Pre-Round Maiden Speech Contest

[Barclay A.A. Stanley]

Players are invited to take part in the pre-round maiden speech contest.

Ok, what is a maiden speech? A maiden speech is a Member of Parliament's first ever speech in the House of Commons. Often, a big deal is made of these and backbenchers are given a special opportunity to deliver their maiden speech. So are you. Players may choose a parliamentary debate from which to launch their parliamentary career. Here are the rules:

• Your maiden speech should be, perhaps obviously, from a motion, legislative debate, or ministerial statement that took place in the early part of your first term.
• Speeches should be no greater than around 1,500 words.
• There is no penalty for not taking part, but the rewards for taking part are quite good.
• Submissions should be posted in this thread with the year of the speech and the subject of debate in bold at the top.

Other than that, everything goes. Bonus points are awarded for the usual in parliamentary debate: humour, incisive vitriol, and otherwise entertaining but poignant reading. The winner of the contest will earn 5 XP, runner-up will get 3 XP, and the third place speech will earn 1 XP. Everyone else will have won a fun and rewarded pre-round experience.

Speeches are due Thursday, December 17th by 11:59 BST. They will then be graded and the winner's list will be announced by that following week-end.

Have fun!

[Dame Evelyn Redgrave]

Dame Evelyn Redgrave – Maiden Speech

Education (Schools) Act 1997

Madame Speaker,

I rise today to make my maiden speech in this House and I would first like to begin by saying it is an absolute honour to represent the constituency of South West Hertfordshire.

I first moved into the constituency in 1982 in order to take up a teaching post at Rickmansworth School. For the past fifteen years, living in Rickmansworth and then Berkhamsted, I have seen the constituency go from strength to strength thanks to the efforts of the Conservative government and my predecessor, Richard Page.

I pay particular tribute to Richard for all his dedicated work over the last eighteen years and wish him well in his retirement. As a long standing resident in South West Hertfordshire and an active member of the community through my time as a local Headteacher, a parent and a charitable volunteer, it is my driving mission to continue bringing prosperity and a sense of community to the area. This mission will guide me in everything I do during my time in this House and I look forward to raising the issues relevant to my constituents at every opportunity.

However, whilst I am proud to be standing here making my maiden address as the Member for South West Hertfordshire, I find myself saddened that the subject on which I make my first address is one of critical failure by the Labour government opposite.

The primary purpose of the Education (Schools) Act that we debate today, as introduced by the Secretary of State, is to abolish the assisted places scheme in England and Wales.

Established by Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1980, just as I was beginning my time as a teacher, the assisted places scheme was set up to provide publicly funded places to independent schools for bright pupils whose families did not have the financial means to afford a place at such schools.

In the seventeen years hence, the numbers speak for themselves. Over 80,000 pupils have had the chance to benefit from state funded places in private schools. At present, some 34,000 pupils and 355 schools are currently within the scheme. Over 42% of pupils who gained places come from families with annual incomes below £10,000 and pass rates at GCSE are better for assisted pupils than non-assisted in the same schools.

The benefits of assisted places are not just for a pupil’s time in school but rather for their whole life. Research has proven that those who had assisted places overwhelmingly went on to gain good A-Levels and secure employment in professional occupations with healthy incomes. The scheme not only improved their education but their life chances as well, enabling them to overcome any in-built disadvantages from their social background and build skills such as self-discipline and self-reliance.

If the Prime Minister and Secretary of State therefore want to abolish such a successful scheme, there surely must be a good reason? Unsurprisingly with this government, there is not.

In arguing for the abolition of assisted places, the Secretary of State says it is vital because his government wants to shift resources to reducing infant class sizes. He makes out that this is an urgent action because of financial constraints and that as such, we should be removing the subsidy for poorer pupils to attend independent schools.

To this, I would simply ask the Secretary of State if he has recently spoken to his ministerial colleagues, specifically the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister without Portfolio?

Perhaps he can later tell the House if he has or not… because I simply find it interesting that this Labour government can suddenly ring fence around £580 million to greatly expand the scope and size of the Millennium Dome, in an initiative personally championed by the Prime Minister to expand upon the work of the last government… and yet, at the same time, they can’t find the money to keep assisted places and also lower class sizes for infants?

When introducing the legislation back in 1980, the Conservative government spoke of a ladder of opportunity for low and middle-income families to attend independent schools.

In a speech last year at Ruskin College, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, stated that British education provided “excellence for a few instead of the majority.” He spoke of a need to make a “concerted attempt to raise standards for the majority in the core subjects while continuing to stretch the best to achieve all they can.”

Such words ring hollow when this policy, the first major debut on education by the new government, proposes to take away the ladder of opportunity and remove the chance for pupils to stretch themselves and achieve the best they can.

Again, the Prime Minister, barely a year ago in a speech to his party faithful, stated that his three main priorities for government were “Education, education, education.”

With this bill, I’d say that the Prime Minister’s three main priorities can actually be defined as “Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.”

A man who clearly cares more about expanding a dome in the heart of London than he does about expanding opportunity all over the country.

A man who having benefited from independent schooling himself now seeks to pull the ladder up for anyone bright and willing who also wants to benefit from such schooling.

A man who attacked the last government for lacking opportunities and yet now, in his first major education bill, proposes to take away the greatest provider of opportunity for bright pupils.

If the Prime Minister has any true desire to genuinely expand opportunity, he will think again and consider that expanding, rather than abolishing, assisted places is a far better route to social mobility for disadvantaged pupils.

As I come to a close, I’d like to highlight a few reflections from my teaching career and from my conversations with constituents.

I taught in state schools for my entire career. However, I know from pupils who benefited from this scheme, from colleagues who’ve worked within participant schools and from parents who have seen their children flourish in my constituency that this scheme changes lives for the better.

In education, we must focus on improving all aspects of schooling, ranging from the state sector through to the independent schools and to the adult education centres. I will speak just as forthrightly about improving state or adult education as I have here about expanding the opportunity for bright pupils to attend independent schools.

One of the schools in the neighbouring constituency of mine is named after President Kennedy and it is here I am reminded of his famous quote.

“All of us do not have equal talent but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talent.”

In removing assisted places, this Labour government is removing the equal opportunity for our pupils to develop their talent.

