UKPOL.CO.UK

Author: admin

  • Damian Green – 2013 Speech at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Events

    damiangreen

    Below is the text of a speech made by Damian Green at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners event on 23rd January 2013.

    Introduction

    I would like to thank the APCC for inviting me to speak to you today.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Paul McKeever, the chair of the Police Federation who sadly died last week. Some of you may have known Paul – I  did for a short time – he was a dedicated police officer and chair of the federation and my condolences and thoughts are with his family, friends and colleagues at the federation.  The federation has its differences with the government, but Paul was always willing to listen to our views as we were his.

    We are in the midst of the most significant and wide ranging programme of reform to policing. And you – the first Police and Crime Commissioners – are at the heart of this change.

    Benefits of having a single association

    I know that the APCC have been seeking your views on how best they can assist you to play a full part in shaping and leading this wide ranging programme of reform at the national level. When I spoke to you a few months ago I talked about the clear benefit of having a single representative body that acts on your behalf and in your interests at the national level.

    Clearly how that body is formed and what it does, is for you to determine. But, as one of the individuals likely to be most affected by such a body – and you may not catch me saying this once I feel the impact of such a body-  I see no better way of ensuring, during this period of significant change, that your collective voice can be heard and acted upon at all levels. Particularly obviously inside central government.

    I am of course realistic, you won’t always be able to speak with one voice, but as many of you will know  MPs from all parties manage to come together on issues that require collective change and so do local councillors. So there are times when I expect you will see the value over coming together irrespective of your political backgrounds or particular views.

    The local government association obviously represents councils of every colour so it is an example of how a desire to improve services for the public and influence national policy has gone beyond political divisions.

    You have a powerful mandate. You are the voice of the public on policing and crime in your force areas and through a single body you will be able to amplify that voice at a national level.

    Already, we have been consulting on a new pay review body and many of you as individuals have contributed to this important process. But on top of the value of these individual responses, that he will rightly take full account of, I was very grateful to receive the formal response from the APCC which demonstrated to me that there was indeed a consistency in your individual responses, and most importantly that when presented as a collective, they really do make a very direct impact.

    So, there will be clearly times when it is in your interest to talk with a shared voice and these will increase over time.

    New initiatives

    Before the elections last November some people questioned what impact PCCs would make. I am glad to stand here today and say that already due to some of the decisions you have taken, and your dedication and drive, those voices have started to fall silent.

    The public can already see evidence of innovative, and in some cases, radical ideas and initiatives , from you and your offices to tackle crime, the causes of crime, and to promote the police service in your communities.

    It is simple: these positive developments, developments that will make a real difference to people’s lives in the communities you serve, would not be happening without you.

    Some of the most recent ones that have struck a chord with me are:

    The impressive amount of engagement that is happening with the public in setting plans and priorities;

    Plans, for example in Dorset, to set up community and victims forums for the public to raise issues about policing;

    The setting up of a youth commissioner in Kent;

    Plans in Staffordshire to explore recruitment of 200 new special constables and unlocking millions of pounds tied up by the force’s failure to sell its former HQ.

    Each of you will have other examples of how you are making a difference that I would like to hear about.

    Of course there was great work going on before the elections and many of you will already be drawing on what works for your area.

    Effective practice esp. IOM

    It is also impossible not to mention the huge amount of engagement that you are doing with partners across the criminal justice system and beyond.

    I know that many of you are ahead of the game and in the acronym you are using, PCC, the ‘C’ is important as well – you’re not just police commissioners you are crime commissioners as well.

    In many areas the police, working closely with probation, prisons and other partners, have put in place local arrangements to tackle offending under the banner of Integrated Offender Management.

    These arrangements bring a joint focus on the offenders who commit the most crime locally, or whose offending causes the most damage to the local community. Through effective joint working in this way, many areas have been able to turn around the lives of some of the most difficult and chaotic prolific offenders, whose offending obviously had such a negative impact on local communities.

