Month: March 2012

NTRODUCTION As Tory Chairman I spend a lot of my time taking on unions – namely the ones that fund Labour’s campaigns. But today I want to come out and defend a Union. One which has benefitted us all for centuries. One which is key to our success as a nation. And one which we must work flat-out to keep intact: The Union between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. That is why I wholeheartedly support the launch of the Conservative Friends of the Union group. Which couldn’t have a better champion than the dynamic, enthusiastic, vibrant and hugely patriotic Ruth Davidson. Now we’ve all heard – and will continue to hear – the reasons why we should preserve our Union. But as someone who is referred to as the campaigning chairman… …who goes up and down the country every week to argue our case, fight for our cause…. …I want to explain exactly how I believe we can prevent the breakup of the Union. THE SNP Some people say this is a debate about one man who is determined to break up the Union: Alex Salmond. One correspondent wrote to me at CCHQ about his fears about a referendum. He said: Be wary of Alex Salmond ‘winding people up with the pipes and drums’. Now I’ve never seen Mr Salmond with pipes or drums. But I have seen him banging the drum for division. And it is our job to drown out this separatist rhetoric with a positive case for keeping the Union intact. POSITIVE CAMPAIGN In doing this we should be inspired by last year’s No to AV campaign. We started off by exposing how terrible the voting system was: complicated, expensive and pointless. But that alone wouldn’t have won us the argument. What really clinched it was when we demonstrated how powerful, how precious our existing system of ‘one person, one vote’ was. As soon as we showed what was at stake, we were well away. It became a positive campaign. A ‘you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone’ campaign. And a campaign which helped us see off AV by an massive margin. So this campaign needs to not just be about Scotland being worse off without us. But how Scotland is better off in the UK, and the UK is better off when we are united. Yes, the easier thing to do would be to pick holes in the alternative – and we certainly will. But when you’re fighting for something so fundamental, the more mature, more difficult, more powerful thing to do is make a positive case. I believe in a politics where people vote for something. We must show people that in voting to save the Union, they are voting for stability, strength and prosperity. That’s why we are launching the Enemies of Independence group but the Friends of the Union. NATIONAL INTEREST We also need to make clear that the Conservatives are fighting for unity in spite of the boost independence would give us. Many have pointed out that lopping Scotland off the electoral map would guarantee us future majorities. It would be the biggest gerrymander in history – and we would be the winners. But Conference, we want what is right for our country. It’s a bit like our mission to sort out the deficit – it’s not popular, but it’s right for the UK. And just as we won’t leave future generations with a mammoth debt. We also cannot leave them with a collection of weakened nations – nations which once stood as a strong Union. PATRIOTISM At the same time we cannot allow Alex Salmond to hijack patriotism. He says that if you love Scotland, if you believe in its future, you must support independence. But we need to make something clear: that a person’s loyalty to Scotland is not in question if they are also loyal to the United Kingdom. I can vouch for this having spent my life – being English, British, northern and Muslim – proving that my loyalties are not divided. And I have been able to do so because Britain is a place of diversity, of multiple identities. A place where you can be a stoic Scot and a proud Brit. And that is why patriotism does not equate to separatism. CONCLUSION This referendum, like AV, will be all about the communication of the case. And how I like to explain the independence question is by likening it to a relationship. If someone says ‘this isn’t working’ it’s natural to say ‘I don’t want you either’. The rest of the Union could say the same to Scotland. But, as with a relationship, if it’s worth fighting for then you show them what they mean to you. It’s the same with Scotland’s place in the Union. We need to show just what this relationship means to us. And that Scotland is better off in Britain and Britain is better off with Scotland. Campaigning is in the DNA of the Conservative Party. So too is our commitment to the Union. We are, after all, the Conservative and Unionist Party. So let’s get out there and show it.