[Sir Dylan Macmillan]

Dylan Macmillan - Maiden Speech

John Major's Ministerial Statement on the Earth Summit 1992

Madame Speaker,

I rise today to make my maiden speech before this most illustrious House as the new Member of Parliament for North Bedfordshire, a constituency that I have lived in for my entire adult life, having moved to the quiet village of Bromham in 1973. Madame Speaker I would like to pay homage to the work of my predecessor the Hon Trevor Skeet. Although my candidacy at the last election was fraught with difficulties regarding Trevor's removal from the nomination I am glad that I have his support and blessing to speak for the people of North Bedfordshire just as strongly as he did as MP for the Constituency and for Bedford before it. Trevor and I do not agree on everything, notably European issues, but he served the constituency dutifully and it is an honour to continue the work that he has undertaken to help the people of this county and this nation.

I would like to humbly thank my constituents as well Madame Speaker. I am deeply honoured to have received nearly 30,000 votes from a constituency as diverse as North Bedfordshire. From the suburban beauty of De Parys to the respectable township of Brickhill Ward, all the way to the rural areas of Oakley and Bromham the constituency is a microcosm of the United Kingdom as a whole. There are many areas of natural beauty which must be protected, there are many individuals on low pay who must be uplifted, and there is a vast aspirational middle class ready to work and climb that ladder to success and reward. As their MP it is my job to protect what needs to be protected, lift those who need to be uplifted, and provide space and support for those who aspire to be more than their current lot in life. I look forward to serving those needs in Parliament rather more publicly than I was able to as a Treasury Civil Servant.

Madame Speaker the matter before us today is a matter of international and eternal importance, put simply without a climate this planet would resemble something more akin to the Planet Mars than to the beautiful blue marble we have come to call home. I am a staunch environmentalist and believe that it is essential that we act now not only to prevent the coming catastrophe but also to present the United Kingdom as the centrepiece of a new, green, Industrial Revolution.

Madame Speaker I welcome the Prime Minister's Statement today as it signals his commitment, and our country's commitment, to cleaning up the environment, mending the hole in the ozone layer, and preventing the Second and Third Worlds from repeating the mistakes of the First. Madame Speaker it is critical that we do so for the continued viability of capitalism, and life, as we know them. It is for this reason that I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to additional funding both domestically and internationally to tackle the problems we face, only by acting together can we protect our common interests and prevent global catastrophe. I hope that my Right Honourable Friend the Chancellor will be able to present a clearer picture of precisely what this means for our nation's finances in his Autumn Statement, or failing that the next Budget.

Madame Speaker the doomsters and the any-sayers say the same thing every time. It's too expensive, it may not be needed, why should we act if others will not? I would like to address each of these falsehoods and loaded questions in turn and present an openly conservative case for their dismissal as folly. Madame Speaker when it comes to the future of our planet it can be argued by many, including myself, that there is no price too high to pay for life and the continued existence of the human race. I will park that idea if you permit me because I believe that there is something as important at stake here as well. The World stands at a crossroads, the United Kingdom stares at an opportunity, with the right investment, proper application of tax breaks and grants, the United Kingdom can stand as the gatekeeper to the Green New Deal, an industrial revolution powered not by miners' coal, Russian gas, or Arab oil, but by British wind, British weather, and British nuclear power. Energy independence is possible with the right investment, energy export is possible with the right tax cuts, this nation can become the World leader for the green economy. Madame Speaker this country imports up to, and occasionally over, 1000 barrels of oil a day, let's see that volume cut.

It is equally true that even if it is not needed there is no reason not to put down these investments now. Madame Speaker outside of this Chamber, outside of this Palace, out there in the real World there are over 3 million people unemployed, 3 million people who need a job and a wage to provide for their families. Even if we don't need to build a green industrial revolution the by-product of such a revolution is jobs, it's employment for the people who need it. Where there is opportunity there is prosperity and this is an opportunity that we cannot afford to pass up. Equally it is independence, independence from a requirement to rely on Russian gas piped through half of Europe, independence from Arab oil at the whim of despotic sultans and dictators, and independence from foreign reliance. The United Kingdom could become completely energy independent, we could export power to the mainland where currently we import, reducing our balance of payments deficit and bringing in incomes for British workers and businesses alike. Madame Speaker it is for this reason as well that we should not be afraid that nobody else is acting, that's just another gap in the market for the British. Of course I do not welcome inaction on climate matters but on economic matters there is an inherent advantage in going first and I urge this Chamber to recognise that fact.

Madame Speaker as I draw my comments to a close please allow me to once again congratulate my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister for his tireless diligence and eagle eye in pinpointing and opening this opportunity for our great nation. It is clear that where the United Kingdom leads the rest of the World is more than happy to follow so I urge him to ensure that the United Kingdom is bold in its exploitation of this opportunity. Our nation deserves the very best, be that in terms of energy or air quality. Bold and decisive action now can secure both for the new Century and Millennium to come and so I look forward to hearing more from the Prime Minister over the coming months and years regarding his endeavours in this area.

[Andy Edwards]

Andy Edwards - Maiden Speech

Gracious Speech from the Throne, 1992

Thank you, Madame Speaker, and the other honourable Members for granting me just enough of an opportunity to address the House for the first time. It is with honour and pleasure that I rise to deliver my maiden speech as the member for the constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston. While it is not the constituency in which I can claim to be born and raised like other honourable members may claim about their own constituencies, I’ve spent significant time in the communities that make up my constituency and caused perhaps my fair share of trouble or more. It’s as much home to me as the rest of the Wirral where I have spent my entire life. And were it not for decisions made in 1972 by Conservatives it would be a part of the Wirral. One of the many many errors that I’m sure we can discuss here in this chamber.

I know that one of the first duties of a new Member is to provide a maiden speech such as this and that in it there are two rules: to honour and speak highly of the constituency that voted for you and to speak well of the Member that came before. I quickly came to realise on my own that if I fail in either or both of those rules, that both my constituency and its former Member would quickly team up to ensure that I am not in this august chamber for long.

My constituency is a young one: formed in 1983, it has had just one Member until this most recent election. The former Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) represented the communities of my constituency over the course of nearly ten years and did, I believe, his very best to represent the needs of the constituency. I’m reminded somewhat of one of his early speeches, in response to the Speech from the Throne in 1984 when he highlighted how the Government’s proposals did little to respond to the needs of our now-shared constituency as it relates to environmental protection and to industrial policy. While these are issues that are still faced by the communities in my constituency, I can say without fear of contradiction that it is not due to any failing of the former Member. The former Member continued to stand for the needs of the industrial communities in my constituency throughout his time in office and it was only the callous disregard the Government seems to show for everything considered the North that prevented him from making any progress. I believe that the former Member represents a type of Conservative that we can at least hail for caring about local needs rather than adherence to a certain form of damaging orthodoxy that I know will be the source of significant debate over the course of this Parliament. I hope that he even finds his way back to this august chamber- though I would be happy to recommend another constituency away from mine if that’s something he would prefer.