    If there aren’t such arrangements in place in your area, you may have already be asking: ‘why not?’.  And the opportunity to share best practice is another benefit of coming together in forums like this.

    When we all work together, which is at the heart of the IOM approach, we can all make the best changes for the greater public good.

    For our part, the government has set out its commitment to supporting these approaches as part of the reform proposals set out in the consultation paper ‘Transforming Rehabilitation: a revolution in the way we manage offenders’.

    And I know that you will be a powerful and new voice in the dialogue which will form the process of consultation.

    Looking ahead, I hope there are plenty more opportunities for innovation. One example is the work being done to create the new Police IT company.

    Police IT Company

    Whenever I meet police officers, one of the first things they complain about is the poor IT in many forces.  I am sure that in your conversations with officers they will have made the same point to you.

    We all know that technology and communications is a vital part of front line policing and in implementing change.

    With significant cost pressures, many forces are now increasingly using digital and mobile technology to improve operational performance and as a lever for wider business change.

    With police forces spending over £1bn per annum and employing over 4,000 ICT staff.  I believe that the Police ICT Company gives you the opportunity to secure critical services for your force, to accelerate innovation and to help to make savings.

    This is your Company, set up to deliver what you want for your force. But to get this company to work in the way you want, you need to take control. The choice is yours but this is an opportunity for you to take ownership.

    I hope you see this as a real opportunity to achieve tangible results by working together. I urge you to take up the offer of the Company and use ICT as an enabler to keep officers on the front line.

    College of Policing

    There are obviously a number of challenges facing the new College of Policing and one is helping the police become more like the totality of Great Britain.

    The recently released Census figures for 2011 show how our society is changing faster than ever before.  The police must be able to respond to the needs and aspirations of this more diverse society.

    I am struck by how far we still need to improve representation of women, black minority ethnic populations and other protected groups in the police, especially at senior levels.

    And I also want to see the wider culture of the police strengthened so that it becomes more open, more inclusive and welcoming to people from all backgrounds.

    Police forces must also be better able to relate to the communities they serve. This is a key area of building trust and confidence in local communities.

    My firm belief is that the police must take ownership for these issues. I am therefore pleased that the newly formed College of Policing, which will have responsibility for standards in the police, will be a key driver for this work.

    In the spring they will release a new equality strategy for the police.  I hope that many of you can engage with the development of this strategy.

    I know that there is a huge interest from you collectively in the College and I welcome this.   It will have an essential role in professionalising policing. There are a limited number of places for formal involvement on the board, but I will be encouraging the College to look at what else you can do to get involved.

    Funding

    Moving onto the key subject of money, you will all now be aware of the provisional police funding allocations that were laid in Parliament on 19 December.

    First we decided to protect the police from further reductions to Departmental budgets for 2013/14 that were announced in the Autumn Statement.

    Secondly we will protect the police from reductions announced by the Chancellor in November 2011 relating to public sector pay restraint. Without this protection on pay restraint, central government funding for the police would have been reduced by £66m in 2013/14.

    These two decisions mean the police will receive the same amount of total government funding in 2013/14 that was agreed at the 2010 Spending Review, giving you confidence as you make your plans.

    I hope you welcome that and some of you already have but I understand you will have concerns about funding allocations in 2014/15. You will be aware that the Chancellor announced a further 2% cut to Departmental budgets. As mentioned in my Written Ministerial Statement, we have decided to defer publication of police funding allocations for 2014/15 in order to fully scrutinise all Home Office budgets and see what can best be done.

    The other key funding decision that was announced was on damping. As you know the government held an informal consultation on this. In deciding how to apply damping over the next two years we took account of the concerns expressed by respondents who called for a full review of the Police Allocation Formula before changing damping policy, given that the two are inextricably linked. This is why the Home Secretary will be commissioning a fundamental review of the Formula.