INTRODUCTION Thank you very much for inviting me. Giving the Ebor Lecture is very significant for me. Not only because I’m Yorkshire born and bred. But because I have spent my governmental career arguing on your very theme: The growing need for faith to interact with public issues in today’s society. It started with a speech in 2010 when I declared that our government would make a clean break with the past administration and would ‘do God’. Since then many have pointed out that, as a Cabinet Minister without Portfolio, I have assigned myself the portfolio of faith… Even His Holiness Pope Benedict referred to me during his 2010 UK visit as the Minister for God! Exactly one month ago today I led our country’s reciprocal visit to the Vatican. It was our largest ever ministerial delegation to the Holy See. As I walked through a sun-drenched St Peter’s Square with the Archbishop of Westminster it was a very special moment. Knowing that he a Catholic, me a Muslim, and many of my colleagues were united in a common aim: To demonstrate the importance of faith and the important links between our respective beliefs. When I then spoke at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy there I wanted to make one simple point: That Europe needs to feel stronger and more confident in its Christianity. That you simply cannot erase Christianity from our heritage any more than you can erase the spires from our landscapes. And that this firm basis creates a space for people of minority faiths. I wanted that point to ring out beyond the Vatican walls. To be heard far away where states were repressing religion. To be heard closer to home where secularism was squeezing out faith… …perpetuated both by the well-intentioned who want to create a level playing field for all beliefs by diminishing faith… …and by those ideologically opposed to faith altogether. In the month since I made that argument, it has started quite an interesting debate. With Her Majesty the Queen expressing similar thoughts the following day in her speech at Lambeth Palace… With atheist Richard Dawkins, during a Radio 4 interview, invoking the Almighty when he tried to dismiss faith… With the backlash against councils attempting to ban prayers… And, finally, when I was travelling back from a Conservative Social Action project in Bosnia… …and ended up on a plane with Alastair Campbell – the very Labour spin doctor who famously declared that the last government did not ‘do God’. It may have seemed like fate… But instead of confronting Mr Campbell I decided I would continue to tackle militant, intolerant secularism in more public forums, such as this. So today I intend to look back over the last month, at the reaction to the speech I made. At those who hit back and said faith was irrelevant. At those who said Britain and Europe are not Christian. At those who said faith is not under attack. And at those who said faith should not have a seat at the table in public life. RELEVANCE OF FAITH First, there were many who said I shouldn’t have even been talking about faith at all. That faith is irrelevant to today’s society. That I was backing the wrong horse. But look at all the responses I’ve had – my biggest postbag on any issue. Thanking me for ‘standing up for God’. For being a Muslim willing to defend Christians. For putting faith on the agenda in the face of much opposition. Look at the fact that it remained on the news agenda for weeks – from the USA to the Indian subcontinent to North Africa. It kept the commentariat busy and it continues to do so. Even those hell-bent on dismissing the relevance of faith demonstrated the hunger there is for discussion of the issues through the sheer number of column inches they racked up. One interesting strand of criticism was from those who said faith was outdated, outmoded and obsolete. And that nearly 80 per cent of people in Britain who claimed to have a faith in the last Census, including the 72 per cent who said they were Christian, were wrong. They said that many people who say they are Christians don’t go to church. A study was even rolled out by our friend Richard Dawkins claiming that half the people who claim to be Christian don’t read the Bible. But faith isn’t necessarily measured in Church attendance or Bible study. You cannot quantify what the Holy Father described as ‘the ultimate mystery…the transcendent truth’. Or measure a person’s connection with their faith or their God. You can, however, see the expression of faith in public life. The Bible and the Koran, and I have often quoted both, say that the expression of faith is in public works. I see the evidence of this every day in the UK. In the giving of charity. In the thousands of faith based charities. In the faith schools that are outperforming their rivals. In the way that faith has driven great acts of human kindness and has changed history. And deeper than that, in the solace offered by religion. One letter I received after the Vatican visit was from a person in Croydon, who, despite the social unrest, the turmoil on their estate, found a refuge in a place that has stood there for centuries: Their local church. CHRISTIAN