I would be remiss if I did not also congratulate my predecessor on the recent publication of a new book, and I promise to this body now that when it is remaindered that I will pick up a copy and read it. I imagine that I would receive a lecture from the right honourable Member for Islwyn if I rushed out too quickly and provided too much praise, but I feel a promise to but a remaindered copy is one that I can safely make and keep.

Right, that is the second rule met. Be nice to everyone. For the first rule on hailing your constituency, though, I need no reminder.
As I have alluded to, the constituency is to be found at the southern end of the Wirral peninsula, sandwiched between the waters of the Dee and the Mersey. It would be officially part of the Wirral but for an oversight- intentional or otherwise- by the Conservatives in 1972. As such it is part of Cheshire, but still very much in the North.

My constituency may be relatively new, but the communities that make it up have a significant and long history. Neston can be found as a small agricultural community in the Domesday Book. Over time, the importance of the communities in my constituency only grew. Neston, Parkgate, and Burton were all at one point principal ports in the Irish trade until the silting up of the River Dee. Indeed Ellesmere Port was established as well to take advantage of river trade as part of the Ellesmere Canal project that would link the Mersey, Dee, and Severn Rivers. While the project was never completed, the industrial growth throughout Merseyside including the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal provided significant economic opportunities for the communities that now make up my constituency.

The constituency hosts some of the most important industry in the United Kingdom. The Stanlow Oil Refinery, the second-largest such facility in the United Kingdom, is located in Ellesmere Port, as is Vauxhaul’s passenger car factory. Neston and the villages of South Wirral are home to a number of industrial plants in materials as well as that of Marconi Underwater Systems which develops and makes the torpedoes that ensure a robust naval defense for our country.

I rise today to thank Her Majesty for the Gracious Speech and to raise issue on behalf of one of my constituents, my brother Richard. He currently lives with me in Ellesmere Port. Last year, he was released from prison, after serving a prison term following a pub brawl. Thanks in part to the policies of this Government, his life is more or less over. Unemployment in my constituency is high as it is- higher than the national rate given our reliance on industry for jobs- and almost 3 millions are out of work nationally. Employers are looking for reasons to turn my brother down and they’ve got one. Based on statistics on reoffending to date, the odds are merely 4 to 7 against his return to the custody of HM’s Prison Service within the next two years.

I am sure when my brother, his confidence boosted by drink when he brandished a bottle in response to an empty threat, wasn’t able to comprehend how that was going to affect him so permanently. No one was hurt, and I thank God for that. He served his time and we have been looking for opportunities to turn his life around. Not that I expect this Government to help provide them.

Indeed, this Government has seen fit to downgrade his status to that of a commodity. We’ve heard how just this last month, G4S opened HM Prison Wolds as the first privately-managed prison in Europe. This Gracious Speech has told us that we should expect more legislation in the field of law and order- and in privatisation as well. I am sure the result of this is more punishment for crimes, and more revenue for companies like G4S. I am sure this privately-managed prison will, in the eyes of this Government which is so focused on commodifying anything and discounting the rights and needs of people, be merely the first of many. People like my brother aren’t going to be seen as people, but rather numbers on the balance sheet for some mid-level manager for G4S. Rather than talking about the causes of crime and what we can do about it, we’ll talk about revenue sources for G4S and HM Prisons. And heaven forbid we talk about rehabilitation as it just ends up being a greater cost; that’s the last thing we want to do for our privatising prison systems.

Nothing in this Gracious Speech or the actions of this Government lead me to expect different.

What is needed for my constituent- and thousands upon thousands of more like him throughout the United Kingdom, is efforts to focus on job training and job placement. We need to promote access to education and mental health services to those who have committed crime just as much as we need to do it to those who are at risk of falling into crimes. What we do not need to do is turn them into profit-makers for corporations. That is the antithesis of the role of any government, and I’m saddened to see and hear that it is the very course this Government seeks to take through its continued efforts to privatise for the sake of profit, to turn human beings and individuals into “assets” for revenue generation. This Government needs to learn that people are not commodities or assets, and it’s a lesson that I’m glad my constituents chose to send me here to teach.

And if I am to fail at that, I suppose I end up reading my predecessor’s no doubt insightful and thrilling book, enjoying the kind wishes and cooperative spirits of the people of my district.

I thank this House for its time, and I thank the people of Ellesmere Port and Neston for putting their trust in me and ensuring I can be here to represent their interests.

[Brown]

Bernard Brown - Maiden Speech

Adjournment Debate, 1997

Madam Speaker,

It is a great honour for me to give my maiden speech in this adjournment debate. I am humbled to be the first Labour MP to be elected to represent Erewash in the constituency’s history, a fine decision by the voters and a trend which, I hope, will continue in successive elections.

I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to my predecessor, Angela Knight, who diligently represented the people of Erewash here in Parliament from 1992 until this year. Ms. Knight served the constituency and Her Majesty’s Treasury with dedication, vigour, and enthusiasm, and while we might not have agreed on every political point, her sense of duty to the people of Erewash is admirable and I hope to continue her work in fighting for the people of Erewash here in this Parliament.

New members of this House are frequently asked which constituency one represents. Upon the mention of “Erewash”, I think many Honourable Members of this House might wonder if they need to take a q-tip to their ears to remove excess wax, uncertain that they heard the name correctly. When asked to name some of the major towns in my constituency, I respond “Long Eaton and Ilson”, forgetting for a moment that I am not in my constituency and my East Midlands English has only brought greater confusion to the questioner rather than clarity until I quickly surrender and say “we aren’t far from Derby”, evoking a knowing nod and a look of disinterest, then adding, “it’s a very marginal constituency” to restore the interest of any questioner, except for those from Northern Ireland or Nationalist parties.

Like most of the East Midlands, we are proud of our unique and quirky history, and continue to enjoy bringing out our dialect to have a little friendly fun with anyone coming through our beautiful area--although I must confess that my grandmother always had a fondness for speaking in it frequently, yelling my way “Yer norrayin no tuffees!” I apologize in advance to Hansard for having to figure out how to write that one down. Indeed, even my hometown is known by three different names depending on who you ask. It could be 'Ill-ston”, “Ilk's-tun”, or perhaps most creatively with 3 syllables as “Il-kiss-tun”. In true British fashion, the pronunciation is a matter of some respectful debate, but there is at least agreement that the town was named for the 6th century Anglian Chieftain Elcha, whose town it was--hence the “tun”. We continue our tradition of quirky uniqueness, proudly hosting the American Adventure Theme Park, which I highly recommend that every member of this House visit at some point.