    I know you have strong views on this, and some of you have already raised them with me, so we are obviously keen to hear your ideas on this and we will engage with you as part of this review.

    I recognise that the funding settlement remains challenging. But as HMIC have made clear, police forces have risen to the existing financial challenge, cutting spending while largely maintaining the service they provide. The proportion of officers on the frontline is increasing, crime continues to fall – a point often lost in the wider policing debate, victim satisfaction is up and the response to emergency calls is being maintained. I am confident that you can build on this and continue to push your forces to drive out waste while maintaining and improving the level of service that the public receive.

    Despite inheriting the largest peacetime deficit, our decisions regarding funding for 2013/14 demonstrate that we are committed to ensuring that the police continue to have the resources they need to carry out their important work.

    Looking now at pay and conditions, you will have seen last week our decision to accept the recommendation of the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT).

    This includes proposals around pay scales and allowances.

    This represents another more step forward in what amounts to the most radical overhaul to policing pay and conditions for 30 years.

    But these reforms are not yet complete.

    We remain committed to the principles and objectives set out in the Winsor Review, in particular to the modernising of management practices and to developing the vital link between pay and professional skills.

    This is something that the College of Policing will take forward in line with the timescales recommended in the Winsor review.

    We want to ensure that the police are able to draw on the best pool of talent available to strengthen the workforce. And I am also determined to ensure that police forces are able to attract the brightest and the best, at all levels, including senior levels.

    We are convinced of the merits of enabling the most able people to join at senior ranks to open up the culture of the police to outside experiences and perspectives and will be consulting shortly on the development of effective direct entry and fast track schemes for talented individuals.

    This is about opening up the police to promote a diversity of experience and professional skills at all levels.

    And I am also committed, as I know you will be, to ensuring that the police set the best example of integrity.

    Police integrity

    With the publication of Giving Victims a Voice, the report on the Jimmy Saville case, the issue of police professional standards and integrity has once again come to the fore.

    We touched on this issue briefly at the PCC briefing event, back in December. I’d like to return to it today while we are considering how to address police integrity at the national level.

    This also seems an especially appropriate moment, given that so many of you are engaged in recruiting new chief constables.

    You will have received the guidance on recruiting chief constables from the College of Policing that was sent out in November, together with the note on vetting requirements. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that you have a responsibility to assure yourselves of the integrity of anyone you are considering appointing as a chief constable.

    But I should however remind you of the need to establish their formal vetting status – the note sent to the APCC, as well as Chief Executives and communicators, gives contact details should anyone like further advice on this matter.

    The integrity and professional behaviour of chief constables and their senior teams are the foundation of public confidence in policing.

    This is an area where you can make an impact locally, providing clarity to your communities about what they have a right to expect – that they will be treated fairly, honestly and with respect.

    Both the public and officers need to see the senior team leading by example. Underpinning this, there also needs to be comprehensive and rigorous governance – of integrity as well as finance and other issues – to provide the mechanisms by which professional standards can be monitored and enforced.

    Recent reports from HMIC, the IPCC and Transparency International have all highlighted a lack of consistency between forces in, for example, applying guidelines on hospitality.

    Integrity is one aspect of policing in which there should be no room for local variation.  It is so important that clearly every force, every officer needs to maintain the highest standards.

    Working with you

    I am in no doubt that the British police force is committed, dedicated and well respected. I know we all want to ensure that we keep it like that.

    And as I look forward to how we are going to make this happen, I know that working with you and the APCC will be key to our success.

    But what is also important is how we will do this. And I think this means speaking with you regularly without dragging you to London, eating into your valuable time and the public purse.

    I have asked officials to work with your offices and the APCC to come up with ways we can do this making the most of technology such as video conferences to maximise our time and minimise the effort we spend in making these meetings regular and as convenient as possible for all of us.