EUROPE Second, there were those who took issue with my claim that Britain was a Christian country and Europe a Christian continent. This was a central plank of my argument last month. The argument that a millennium and a half of the teachings of Jesus have permeated every corner of society. Shining through our politics, our public life, our culture, our economics, our language and our architecture. I said that you cannot erase these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can erase the spires from our landscapes. Or extract it from our values. Like loving our neighbours… Acting as the Good Samaritan would… And doing to others as we would be done by. Now of course I didn’t mean that you have to be a Christian, or indeed a believer, to do any of these things. But they are concepts ingrained in our nations through centuries’ presence of Christianity. Look at the influence of the Bible. As the Prime Minister argued in his speech last year, this Holy Book, the King James edition in particular, has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage. Shaping our political system and giving us the values which define our country. Like responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities. Values which are needed now more than ever. FAITH UNDER ATTACK Third, there were those who said faith was not under attack in the UK, in Europe or further afield. I see it different. In the UK, in words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, faith is looked down on as the hobby of ‘oddities, foreigners and minorities’. Religion is dismissed as an eccentricity because it’s infused with tradition. This is a view put forward by the well-intentioned liberal elite. Who think that by marginalising faith in society they are creating a space for all faiths. These people think that I, as a Muslim, would feel more welcome in society if there were no religious symbols, no Established Church. But they are wrong. Take my own example in my current role as a British peer. I am proud to sit alongside Church of England Bishops in the House of Lords. I’m confident to find myself in the voting lobbies with my Catholic colleagues on issues of conscience. And I like the variety of debate we have in the Upper House with representation from different faiths. Indeed, as one elderly correspondent wrote to me following my Vatican visit, she has been given the most help on her bus journey to her church every day by her Muslim and Jewish neighbours because they understood the journey she was making. But there is a second type of less well-intentioned person perpetrating what I term intolerant secularism: The anti-religionists, the faith deniers. Who make a religion out of criticising religion. Particularly telling was the reaction to the author Alain De Botton who was pilloried for writing a book entitled ‘Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion’ on the unexplored merits of faith for those who don’t have a faith. It reveals the extent to which this type of closed-minded secularism has taken hold. There are examples of intolerant secularism across Europe. First we had no mention of Christianity in the preface of the European Constitution. Then we had countries banning the wearing of religious symbols in government buildings. Others banned the building of certain places of worship. Some refused to fund faith schools. And now one is writing into its constitution which religions the state will and will not recognise, leaving certain denominations out in the cold. Further afield religions throughout the wider world, as we know too well, are being persecuted, repressed, silenced and censored. For me, any such repression stems from insecurity. Because just as the bully bullies because he or she is insecure… …so too the state suppresses, marginalises, dictates and dismisses… …when it feels its identity is at stake. As I said at the Vatican, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularism is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity and failing to understand the relationship between religious loyalty and loyalty to the state. That’s why in the 20th Century, one of the first acts of totalitarian regimes was the targeting of organised religion. Why? Because, to them, a religious identity struck at the heart of their totalitarian ideology. In a free market of ideas, they knew their ideology was weak. And with the strength of religions, established over many years, followed by many billions… …their totalitarian regimes would be jeopardised. FAITH AT THE TABLE Fourth, there are many people who said that faith in society is tantamount to theocracy. But what I am calling for is simply for faith to have a seat at the table in public life. Not the only seat, not a privileged position, but that of an informer of our public debate. So we are not afraid to acknowledge when the debate derives from a religious basis. So that we are as confident in taking onboard – and taking on – the solutions offered up by religion as we are in rejecting them. As I have said, it is the predominance of Christianity in Britain which I believe has created the space for minority faiths. I have