Regardless of how one wishes to pronounce my home town’s name, Erewash is indicative, in so many ways, of the great hardships that the working class of the United Kingdom are struggling with. We are a constituency that is neither very rich nor very poor, but where the decline in good jobs and fair wages have been exacerbated over the past decade. The Stanton Steel Works, where my father worked for many years, has been in continual decline as we face the struggles in the decline of British Steel and manufacturing. We have seen more and more of our fellow citizens struggle to make ends meet, and struggle to access the tools they need to not only survive, but thrive.

Having served previously as a social worker in the community and in the Derbyshire Constabulary, I have seen all too well not only in my own upbringing, but also throughout my community and, indeed, our Nation, the great swelling of numbers of people who constitute “the working poor”. These are families who work hard for a living, but struggle to make ends meet. There are a variety of reasons that we have come to this point, some internal, some external, but regardless it is vital that we as the people’s representatives look forward to fixing these problems and making it right. No family who works hard and contributes to their community should ever find themselves in inescapable poverty or have great uncertainty for their future wellbeing. This, I hope, is not a controversial or partisan statement, and is a goal that every member of this House ought to be able to stand behind no matter their party affiliation or constituency.

Addressing poverty should be rather a matter of difference for this House as the proper pronunciation of my hometown. It is right and proper that we have all manner of “dialects” in this house--metaphorical and otherwise--but at the end of the day we are all speaking English. We have a shared sense of community from our language, our culture, and our Britishness--and every person in this Chamber is here to represent their constituents to the best of their abilities.

My greatest hope for this Parliament is that we can all come together to address the growing levels of poverty and economic struggles in the United Kingdom which, more and more, are affecting working class families particularly hard. While we may disagree on how best to “pronounce the word”, let us make our best attempt to pronounce it and ensure that we address it rather than remaining be silent.

I am sure every member of this House understands their solemn and, dare I say, sacred duty to represent each and every one of their constituents--regardless of who they are--regardless of their wealth or lack thereof--and understands that we can not sit idly by while so many families in our great Kingdom suffer.

We must recognize that poverty is a great catalyst of much of society’s ills--from crime, to health concerns, to mental wellbeing, to the development and education of our children--the next generation of British citizens. We must make combating poverty a national priority so that no family contributing to their community ever has to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or how they will afford to heat their home this winter. While I have no misunderstanding of the difficulty in addressing this problem, it is a problem that we can address--and which we must address to ensure the welfare of the citizens of this Kingdom and to strengthen our own constituencies.

By addressing poverty, we will not only be doing what is right, but we will be providing much needed assistance to police officers, social workers, teachers, doctors, first responders, and all sorts of vital services that are often overwhelmed and underfunded, doing their best with limited resources to help address the challenges facing our communities. They need not--and should not be--alone in this fight. We as a Parliament have the power to provide much needed assistance to help our communities and help our hard working men and women at all levels of our society. During my time here, I will do my best to see this change occur, and I hope that I will be able to work with members all over this House in realizing this critical goal to build a more prosperous United Kingdom to ensure a better future for my children, my grandchildren, and every constituent of Erewash--present and future.

[John Baker]

John Baker - Maiden Speech

Debate On The Address, Economy And European Affairs, 1997

Madame Speaker,

It is with great humility that I rise to address this house. While my constituency was just created before the last election, it is entirely made up from parts of the old New Forest constituency. I wish to pay tribute to the retired Patrick McNair-Wilson who served as the member from New Forest for thirty one years. He has had a long political career and he served New Forest well and I hope that I and the member from New Forest East can continue the honorable service to the people of New Forest. New Forest is a constituency of History and forward looking people. The towns of Fordingbridge and Ringwood both have buildings built in the thirteenth century. New Milton grew significantly over the twentieth century and has opened two colleges within it, looking forward to the next generation. Finally Lymington has twinned with three European cities. Mosback, Vitré, and Almansa.

The people of Lymington have it right, trying to build closer ties with the rest of Europe. They are trying to build relations across the continent and the EU, to increase travelling to Lymington and it’s twin cities. We should follow this and as a country try to push ourselves to having closer relations with Europe. We can be leaders of the continent and make sure that we are getting the best trade deals for Britain within the European negotiating power. Or we can be a thorn in the side of those countries that do want to lead Europe. I call on the members of this House to choose the former, while keeping a healthy dose of skepticism. Which I'm sure the Hon Member for Chipping Barnet can tell you all about. We do not have to hand over the kitchen sink to Brussels, but we could work on being far more cooperative with the European Union. We should take an active role in shaping it.

We should lead Europe into free trade agreements with the Commonwealth and the United States. The less barriers to trade we have, the more growth we’ll see in our economy. Free trade as argued by British economists will increase prosperity. Promotion of free trade is undoubtedly in the strategic interest of Britain, as free trade will promote growth in the economy. The more growth that we see in our economy, the stronger Britain is. However European interests lie elsewhere because we have taken a back seat on truly being active members in trying to lead the community. It is my belief that a stronger Britain can be achieved by seeking to be a driving force behind European cooperation instead of a barrier to cooperation.

Madame Speaker,

The previous government left low inflation and continued to decrease unemployment by 1.7 million since 1992. However, we would be remiss if we did not think about how to build the economy in the twenty-first century. We need to seek to become energy independent, we need to promote education, and we need to create a climate where social mobility is the norm. We need to as a society create a government that promotes aspiration and works to help individuals realize their dreams. We need to not punish those that have success like some Members on the Government benches believe. We need to promote those of us brave enough to take risks and start businesses. We need to help disadvantaged kids to get into great schools. We need to invest in Green Energy. Our society needs to be energy independent. We need to work on building our economy and investing in our future.

We should seek to be building an economy for the twenty-first century. We should continue working on improving education and work hard so that every child in this country can get a world class education. The economy and jobs of the twenty-first century are going to need more specialized education and to focus on the new economy jobs we should encourage our kids to learn computer programming and engineering. New economy jobs are requiring more specialized education, knowledge on computer programming is more important now than ever before. The economy is changing quickly and the earlier we adapt our education system to the new economy, the earlier we can start enjoying a comparative advantage for the new economy over other countries. If we delay, another country will reform their system first and will beat us to this goal. We should continue to promote higher education as a silver bullet to allow people who want to work hard and move up in life.