    You are only a couple of months into your new roles, but I have no doubt that by this November both you and I will be reflecting on where we have succeeded and identified areas where we must continue to work together, in order to realise a modern, trusted professional police service that not only ranks as the best in the world, but is indeed the leading standard for policing.

    It is a great and important goal and I very much hope that together we can achieve it.

  • Damian Green – 2012 Speech to the Police Superintendents' Association conference

    damiangreen

    Below is the text of a speech given by the Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice, Damian Green, to the Police Superintendents’ Association conference on 12 September 2012.

    Thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you today.  It’s always daunting as a ,inister to come to speak to an audience containing so much experience and expertise, and that is particularly the case after only a week in the job.

    Like many other people I have had many experiences of police activity, when I have been a victim of crime, or when I have seen police in action in maintaining public order.  I also, famously, have some experience of police action which is perhaps unique for a Police Minister – I have been arrested, and this guarantees that I am not disposed to uncritical admiration of everything done by all police officers at all times.

    What I can guarantee is that during my time in this job I will be a candid friend of the police.  I want you to succeed in your job, because it is vital to a healthy society, and the best way I can help is to listen, learn, and express my own views clearly.  We may not always agree, but I will always be willing to engage and discuss.

    I am sorry that I wasn’t able to join you for the sessions and discussions that you have had this morning.  I have been in Coventry meeting with Chris Sims and West Midlands Police. I can confirm that as of 11am this morning the streets of Coventry were entirely peaceful and orderly. I was interested to see what they are doing with technology to make themselves better at their job by much better use of technology and various initiatives.

    Heart of our police force

    I am particularly pleased that my first major event and speech as Police Minster is to one of the police staff associations.  You, as key leaders of policing and as police officers, are the heart of our police force.  Yesterday I know the Home Secretary praised your professionalism and dedication, and I straightforwardly want to echo those sentiments.  This professionalism and dedication is particularly valued as you drive change within your forces.  And there is a lot of change taking place.

    I accept that this is a challenging period for officers and the force as a whole, and I understand that there is some suspicion about the changes we have made and are continuing to make.  I am not here to tell you that I will be slowing the pace of change or reversing decisions that have been made – the reform of policing is too important for that – but I hope that we can all follow Derek’s call to ‘move on’ from these changes and the debates and arguments of the past and work together to build a strong police force in the public interest.

    To that end I want to put on record our thanks for all the work that you and your colleagues have done to address the challenges so far.  Despite necessary reductions in budgets, crime is down and, as Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary has said, the service to the public is largely being maintained, response times have held up and victim satisfaction is improving.  This is down to the dedication and professionalism that officers and leaders like all of you show every day.

    I know that inevitably, everything that has happened, all those changes, have dominated the conference over the last couple of days.

    Today I want to talk to you briefly about some of the themes of professionalism and public confidence underpinning the reforms that have been made, and what I think the benefits will be.  But before moving on I want to be clear that even after  reform of structures and pay and conditions police officers will continue to be among the best paid of the public services, retiring earlier than most and with pensions that are among the most generous. But is equally worth saying that this is right, to reward the exceptional job that you do.

    Reducing bureaucracy

    The Home Secretary has been determined to restore discretion to the police and to enhance professionalism, and I am equally committed to this agenda. The proper use of discretion is important for all ranks of the police, but it is essential to you as superintendents.  It is a prerequisite to reducing bureaucracy and to end the culture of the Home Office – the Police Minister, Home Secretary, officials – looking over your shoulders as you make decisions.  I want you to be able to get on with the job they joined the force for: fighting crime, and you can’t do that if you’re tied up in red tape and bogged down by form-filling.

    I am please that great strides have already been made in this area which could see up to 4.5 million hours of police time saved across all forces every year, but I want to see more done to build on this. That is one of the things I am keen to drive through as police minister. This morning I spoke to Chris Sims, the ACPO lead on reducing bureaucracy, about what more we can do.  We’ve changed a lot from the centre, but we have to work with forces, and with you, to identify where further improvements can be made.

