceful protest.

  • David Jones – 2014 Speech on Growth in Wales

    davidjones

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Jones, the Secretary of State for Wales, in Cardiff on 30th June 2014.

    It is generally recognised that there nothing more important for our nation’s long-term economic prosperity than investment in infrastructure.

    It is what gets people to work, facilitates communication and helps British businesses to compete in what is an increasingly globalised economy.

    I am pleased, therefore, to be here today to speak to you about what we in government are doing to ensure that Britain gets the infrastructure it needs to compete effectively in the global race.

    Our inheritance

    It is now just over 4 years since the coalition government came to power.

    Our inheritance here in Wales was an infrastructure that had been severely neglected, was in dire need of upgrade, and was inadequate to cope with modern demands.

    There was little plan for investment, not even on the main road route into South Wales – the M4 – despite general recognition that its improvement was desperately needed.

    Energy infrastructure was coming to the end of its operating life without any commitment on the investment required to replace it.

    Indeed, it is fair to say that for almost a decade under the last administration, Britain was without any coherent energy policy.

    Wales’s railway infrastructure was neglected, too.

    At the end of 13 years of the last government, Wales remained the only part of Europe, other than Albania, without a single centimetre of electrified railway track.

    And Wales also lagged well behind the rest of the UK in broadband provision. It was notorious for “not spots”.

    Mobile telephone coverage in large parts of Wales was, frankly, appalling.

    Not only did the last government fail to “fix the roof while the sun was shining”, it failed to fix the infrastructure, too.

    Wales was being expected to compete in a 21st century global economy when it was struggling with an obsolete, 20th century infrastructure network – it was an impossible ask. Wales – and Welsh businesses – deserve better.

    Long-term economic plan

    We know that investment in infrastructure is one of the driving factors of economic growth.

    And when we came to power we didn’t just inherit an infrastructure that was unfit for purpose; we inherited an economy that had suffered the worst economic downturn since the 1930s and a deficit that was the largest in peacetime history.

    We had to get the deficit down and to do so required difficult, and sometimes unpopular, decisions.

    But because of the difficult spending decisions we have taken, we have been able to prioritise public investment where it is needed most and to create the right conditions for private investment in infrastructure.

    Ensuring the United Kingdom has first class infrastructure is a crucial part of our long-term economic plan: supporting businesses, helping them create jobs, and offering the prospect of a brighter future for the British people.

    And – whisper it – our plan is working!

    Britain is now the fastest growing major economy in the West. There are more people going out to work than ever before, and confidence is returning.

    But, as any business man or woman here will recognise, getting banks to lend has sometimes proved problematic.

    So we have also used the strength of the national balance sheet to provide £40 billion of UK Guarantees to get infrastructure projects going, which otherwise would have stalled because of financial difficulties.

    So in this year alone, new projects worth an estimated £36 billion are due to start across the United Kingdom, helping creating thousands of jobs, securing future growth and delivering the world class infrastructure that the country – Wales included – deserves.

    Private sector

    Key to infrastructure investment is a confident private sector. And the private sector is indeed investing.

    Some 200 projects across the UK are due to be completed this year – including the Gwynt y Môr offshore wind farm, which is currently the largest in construction anywhere in Europe.

    But this has only been possible because we took the difficult decisions required.

    We know that the old model of the public sector funding our entire infrastructure network is not sustainable, nor is it desirable.

    We understand that unlocking and stimulating private sector investment is crucial.

    Because it is the private sector that will provide the majority of UK infrastructure investment between now and the end of the decade.

    Broadband

    But the government does have a significant enabling role.

    We have, for example, invested significantly in better broadband.

    We know that this investment will pay dividends; it is estimated that every £1 government invests delivers benefits of around £20 to the economy.

    In Wales, we have increased our support for broadband to almost £70 million to allow the Superfast Cymru programme to go even further.

    This is direct United Kingdom government funding for a programme managed by the Welsh Government under the guidance of Broadband Delivery UK – an excellent example of Wales’s two governments working positively together.

    But there is still more we need to do.

    Even with significant investment in the pipeline, there will still be parts of Wales in 2016 that will not be benefiting from high speed broadband.

    That is why earlier this year we announced that we are providing an additional £10 million for those areas which are the most “hard to reach.”

    This funding will allow market testing of solutions proffered by suppliers for the areas not covered by the superfast broadband rollout.

    Businesses in our super-connected cities of Cardiff and Newport can also now apply for vouchers to improve their broadband connectivity, which is vital for a modern business to compete and grow.

    And it’s not just in fixed broadband connection that we have plans to improve Wales’s digital connectivity.

    Our £150 million mobile infrastructure project will see masts going up across the country, significantly extending coverage across Wales.

    Transport

    And let us consider the issue of transport.

    Just as Wales needs to be better connected through our digital infrastructure, we need a transport network fit for a modern economy to prosper.

    As I mentioned earlier, the congestion along the M4 at Newport is one of the most pressing road transport issues for the whole of the UK, let alone Wales.

    And in the 15 years that have passed since devolution, nothing has been done to ease that congestion.

    But upgrading that important stretch of highway is crucially important.

    Indeed, the director of CBI Wales said recently that if the Welsh Government does not build a Newport relief road Wales could “miss out on millions of future investments and hundreds of new jobs.”

    The Prime Minister put it even more starkly: he called the M4 at Newport “a foot on the windpipe” of the South Wales economy.

    So in November of last year, we gave the Welsh Government the borrowing powers it needs to raise the necessary finance for this project.

    We now expect to see firm progress.

    And through the Wales Bill – currently passing through Parliament – we are providing the Welsh Government with the opportunity to acquire extended borrowing powers to enable it to upgrade Wales’s road infrastructure yet further.

    We want them to take those powers, and trigger the referendum need to do so as quickly as possible.