We need to focus on renewable energy and lower our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels, so that we can help decrease energy costs in the UK. We should seek to become energy independent and no longer rely on foreign oil and gas to power the British economy. The previous Prime Minister set ambitious goals in 1992 in his statement on the Earth Summit. We can seek to create energy independence by encouraging the right investment with tax cuts and grants to achieve it. Energy independence will allow Britain to export energy to Europe and in a few years if the government takes this path we could be talking about Britain and not Russia as Europe’s main energy supplier. Inaction is the worst possible option, as we will not only continue to be reliant on foreign oil but we will irreversibly damage our planet. There is already a hole in the protective ozone layer. Action is needed from bold leaders and I hope Britain can be the bold leader the world needs now more than ever.

Britain needs to reaffirm itself as a leader on the international level. Britain needs to become a leader of Europe instead of just a regular member. We need to make the bold changes necessary for a sustainable and prosperous future. It begins with action, it begins with saying that we are brave enough to make the first move. We are bold enough to succeed where others are not even trying. There are completely new fields of industry that could help build and grow our economy. All we have to do is be the bold country that leads instead of follows. I hope that we can take the bold action our country needs and promote people within it to take bold action in order to accomplish it.

[Sir Tristan St. John]

Sir Tristan St. John - Maiden Speech

Ministerial Statement on the Euro

Madame Speaker,

It is an immense privilege to rise here today for the first time, having entrusted by the people of Henley with the task of acting as their voice in this House. I should like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor. Most of those familiar with my views will know that the distinguished parliamentarian Michael Heseltine and myself do not see eye to eye on the matter before this House today. But of course, that is not the core of the office I succeed him in. After all, as Edmund Burke already knew centuries ago, we owe to our constituents not merely our industry but our judgment. If his judgment runs contrary to what I understand to be the interests of our nation, then so be it. He has defended his judgment just as valiantly as I shall endeavour to defend mine, having started with this speech here today.

First, though, it is the custom of this honourable House to reflect one's bond to one's constituency. I was born and raised in Oxfordshire, and my earliest memories of Henley were, as so many of my particular class and upbringing, first and foremost those of the Henley Royal Regatta, that great display of the British values of sportsmanship, fair competition and a sense of style and decorum that has cemented Henley's name in our national consciousness. But I would also like to pay tribute here to smaller but no less vital traditions such as the Henley Music Festival, which brings classical music to the masses in the same way as pop festival bring that particular preference to the masses.

I am also mindful that great names in the history of our nation have hailed from Henley. As we discuss the matter of sovereignty that is so intertwined with the European issue today, I would be remiss not to mention William Lenthall, who was of course one of your own predecessors, Madame Speaker. Though he did not sit for Henley but rather for Woodstock, which is now in the constituency of the member of Witney, he was born in Henley-on-Thames. His altercation with King Charles I still echoes down the ages to this very day: "I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and I humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to what your majesty is pleased to demand of me."

It is this courageous defence of our parliamentary sovereignty against an overbearing executive that brings me to the matter at hand today, Madame Speaker. For today as then, our parliamentary sovereignty, the very underpinning of our nationstate, our political sense of Britishness if you will, is at stake. This government of spin doctors was stopping at nothing whatsoever to get this country to abolish its currency against the manifest demands of common sense, for the sake of subsuming us in a wider European mishmash. Quite apart from the damage the abolition of such a strong symbol of our common prosperity and proudly distinct economic traditions would do, it would also be unwise. We would tether ourselves not just to strong northern European nations with similarly proud traditions for economic prudence, but also to nations which are, excusez le mot, much more likely to overspend on what I can only describe as left-wing hobby projects and who knows what else.

The reason coinage does not transcend borders is that frankly, it is ludicrous to presume that peoples with such distinct national and economic identities could ever agree on its proper management. With the euro, we would soon end up with the lowest common denominator, decided in some place on the continent by some bureaucrat who cannot be called to account by the British people. What's worse - we would converge towards it, converge in what is in my estimation a distinctly downward direction. This political project would end up causing much more irredeemable loss than it could ever gain us in concrete economic benefits. Presented as it may be by spin doctors and strategists as a purely economic proposition, it is in fact so much more than we bargained for when we entered the EEC to trade with the continent - and this makes it so much more nefarious than it is presented.

Free speech, in this House and in the country, has triumphed, Madame Speaker, as the government is forced to abandon its unhallowed plan. In fact, this may be the other parallel with that 17th-century situation - the triumph of the fibre of Britain over the designs of its overreaching executive. In this House, in this country, everything can be said in the spirit of free and frank debate, such that common sense and wisdom may prevail in our deliberations. The great traditions of Britain - free thought - is irrepressible. We are not a nation that can be dictated to. Rather, we are a nation of men and women who think for themselves.

But, it saddens me to say, I should add "for now", as the right honourable gentleman unaccountably just did. For all the words of this Prime Minister, he has still refused to bow to the common sense of the British people and their will, expressed at numerous polls both before and on election day, not to be subsumed into this political project. He persists in trying to fool them by presenting it in a purely economic form, hiding behind statistics to avoid a show of courage in his own convictions. This, unfortunately, is how we've got to know him, his Chancellor, and his government. And if he had but an ounce of courage, he'd put his case for monetary union and all its political consequences to the British people in a referendum. They, not faceless Brussels bureaucrats or Labour Party operatives, should be the final arbiter of the fate of our currency. I think we both know what their decision would be, Madame Speaker, when presented with the full truth of both cases. They would soundly reject.

I hate, Madame Speaker, to tread the line in my first speech to this House, but he knows what the Sun called him. And so long as he hides behind these five flimsy tests to avoid putting his full and frank case to the British people, or to submit without reservation to their national interests, I shall have to repeat those words here: there stands the most dangerous man in Britain. I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the interests of my constituents and the British people are pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and I humbly the House's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this.

This House should continue to stand up for a true debate on the full breadth of the implications of the euro, economic and otherwise. We owe it to our constituents, not merely in industry but also in judgment, to do so. For the consequences of our failure would be disastrous for Britain, her prosperity and her national interest. And if the members opposite will not take up the gauntlet, I shall be glad to continue to do whatever I can to stand up for what I believe in on this matter, as will many members in this House.

Thank you, Madame Speaker.

[Will Frost]

Debate on the Common Fisheries Policy, June 1997

Madam Speaker,

It is a true privilege to be speaking before the House for the first time, as the newly elected Member for Chipping Barnet.

Before I go any further, allow me to pay tribute to Sir Sydney Chapman, who served Chipping Barnet as our MP since 1979. In the nearly 20 years Sir Sydney has spent representing this constiuency, he has been a model MP and an incredible advocate for his constituency. His leadership of the “Plant a Tree in ‘73” campaign was a landmark moment both in our nation’s history and in the evolution of the Conservative Party, boldly asserting our party’s role as the natural party of environmentalism and conservation. His over two decades of public service serve as an example for all of us in this House, and he leaves incredibly large shoes to fill. I will endeavor to provide the people of Chipping Barnet with the same quality representation he provided throughout his time in Parliament.