reached this view partly through personal experience. For growing up in a country where religion is such a fundamental part of society made me feel free to practice my own faith. I felt that I could be both British and Muslim, and it was the Established Church in this country which reassured me of my identity. My father explained this very well. Telling me to see my religious identity, my faith, as a river that changes its appearance according to the bed on which it flows. The river reflecting the colour and the texture of the bed. Like the river, my faith reflects the nation I belong to. So what made me feel even more confident as a British Muslim… What truly enabled me to learn about my faith and to practice it… Was that my country – the bed over which the river of my faith flowed – had a strong Christian identity. This defined, shaped and gave me confidence in my own faith… Which, combined with the confidence of my country’s principles and values… Made me feel free to believe, free to practice, and free to be me. So strongly have I felt this was the case, that I have chosen not an Islamic school for my daughter, nor a secular school… …but an Anglican convent school. Where faith was not looked down on or denied or repressed. Where she found her faith strengthened… …even adopting the Lord’s Prayer as her own by simply substituting the word ‘Amen’ with ‘Ameen’. CONCLUSION I am not a theologian and I am not a historian; I am a politician. And as a politician of strong personal faith… Hailing from a country which has its heritage rooted in another faith… Co-chairing a political party whose history is entwined with Christianity… Representing a government which has declared its commitment to our Established Church… I am proud to stand up and to make a stand in the name of faith. I have had the privilege of speaking on this subject at home and abroad. And more than anything I am heartened by the appetite there is to engage in the debate. And yes, of course there are some who doubt that faith is under threat, just because they haven’t seen it. There are some who doubt faith’s importance in society, just because they haven’t felt it. There are some who doubt that religion is a guarantor for religious freedom, just because this theory is counter-intuitive. To those Doubting Thomases I say this: Whether you have any faith or none, you should take a step back and look at how important faith has been in the past, how important faith is today and the important role it can play in our society’s future. Thank you very much for listening.

INTRODUCTION It’s great to see you all here again this year. I want to start by saying an enormous thank you to Niki Molnar, who is standing down after an excellent year as your Chairman. Niki, it’s been a great pleasure working with you and we are so grateful for all the work you’ve done. Thanks to Pauline Lucas, President and ex-Chairman, for her continuing work with the CWO, helping to find women to stand for public life at all levels. Also thanks to deputy Chairman Thalia Openshaw, who is also stepping down after three years. And a huge congratulations to Katy Bourne who is stepping up to the role of Chairman. Four inspirational women. And a fitting way to begin, since our theme today is ‘inspiring women’. INSPIRATIONAL WOMEN I have recently been thinking about the women who have inspired me. When I was asked to go on Radio 4’s Great Lives programme last month, one great life sprung to my mind. Someone my father used to tell me about as a child: the Turkish princess who became Indian Queen, Razia Sultana. The first woman to rule South Asia, back in 1236… …who was handpicked by her father as a successor… …opposed by the nobility… …briefly ousted by her brother… …before regaining the throne and reigning for a successful four years… …and dying, tragically, at the hands of her enemies. It was a slightly more dramatic ascent and descent than we see in today’s power struggles. But the themes of coups, treachery and sibling rivalry are perhaps ones we can still recognise! So why did a woman from so long ago, from so far away, inspire me? Because she was a woman succeeding in a man’s world. While women were subordinated elsewhere, she led men to war. While most women of the time around the world did not see their role as one of public leadership, she fought on the battlefield. While she lived in a culture where there were strict rules of dress, she defied convention and rode into battle in men’s attire. And, most significantly, she insisted on being addressed in the masculine form – as Razia Sultan not Sultana… …lest anyone imply that her identity was because she was the daughter of or wife of a sultan but that she was, in fact, the sultan herself. What’s most significant for me is that Razia’s legend lives on not merely for her gender but for her achievements. For tackling the persecution of minorities. For spearheading huge infrastructure projects. For bringing politics into the public sphere. What she achieved in just a few years is what made her popular and – as I argued in my interview – made her something of a Tory! And she was certainly not a politician for second-term