    And let us consider Wales’s railways. As a government, we are serious about giving Wales a railway that is fit for the 21st century.

    Our plans for rail are the most ambitious since Brunel was transforming Victorian Britain.

    We are investing £9 billion over the next five years to upgrade railway networks across England and Wales.

    As part of our investment, we are committed to electrifying key rail routes including the Great Western main line.

    But let me say this quite clearly.

    It is a matter of great concern to me that, while we remain absolutely committed to perform our part of the bargain we struck with the Welsh Government in 2012 to electrify the main line through to Swansea, the Welsh Government remain reluctant to fulfil their side of the deal, and fund the electrification of the Valley lines.

    I am seriously concerned that their stance is putting this transformational project at risk.

    We stand ready to discharge our part of the bargain.

    We want to help them to get this scheme underway and will continue to work with them to try to make this happen.

    HS2

    And let us consider HS2.

    As we improve our rail services within Wales, we must not close our eyes to projects across the border in England – indeed, we must seek and exploit every opportunity to connect Wales better.

    The economy of Wales is inextricably linked to that of England and our transport systems need to reflect this.

    Sir David Higgins highlighted in his report the need to be alert to opportunities to connect services into HS2.

    With the planned HS2 hub station at Crewe only 20 miles from Wales, we must be looking at how investment in Wales can link into the new network.

    The development of HS2 is a huge opportunity for Wales and I believe that we must welcome it enthusiastically.

    Energy

    Nowhere is the close integration of networks more evident than in the case of energy infrastructure.

    Wales has always been central to the UK’s energy security, and Wales’s potential in the sector is enormous.

    We have the natural resources, the skills, the expertise and the enthusiasm to generate a significant proportion of the electricity Britain needs.

    The UK National Infrastructure Plan lists more than 15 Welsh energy projects already in the pipeline, from large scale offshore wind farms to micro generation; and there is the potential for more.

    We need to show Wales is open to diversity and innovation when it comes to growing the energy supply. Hitachi’s decision to build a new nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd highlights the attractiveness of Wales as a place in which to invest.

    Their investment will create thousands of jobs and provide massive supply chain opportunities for British companies.

    And last autumn, we announced that we are working with Hitachi to support this development with a sovereign backed guarantee through the UK Guarantees Scheme.

    Holistic approach

    While broadband, transport and energy are, in their own right, key areas of infrastructure, we need to be holistic in our approach to infrastructure planning.

    Let me illustrate this by a real life example.

    Following the announcement that Hitachi would be investing £20 billion into nuclear energy projects in the UK, I met members of their executive team on Anglesey to discuss their proposals for Wylfa.

    Bear in mind that this is the largest investment in Wales for generations.

    This project will rightly showcase Wales as a leading place for investment.

    During the meeting one of the executives, needed to make an urgent call but was unable to do so because there wasn’t a mobile signal!

    Remember that we were discussing £20 billion of investment – it was embarrassing, to put it at its mildest, that he was unable to complete such a basic function.

    So the moral is that infrastructure improvements don’t happen in silos.

    Providers and investors need to work closely together to deliver infrastructure collaboratively.

    We cannot have one sector investing in world leading technology if the supporting infrastructure is not up to scratch.

    Planning

    As we call on investors to be more collaborative in providing the infrastructure Wales needs, it is also essential that they should be able to invest quickly and with confidence.

    There is absolutely nothing more crucial to efficient infrastructure development – or, for that matter, to economic growth – than a benign, flexible and practically-focused planning regime.

    Because developers need be assured that Wales is a welcoming place in which they can invest with confidence.

    In England, planning reforms are underpinning our long-term economic plan by unblocking the system; and we are determined to do all we can to make sure that it improves continuously.

    We have, for example, radically simplified planning guidance.

    What used to consist of thousands of pages of often impenetrable jargon and otiose waffle has now been cut to around 50 pages of clearly written, plain English.

    Guidance that, remarkably, actually guides, rather than impedes.

    Our reformed system means we can deliver the infrastructure that people want and need, by working with, not against, investors.

    The hard fact is that, as a consequence of Eric Pickles’s reforms, the planning system across the border in England is now substantially more streamlined and accessible than that in Wales.

    That is not good for Wales, and will only work to its disadvantage.

    So, I urge the Welsh Government to look at what is happening in England and take action in their forthcoming Planning Bill, to implement similar, effective reforms to the planning system to enable the infrastructure Wales needs, to get going.

    Infrastructure report

    A year ago at this very conference I told you about a new Infrastructure Working Group I had set up.

    Its task was to identify Wales’s future infrastructure priorities and the challenges they face.

    I am delighted that today we are publishing our report, which sets out the infrastructure we need for a modern economy to build a more prosperous Wales.

    This report highlights the key themes I have outlined today.

    We need to remove the barriers to infrastructure investment in Wales, especially around planning.

    Investors need to unlock all existing sources of finance, including UK Guarantees.

    Infrastructure providers need to be holistic in infrastructure.

    Planning and Wales’s two governments need to work together in planning and delivering Wales’s infrastructure needs.

    Concluding remarks

    My message to you today is: after years of neglect and inaction by previous administrations on infrastructure – we have a plan.

    Our long-term economic plan is bringing stability and competition back to our economy and ensuring a brighter future for our nation.

    We are investing in infrastructure across the country, to create a more balanced, resilient economy.

    If we are to be ambitious for the economy in Wales, it is essential we are bold and clear in our infrastructure plans.

    I can not reiterate this strongly enough – infrastructure is an absolutely vital part of our long-term economic plan and will continue to play a central role in improving our long term economic security.

    Building a more prosperous Wales, fit to compete in the global race, demands world class infrastructure.

    We are determined to do all we can to deliver that for the people and businesses of Wales.