It is the honor of my life to have the responsibility of representing the people of Chipping Barnet in Parliament. I grew up some 45 minutes away, in the Woolwich neighborhood of London, but already I feel as if the Chipping Barnet community is my second home. Our constituency is one that perfectly represents modern England; a landscape of historic towns and villages, some of which date back to the signing of the Magna Carta, with a smattering of modern buildings and infrastructure that highlight centuries of British advancement. Centered around Barnet, the many small towns compromising the boundaries of the constituency have been witness to some of the greatest moments of our nation’s history; from being the site of a major battle during the War of Roses, to being visited by Queen Elizabeth I, to being targeted by Nazi air raids over the course of the Second World War. Through it all, the people in our constituency have persevered, and have become synonymous with the British tradition of fortitude and hard work.

At the center of it all is the famous Barnet Market, whose tradespeople and goods sellers are at the forefront of my mind this morning. Many of these hardworking men and women are farmers, fishers, and small business owners who make the trek to the Barnet Market to sell their agricultural goods. People have been coming to sell their goods at the Barnet Market since the 10th century, long before the existence of Parliament, and even longer before the signing of the agreement we are debating today: the Common Fisheries Policy.

The fishmongers who come to Barnet Market to sell their cod, or their claims, or their shrimp have a common struggle with all Britons employed in the fishing industry: they struggle under the burdensome, confusing, and inconsistent regulations imposed upon them by the Common Fisheries Policy. So I thank the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food for providing the House with this opportunity to debate the policy, and more importantly to debate the new Government's plan for proposed reforms to the CFP. The CFP impacts thousands of fisherman across the United Kingdom on a daily basis, so I commend the Government for recognizing the urgent need to address the policy's inadequacies and their work to propose reforms at the recent summit in Amsterdam. There will be no question, on both sides of this House, that the CFP desperately needs reform and that we must take immediate action to relieve the burden this policy imposes upon British fisherman.

What concerns me, Madam Speaker, is that the progress the Minister is alleging that the Prime Minister has secured has come not in the form of legitimate legal alterations to the policy, but through a list of, as he says, "vocal assurances made by the Commission." It will of course come as no surprise to the Minister that I have far less confidence in the European Commission than he does, and that I am left totally unconvinced that these stated assurances will provide any meaningful change. Assurances are very nice, Madam Speaker, but British fishermen need more than well intentioned promises from the Commission: they need real results. And in the absence of that, and in the absence of any real plan presented by the Government other than to rely on these assurances hopefully being acted upon by the Commission, I am left without belief that any real progress has been made as a result of the Prime Minister's recent trip to Amsterdam.

So in the interest of bi-partisanship, and in recognition of the failure of the Government to present an overall strategy for reform of the CFP, I thought it would be appropriate and useful to use my maiden address to this House as an opportunity to highlight to the Government what reforms they should have secured from the Commission. There are three areas of the CFP, Madam Speaker, that are due for a serious overhaul that I would like to discuss this afternoon.

First, the new Prime Minister must tackle the failed enforcement standards that have made the CFP so ineffective since its implementation. There is a reason that overfishing has continued to occur since the implementation of the CFP, and that the populations of fish that were supposed to be replenished by the policy have not been. The answer is very simple: because the Common Fisheries Policy has failed miserably in achieving any progress on this central goal. In fact, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, overfishing of at-risk populations has not been curbed in the slightest since the implement of the CFP. The CFP tasks each individual nation for the enforcement of their quotas policy, that intend to preserve overfished populations and allow sustainable fishing, and have virtually no means by which to hold accountable those nations that fail to enforce the quotas. In nations like ours, where we have a strong legal tradition and a law abiding population, this system has proven to have no issue and enforcement has been carried out. But in another nations like France and Spain, where the coastal fishing industry exerts enormous political pressure, local governments have consistently turned a blind eye to enforcing the CFP's quotas in fear of having to face the consequences at the ballot box.

Now I can understand the Prime Minister's hesitance to pursue this issue in his recent meeting with President Chirac in Amsterdam. I, for one, would balk at the prospect of standing in the way of a Frenchman and his daily helping of escargot. The Prime Minister's hesitations aside, something must be done to address this major discrepancy in the enforcement of the policy. If the stated intent of the Common Fisheries Policy is to create an equal set of rules for all nations to abide by, then all nations must actually be abiding by those rules! The current reality of the CFP is that it has created one set of rules for British fishermen, and another set of far less restrictive rules for fishermen in neighboring European countries. Quotas are not being honored, overfished populations are continuing to be decimated, and British fisherman are getting the raw end of the deal.

Second, Madam Speaker, this Government should be prepared to take a sledge hammer to the slew of nonsensical regulations British fishermen are forced to comply with as a result of the CFP. Allow me, for a moment, to list off some of the most ridiculous CFP regulations that our countrymen are required to follow. In the event that a fishing boat catches more than their permitted quota, they are required to throw back their excess catch. This might seem logical, until you realize that by the time a fisherman has performed his count and realized he has exceeded his quota, the fish he is required to throw back have all already died. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see how dead fish being thrown back into the sea serve any conservational benefit. Then of course, Madam Speaker, there is the all important matter of catching equipment. British fisherman are permitted to use steel cages to acquire their catch, but heaven forbid they employ the use of wicker or wooden baskets, as for some asinine reason this would violate the regulations imposed by the CFP. And then, there's the rule on catching lobsters. In the United Kingdom, if you catch a female lobster you're required to immediately throw it back. But if a female lobster is caught by a Frenchman, they are entirely permitted to keep it.

Well, to be fair, I made that last one up. But some of you believed it, didn't you! Because so many of these regulations imposed upon us by Brussels, by people who have never fished a day in their life, are so entirely ridiculous that it seems totally plausible that the Commission would be in the business of gender-based regulations for lobster catching. We've reached a point where there seem to be fewer rules for piloting an airplane, than there are for going out in a boat and catching a salmon. It is ridiculous, these regulations are growing by the day, and British fishermen are suffering as a consequence. The Government must take action.