    This agenda to restore discretion goes hand in hand with that to improve professionalism.  At the outset, it’s important to say what the professionalism agenda is not about.

    It’s not about criticising you or saying that the way you have been doing your jobs up to now has been fundamentally flawed.

    And it’s not about making policing a graduate profession.

    But it is about accepting that the threats we face have changed and that to support the new landscape, and particularly the increase in your discretion, we need to continue to develop skills and ensure that they are properly recognised and rewarded.

    College of Policing

    Key to this work will be the creation of the new policing professional body – the College of Policing.  The College will be established by the end of the year, taking on functions from the NPIA and ACPO business areas, with a powerful mandate to enable the service to implement the required standards for training, development, skills and qualifications.

    And, crucially, it will be independent of government, with a board made up of representatives from across the ranks, with PCCs and independent members helping to give advice and improve accountability.  And, as the Home Secretary said yesterday, the Chief Executive will be a senior officer.  I was pleased to learn on taking over the post of Police Minister that work on the College has been progressing well over the summer, and I’m grateful for the engagement of the Superintendents’ Association during this.

    The other key part of the drive to develop professionalism and restore discretion is considering and taking forward the recommendations of the Winsor review.  I know, even in my very short time in this role, that you have concerns about some of these proposals.  But the principles supporting these changes are important.  If we are to properly support professionalism we have to value the skills that officers, using their warranted powers, gain to carry out their roles.  A pay system that rewards time served, rather than skills and professional development cannot do this.

    Yesterday the Home Secretary spoke about the benefits of these proposals to you as operational leaders: the signals you can send to your officers and staff and the flexibility that you will be given.  And these benefits will flow to all officers and to the public, because it will support the central aim of policing: to cut crime.

    And that relationship between the public and police is where I’d like to end my comments today.  You all know that it is a relationship that needs to be won every day, by every action and decision an officer takes.  Contrary to what some people think, confidence in the police has been steadily improving, but too many people still feel disconnected from their local force, thinking that policing is something that happens to them, rather than something they need to engage with.

    That is why I am excited about the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners taking place on 15 November.  Public awareness of the elections is increasing and people are now starting to talk about policing priorities in their areas, often in a way they haven’t before.  You will always be the ones taking the operational decisions, but with a directly elected figure, accountable to the community they represent, the link with the public will be renewed.

    We all know a healthy society requires the police and public to be at ease with each other, and the triumph of the policing operation at the Olympic and Paralympic games is testament to this. I visited the Olympic Park several times but it was not just there, it was everyone involved in the torch relay, the spectators and they were only able to throw themselves into the spirit of the games because of the work that dedicated officers were doing quietly behind the scenes.  The fact that no one mentioned public order during the Olympic period is a huge testament to the success of the operation that police all over the country were involved with. You were essential to helping deliver a safe, secure and enjoyable Games that did prove to be one of the best things to happen to this country for many decades. This easier relationship between the police and the public needs to be one of the legacies of the Games.

    But it is not just for you as leaders or individual officers or forces to work to win this confidence, as elected representatives politicians have a duty to help build this too. So I look forward to working with you, and getting to know you, and my door will always be open to representatives of policing.  I also want to get out to meet with you and hear your concerns by visiting forces around England and Wales.  I visited Coventry with West Midlands Police this morning, so I only have another 42 forces to go.

    I want to thank Derek for his contribution as president.  I know that he has been a source of good counsel for Ministers, and I look forward to working with Irene and continuing what has been a very important relationship that the Home Office has with the Superintendents’ Association.

    I’d also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Steve Williams on becoming chair-elect of the Police Federation.  In my briefing I note that he is a trained hostage negotiator; I was pondering that and I’m sure he will find it a useful skill.

    I know many people have said that this is an opportunity for a new start and personal relationships will be very important and I am more than happy to do what I need to do to ensure we have a creative, constructive, evidence based dialogue. That is the way to make progress. Of course we will not always agree, reform and change is always a painful period for all involved but we need to have those discussions on a regular basis.