priorities. She just got on with the job, as so many women do. It was particularly timely to be discussing an inspirational female ruler at a time when the showbiz world had refocused everyone’s attention on our greatest peacetime Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, with the release of the Iron Lady. As Razia Sultana inspired me as a child, Lady Thatcher inspired me in later life. Her drive, her determination, her resolve to transform our country, sometimes in the face of fierce opposition, defined her. EQUALITY Maybe it was because of the culture or time in which she lived that Razia felt she had to deny or conceal her gender to be successful. In many ways Lady Thatcher faced similar challenges. When much was made of her being first female Prime Minister, she was blasé – claiming that she was equally as conscious of being the first research scientist Prime Minister. You can understand why in public life a gender-denying attitude has been a necessary precursor to success. But I think today we need a different attitude. Saying that we are successful because we are women not despite being women. Today, there is still a problem. While women take home half the degrees for example, they are still paid 17 per cent less than men and still make up only 15 per cent of board directors. And we still see discrimination where woman are overlooked for promotion and are seen as ‘not quite up to the job’ once they have had children. One of the industries where these challenges need to be tackled is in politics. And that needs to start at home: in our own Party. Yes, of course there is cause for cheer – we saw a 250 per cent increase in women MPs on the Conservative benches to 49 in the 2010 election. That is thanks in huge part to the hard work of organisations like the CWO. But there’s more work to do – women still only represent 16 per cent of the party. Less than a quarter of our cabinet is female. While France and Germany’s cabinets comprise more than 30 per cent women… …and Spain and Sweden’s are more than 50 per cent female. Of course I understand the challenges of being in Coalition. There are issues with Lib Dem female representation, and it’s something I’ve taken up with the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. There’s so much more we can all do to make politics more representative… And a lot of it lies with people like you, who can campaign, recruit, persuade and promote to make sure that politics is as much of a woman’s world as a man’s. I want to find a time when female candidates don’t come up to me and say they’re less likely to be selected than a man. For me, the need for more women at the top of public life is not in dispute. IMF managing director Christine Largarde famously said that if the Lehman Brothers had been the Lehman Sisters there may not have been a financial crash. Whether in the business world or political world, more women at the top will mean wider perspectives on business decisions and a better understanding of policy outcomes. And who knows, maybe PMQs would be less gladiatorial and the bars in the Commons would be more peaceful… Evidence backs up the need for more women in the workplace. The recent Davies Report said that companies with more women on their boards outperform their rivals – with a 42 per cent higher return in sales, 66 per cent higher return on invested capital and 53 per cent higher return on equity. OUR AIM So I want us to do something today. I want us to show that this party can lead the way in both promoting gender equality and in demonstrating it. Why are we best equipped to do so? Because the Conservative Party is the Party of women. Labour may claim this crown for themselves. But our history says otherwise. A Conservative-backed Coalition extended suffrage to women. Conservative Nancy Astor as the first female MP to take her seat. The Conservative Women’s Organisation as the first women’s political organisation in the world. The Conservative Government equalising the voting age. The Conservative Government allowing women to sit in the Lords. Conservative MP Margaret Thatcher elected as the first female Prime Minister. And, as recently as last year, the Conservative-led Coalition ensuring that the first born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will inherit the throne, regardless of sex. CONCLUSION So we as Conservatives have been there at historic moments laying down the marker and forging change But more needs to be done, by all of us, together. So I welcome the CWO. I welcome Women 2 Win. I welcome the backbench female MPs’ forum, whom I had lunch with earlier this week. For me, a personal achievement is that the chairman’s team at CCHQ is 70 per cent female. OK, it’s not quite Beyonce’s all-female band… But it shows that the Conservative Party is the party of women as much as it is the party of men. And that together we can support, drive and recruit and all the time strive to ensure that the culture we work in and the world we live in, is as much for women as it is for men… …where women are recruited on merit and show that they’re doing an amazing job both in my team and across the Party.