And finally, Madam Speaker, the CFP suffers from a total lack of input from the people actually impacted by its regulations: the fishermen themselves. Now on this matter, I will give credit where credit is due. I listened carefully to the Minister's assurances that British fisherman will be consulted in the run up to the scheduled 2002 summit on CFP reform, and I believe that he is serious about integrating their feedback into the Government's proposals. But consulting the people that these regulations effect should be the rule, not the norm. We need a statutory commitment written into the CFP that ensures that fishermen have the right to be consulted, and to provide written testimony submitted to their respective governments, prior to new CFP regulations going into force. British fisherman are presently in a situation where they are virtually at the whim of regulators in Brussels, required to keep up with an ever growing list of diktats on the handling of haddock or the sale of sturgeon. The people effected by these rules deserve to shape them, our fishermen deserve to have their qualms heard and acted upon, and this Government owes them that commitment.

To conclude my remarks, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the people of Chipping Barnet for entrusting me to represent them in this House. I will be the first to admit that this was a very close election; my opponent trailed me by just 1,000 votes, handing me the smallest majority since the constituency was created. So I would like to say now, as I said on the night of my election, that I intend to be a Member of Parliament for the whole of my constituency. Whether you voted for me, or for one of my opponents, I am your representative and I will fight for you tooth and nail. My singular aim is to provide you all with the representation you deserve, and to earn the trust you have placed in me as your next MP. From this day to my last, that will be my focus, and I intend to make good on the promises I have made to each and every one of you.

[Sir James McCrimmon]

Bryant Wolfe - Maiden Speech

First Day of Debate on the Address, 25 June 1987

Debate on the Address, 25 June 1987

Mr. Speaker,

As I rise to deliver my maiden speech in this House, may I begin by thanking the fine people of Southwark and Bermondsey for their confidence in me? This constituency and its predecessors have had the great honor of being represented by my friend, Simon Hughes, and my new Alliance colleague, Baron Mellish, for over forty years. I pray that I may be as half as good as they have been for this constituency, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this debate.

While my two predecessors in this seat have had illustrious careers, as to my example for serving this constituency, I wanted to look back a little further. As this is the 50th Parliament of this United Kingdom, I went to Hansard, and looked to see who represented Southwark in that first Parliament. They were two men, from two different parties, each with their own things to look up to. The first, Henry Thornton, is perhaps better known as an economist and writer. During his tenure in the Commons he wrote what is widely considered to be his magnum opus, the book An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain. Thornton also was a leader, along with his cousin, William Wilberforce, of the Clapham Sect and was a staunch abolitionist.

George Tierney, was a Whig who would later be the Leader of the Opposition in the Commons. Tierney is commemorated at Westminster Abbey, with an inscription that reads: “In Parliament he was long conspicuous for a style of oratory peculiarly his own; plain, familiar, forcible and persuasive, abounding in proofs of natural shrewdness, and strokes of original humour, and sustained throughout by an accurate knowledge of details and an unostentatious command of clear language, and sound argument. Without having obtained the rewards of wealth or station, he secured the respect and esteem of his contemporaries by the consistency of his political principles, and his unwearied activity in supporting them, by the simplicity of his manners, and the benevolence of his character and by an unaffected reverence for religion.” Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we could use more like both of them today, and I hope to live up to their legacies.

And what an area we have all gotten to represent! The northern area of Southwark is home to a wide array of people, from those who prefer city life in the Cathedral area, to those who prefer the more residential feel of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. Landmarks like Tower Bridge, the great edifice of the Bankside Power Station, Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle, the only surviving coaching inn - the George Inn, the Imperial War Museum, and the original site of William Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre are spread out across my constituency. Often overlooked as the “younger sibling,” as it were, to the Cities of London and Westminster, Southwark is the owner of a lengthy history and a very diverse place to live, learn, and grow.

And it is the people who live, learn, and grow in Southwark that I wish to discuss this day. The Gracious Speech states: “My Government will work for greater trust and confidence between East and West and for progress, especially on human rights, at the Vienna Review Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.” That’s very nice, isn’t it? It certainly sounds nice. Yet, as my learned friend from Tweeddale, Ettrick, and Lauderdale pointed out earlier, many clauses of this Gracious Speech riddled with “newspeak.” I would argue that this one is one of the most egregious usages of newspeak in it.

Human rights are good. Progress on human rights issues, Mr. Speaker, is even better. But there’s only mention of human rights in the East. Human rights are not just an issue for one area of the world - they matter here, there, and everywhere. Most egregiously, in my opinion, are the issues in South Africa, with their apartheid policies. The Prime Minister had to be cajoled into the limited economic sanctions we currently have by our Commonwealth partners. She would not meet with human rights activist and politician Oliver Tambo. Human rights issues aren’t just a talking point to use on her issues of choice - the Prime Minister must, on behalf of this nation, commit to a global strategy on human rights and using Britain’s place in the world, as a leading western nation, as a member of the Security Council, and as a country with soft and hard power. We have the soapbox from which to encourage our fellow nations to respect the human rights of all peoples - we must use it.

But that has to start at home as well. The European Convention on Human Rights has not yet been fully enjoined to our legal system. It must be enacted into British law, and we must support it with the appropriate bodies that help our Government protect the rights of all. Of course, we all know that this Government will not do that. They could, but it would require a u-turn from the lady who won’t - but she’s also the lady who should.

I wonder how many on the Government benches today have met and worked with an openly gay person. I know members of the opposition have had the opportunity to get to know the member for Islington South and Finsbury and to work with him, and I have been blessed by getting to act alongside my friend Ian McKellen in a number of plays. However, the best thing for me was getting to meet and work with the writer Larry Kramer. Larry is a gay man who founded a charity to support men with HIV/AIDS. He also wrote a play about it, entitled The Normal Heart. But this was not Larry’s main inspiration, you see. He was inspired by visiting Dachau, and he wanted to make a point. The Normal Heart, I believe, is not a play about AIDS - it is a play about inaction. It is about how our treatment of others can harm them. It is a play fit for this moment in British history.

Lord Halsbury’s bill is about our treatment of others. It is about demonizing what is a perfectly fine and normal way to be. If this bill is passed during this Parliament, it will cause undue amounts of harm to the young men and women find out that they are gay. This bill, which the Government should not support, would further the pervasive and irrational fear of people who are not like us, set a precedent for further anti-gay legislation, and damn our efforts to treat HIV/AIDS as the public health crisis it is.

One of Southwark’s most famous residents once wrote that “idle weeds are fast in growth.” This weed might not be so idle, but it will grow fast. We violate the civil and human rights of gay people when we treat them as less than. It is up to us to set an example to the world. We are signatories to a document that calls on us to prohibit discrimination against “sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

Allow me once more to quote the Bard, this time from Henry V: “The king is but a man, as I am; the violet smells to him as it doth to me; the element shows to him as it doth to me; all his senses have but human conditions.” We are all equal and deserve equal protections, regardless of who we are. Whether we want to replace “king” in that quote with “gay man,” “South African,” “immigrant,” or whatever kind of category we feel like, the truth remains the same. It is time for us to take human rights away from the category of a “national security” issue and place it where it belongs - a “human decency” issue.