    It is true that we have a dedicated and professional police service, and I am excited about the future of policing in this country.  At a time of great change the central mission for policing remains the same: to cut crime.  And as Police Minister I will always support you to do this, in the interest of the people of this country.

    Thank you.

  • Chris Grayling – 2013 Speech on Crime

    chrisgrayling

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling, on 13th June 2013 at Civitas.

    Introduction

    Crime is down, and that’s something we should celebrate.

    All the indicators… whether police recorded crime, the activity in the courts, or the British Crime Survey’s reports of victims’ experience of crime…they all show things moving in the right direction.

    But as Justice Secretary, in charge of prisons, probation and the public money spent on them, I am confronted with a very difficult truth.

    Reoffending rates haven’t changed. The last government threw a lot of money at the system generally, but there is hard core of persistent offenders keep coming back to serve time in our prisons over and over again.

    This means we have a smaller group of more prolific offenders.

    That’s bad for society, it’s dreadful for the victims of crime, and it’s something I’m determined to tackle.

    Someone once made the ‘causes of crime’ into a soundbite. We should be clear that the causes of crime are the choices made by the criminals who commit them, and there is no excuse for those who break the law. But that is not to say we should be blind to the context of crime – the often difficult, chaotic and in fact tragic backgrounds of those passing through our criminal justice system time and time again.

    To understand this is not to excuse criminal behaviour, nor to put the needs of the criminal above the suffering of the victim. There are many people who face big challenges in life and never commit a crime.

    But without a proper analysis of the common threads that run through the lives of offenders in Britain today, we have no hope of either helping them get their lives back on track, or stopping them coming off the rails in the first place.

    It is this context of crime that I want to talk about today.

    First, we have to understand who the offenders are… who are those serving sentences in our communities and in our prisons.

    I want to look at the factors that have influenced their behaviour – and how those factors impact on the chances that they will reoffend too.

    And finally, I want to look at what this means for how we best tackle their behaviour, to try and end their careers of crime once and for all.

    Back in 2002, around 20 percent of those convicted of indictable offences had 15 or more previous convictions or cautions to their name. A decade later, that’s shot up to 34%, while the proportion of first time entrants has stayed the same – it’s actually come down a little (11.2%-9.8%).

    What that means is that crime is increasingly being committed by fewer people, going round and round the system more and more.

    In short, Britain’s problem is less about offending, and more about reoffending.

    Who is committing crime?

    Look into the statistics and you’ll find patterns emerging about the characteristics and the backgrounds of those committing crime.

    Today we’re publishing the results of a study that looked at the more serious offenders – who started community orders between October 2009 and December 2010 [the Offender Management Community Cohort Study].

    Some of the findings you could predict. Others are quite shocking. But all bear close scrutiny.

    Community sentences

    So when the judge hands down a community sentence, who is it that’s facing them in the dock?

    He – it’s overwhelmingly likely that they’ll be male (84%), and a little younger than average (31 v 39 average in England).

    For offenders covered by today’s survey, it’s also highly probable he’ll be out of work. Just a quarter have a job in the week before the survey.

    There’s every possibility that he won’t be in good health. He will be slightly more likely than not to have a long-term medical condition (51%) and nearly one in three will have a mental health condition.

    There’s some chance that he’ll have no fixed base. A significant proportion – over a third – will be experiencing problems finding a permanent home and over one in ten will have no fixed abode.

    Nearly a third (29%) will describe themselves as having financial difficulties.

    Already, at that quick glance, there are some common threads we’ll see with offenders across the board: mental health problems; worklessness; no fixed and stable anchor of a home life.

    Custodial sentences (adult)

    That reflects what we already know about those serving custodial sentences.