I close with the words of a parliamentarian I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the great William Wilberforce. I have amended them a little to better fit our current situation. May the words of this British hero inspire us and call us to further action:

• When we think of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principles of justice, the laws of religion, and of God? Sir, the nature and all the circumstances of this are now laid open to us; we can no longer plead ignorance, we can not evade it; it is now an object placed before us, we can not pass it; we may spurn it, we may kick it out of our way, but we can not turn aside so as to avoid seeing it; for it is brought now so directly before our eyes that this House must decide, and must justify to all the world, and to their own consciences, the rectitude of the grounds and principles of their decision.

[Blakesley]

Madame Speaker,

I am honoured to stand and address this House for the first time. I would like to pay tribute to my friend, the former member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson. He was always known for his colourful remarks in public life. Notably, I’m told he has recently arranged to adopt a rover, but found himself paying more than Lord Young sold Rover for. I am quite afraid that my comments may be more tame than Mr Dobson’s – though I hope that House will forgive me should I fail to provide them with humour when Mr Dobson would.

In succeeding Mr Dobson has the member for Holborn and St Pancras, I am reminded of the ties that my constituency offers between Britain and the world. The British Museum houses relics of the history of the world, reminding millions each year of humanity’s history. London St Pancras serves as a major link to Europe: soon to be the British terminus of Eurostar services between London and the continent. London Euston serves as a hub that connects London to the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a privilege to represent my constituents in Holborn and St Pancras, who are truly at the centre of it all.

Of course, Madame Speaker, it is our relationship with the Continent that brings us here today; it is our shared sense of history that forces us to confront the appalling crimes unfolding each day in Bosnia and the gross lack of urgency exhibited by the international community in confronting the atrocities carried out in the streets of Sarajevo and in “safe zones” around the country.

The Foreign Secretary, in his statement today, took the members of the House on a tour of global troublespots: Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq. While we maintain an active participant in United Nations operations in Somalia and Iraq, the lack of action in Bosnia is beyond concerning. Here, in Europe’s own backyard, the international community, the European Community, and the United Kingdom stand aside as Serbian forces threaten the massacre of thousands of Bosnia citizens. Despite the clear warnings of atrocities comparable to those of Hitler and Stalin there is an inertia across the capitals of Europe that prevents concrete action from being taken.

The Foreign Secretary and members of this House noted that the situation in Bosnia is quite fluid and that there are daily atrocities being committed. The Foreign Secretary commends that United Nations arms embargo for preventing a “level killing field” that would prolong the conflict in Bosnia. The Foreign Secretary notes that a no-fly zone would be beneficial, but we must wait for Lord Owen and Mr Vance to report on the best way to prevent abuse by all sides. To the Foreign Secretary, the lack of action is a feature, not a flaw, of the system that has, without argument, failed.

As he looks for a solution that targets all sides, Madame Speaker, let me clarify the reality for the Foreign Secretary: the Bosnians are not the problem. The Croatians are not the problem. Milosevic, Karadzic, and Mladic are the problem. It is Serbian forces that, day and night, target and shell the people of Sarajevo – a city where we celebrated the Olympics just eight years ago. It is Serbian forces that stand outside of Gorazde and threaten the thousands of refugees forced to seek shelter there. It is Serbian forces that utilize an air force with impunity to target Bosnian communities and forces simply trying to ensure the survival of their people.

Yet despite having a clearly diagnosed problem, the world does not act. Instead, the world hides behind the skirts of the United Nations, proclaiming that inaction in New York is a justification for inaction in the Balkans. That is shameful behaviour, Madame Speaker. That is wrong.

The government of Alija Izetbegovic is the legal government of Bosnia, the internationally recognised government of Bosnia, and it is that government that calls for aid.

Britain must now decide whether to answer that call.

We have the tools, Madame Speaker. I spent my life studying military and defence policy: Britain has the capabilities. With our allies in NATO, we have the strength to act. The only barrier to action is the policy of the Government and its determination to hide behind the United Nations.

Stationed in the Adriatic, aircraft flying off of British aircraft carriers have the capability to enforce a no-fly zone in Bosnia. Without causing harm to civilians, British aircraft have the capability to target the Serbian artillery pieces shelling Sarajevo day and night. With the strength of our NATO allies, we can accomplish even more to prevent the slaughter of Bosnian civilians, the tired and huddled masses who seek only to live, to practice their religion, without fear of a gruesome death and burial in an unmarked grave at the hands of a wanton aggressor.

Intervention in Bosnia is just, Madame Speaker. The paralysis of the United Nations has shown its clear failure – far from ensuring “international peace and security”, it has abandoned in the Balkans and the people who live there. Nobody who looks into the eyes of a Bosnian refugee can fail to see the human cost of the United Nations failure. And in light of that failure, in light of the paralysis of the global community – from New York, to Brussels, to London – there is a just case for waging an effective war, a just war, against the aggressors who seek nothing but dominance and destruction over a peaceful people in Bosnia.

Yes, Madame Speaker, I will agree with the Foreign Secretary that there must be a political process, a peace process in the Balkans. However, so long as the Serbian forces retain control of the skies and act with impunity against civilian populations, there will not be a political process. There will not be a political process until the Serbian forces are turned back, until robust action is taken to protect the people of Bosnia.

Madame Speaker, I began my speech by noting the special place for history and our connecting to the Continent in my constituency of Holborn and St Pancras. I will admit, the British Museum, for all of the history it covers, does not address the crimes of the past century. Once, it was a crime without a name. Then the international community declared it to be genocide. Now, we utilize euphemisms such as ethnic cleansing to justify our inaction. Yet regardless of the words we use, nobody can observe what occurs each day in the Balkans and not see the shadows of Auschwitz and Dachau – the odious history of Nazism at play again by a new cast of fascists in the Balkans. Anyone with a sense of history would see that.

In our nation, we have museums to commemorate the horrors that occurred barely fifty years ago across Europe. They preserve our history – the horrors inflicted upon men, women, and children by virtue of their ethnicity. It is our burden to learn from that history, to ensure that, in the years ahead, we will not build another museum to force us to remember the atrocities that occurred in the Balkans because we failed to act.

We can learn from our history by acting now, acting today.

Madame Speaker, there can be no more excuses for failing to stop a genocide. There can be no more cowering behind a paralyzed system. The terrible costs of a genocide must be avoided. Britain must help Bosnia now. And we must lead the world in doing it.