    Again, if you’re a prisoner in this country, you’re highly likely to be male (95%). You may well have a chequered work history. Indeed, you might be one of the 13% of prisoners who claims never to have had a job in their lives.

    And again, there’s a decent chance you’ll be struggling with a place to stay. Around one in seven (15%) describe themselves as homeless, and over one in three (37%) say that they will need help finding a place to live when they’re released.

    The chances are you’re single. As a prisoner, you are highly unlikely to be married – fewer than one in ten are (just 8%). Only a quarter reported that they were living with a partner when they went into prison.

    And there’s a strong chance that drugs are a part of your life. Nearly two thirds will have used drugs in the month before entering prison, and just over half (55%) will have a serious drug problem.

    Young offenders sentenced to custody

    Looking to the younger generation of offenders, we can see the patterns emerging that will later solidify in the adult prison population. There are fewer young people entering the criminal justice system, but those that do will be regular visitors to our courts in the years ahead.

    Overwhelmingly, young offenders in custody are likely to be male (95%). Black and minority ethnic groups make up about a third (34%) of the youth custody population – a higher proportion than in adult jails.

    If you look at their educational profile, skills and academic abilities, there’s a clear disparity between them and the population as a whole.

    They are something like ten times more likely to have learning disabilities (23-32% v 2-4%).

    A high proportion of them – maybe more than half – will have dyslexia (43-57%). That compares with just 10 percent in the population as a whole.

    Astonishingly, it’s far more likely than not that if you’re a young person in custody you will have experienced a traumatic brain injury. Somewhere between 65 and 70% [65.1-72.1%].

    It’s unsurprising that, on the whole, their educational attainment is so bad.

    Around half of 15 to 17 years olds entering custody had the literacy or numeracy levels you would expect of children in the last years of primary school.

    All of which is a reminder that the problems faced by young offenders – and then those who go on to offend as adults – are ones that have their seeds sown early on.

    Where they’ve come from

    What seems overwhelmingly clear from all studies is that criminality is not something that descends overnight on people. It’s something that has its roots in where they’ve had their start in life: family breakdown, abusive relationships, and instability.

    Despite this, many prisoners say they have strong family ties. That’s a double-edged sword: strong, supportive families can be a very positive influence.

    But when offenders return to the same streets, the same associations that led them to commit crime in the first place, those links can be destructive.

    Their families

    It may not be the norm that prisoners’ families were engaged in criminal activity per se – but it’s an influencing factor for many.

    It seems to be the case for over a third (37%) of prisoners. Usually the family member who has committed a crime will be a male relative: for most (56%) it’s a brother or step-brother.

    And if you’re a prisoner with a family member who does have a criminal record, you’re more likely to reoffend on release (59% v 48%).

    Beyond simple criminality, the sorts of homes that prisoners may have come from are vital to understanding where they’ve come from and where they may be headed.

    Around half of those getting prison sentences, and of those getting community sentences covered by today’s study, will have grown up in a household with both their natural parents.

    We may be seeing a changing society increasingly reflected when we look at younger offenders.

    Looking at the youngest group of adult offenders with community sentences in the study, 18 to 20 year olds, just under four in every six (38%) grew up in households with both parents.

    But for our average young offender, it’s far more likely than not (75%) that he will have grown up in a household with an absent parent.

    Dig deeper and the background to his life makes for a disturbing picture. It’s probable (51%) that he’s deemed to have come from unsuitable accommodation, and a fair possibility (39%) that at some point he’ll have been on the child protection register or have experienced abuse or neglect.

    Tragically, abuse and violence form the backdrop to the lives of many of the people in our prisons.

    A large proportion – something like four in ten (41%) – of adults in prison will have seen violence in the home firsthand when they were young. Nearly a third would have been abused themselves.

    And where they have experienced or observed abuse in the home the figures show that they are more likely to reoffend on release (58% vs 50% [experienced] and 58% v 48% [observed]).

    Yet one of the most shocking figures I have encountered is the proportion of offenders who have been through the care system. About a quarter (24%) of adult prisoners were taken into care as a child.

    For 15 to 17 year olds in custody that goes up to about one in every three [30% of young men, and 44% of young women].

    And what’s more, those adults in prison who had been in care were quite significantly more likely to reoffend on their release (61% v 49%). I find those statistics incredible, and for me they just cement the link between a solid family background and a life away from crime.

    Of course, there are broader risk factors – environmental and psychological – that show the challenges we face if we’re to prevent young people turning to crime: hyperactivity, the bad influence of those in their peer group, and dysfunctional communities are all part of a picture which puts children at risk of turning to crime.

    There’s one more crucial area of risk that shows a link with future offending: education.

    Education

    Under-achievement, suspension and exclusion: that’s the standard school report of a young man entering the youth estate.

    Nearly nine in every ten (88%) of young men aged 15 to 17 entering custody had been excluded from school at some point. A substantial majority will have skipped school (72% of young men; 84% of young women).

    We’ve already seen that literacy and numeracy is woefully low among young offenders and of course this trend of underachievement is common to the adult prison population as well.

    Hardly surprising that nearly half (47%) of adult prisoners said they had no qualifications, and that worklessness is such a prevalent theme in offenders’ lives.

    Previous offending

    There’s another thing that offenders will have in common in their backgrounds: there is a strong chance they will have committed crimes before.

    The slide into criminality starts young. For the average adult prisoner, his first arrest came at 15…his first conviction or caution came at 16… and he got his first experience of prison life when he was 18.

    These may have been his first experiences of the criminal justice system. Sadly, they won’t be his last.

    Of those convicted for indictable offences in 2012 over a third (34%) had fifteen or more previous cautions or convictions. This is our hardcore of reoffenders. As you’d expect, nine in every 10 of this group are men. Most of their latest offences (51%) were theft or handling stolen goods.

    Quite rightly, given their habit of reoffending a decent proportion (39%) will get a prison sentence. If you are serving time in prison, on average you will have committed an astonishing 41 previous offences.

    How we respond

    So how do we deal with this profound and deep rooted challenge?

    The answer is a jigsaw puzzle of different solutions, in early intervention, improved education, work with troubled families, programmes to tackle endemic worklessness and benefit dependency, improved public health and much more.

    As a Government we are focusing efforts across that challenge – and so are countless voluntary sector and other projects seeking to help tackle the issues we face. Our troubled families initiative, and efforts to strengthen early years provision in nurseries and Sure Start centres are part of that. So are efforts like Labour MP Graham Allen’s Early Intervention Foundation.

    Then there’s education. Of course, low education achievement by itself might not be the root cause of offending – there may be underlying reasons behind both. But our education system needs to be one that drives up participation, aspiration, attendance and attainment.

    The Government is providing over £1.8 billion in 2013-14 through the Pupil Premium so schools can support disadvantaged pupils, including those most at risk of offending. From April this year we’ve given Pupil Referral Units control of own budgets, so they can best respond to the needs of young people.

    Our welfare reforms aren’t simply about saving money. They are also about saving lives, by creating a system where all the incentives and support are around getting people back into the workplace, so we no longer sit at the top of the European league table for the number of children growing up in workless households.

    By the time people reach my Department, the challenges are rather different though. The days for early intervention are past. But the job to be done is no less important.

    Education with detention

    Firstly, education. We’ve seen how fragmented young offenders’ educational histories are. That’s why I’m convinced that education must be put at the heart of our approach to youth custody.

    We’ve consulted recently on the future of the youth custodial estate in England and Wales, and I’ve been clear from the start that we need to aim for a system of education in a period of detention – not incarceration with education tagged on as an afterthought.

    It’s an opportunity we can’t afford to miss. A period in detention actually gives us the chance to get a grip on patterns of failure and exclusion that have blighted these young lives.

    When I’ve met young people in custody what they’ve told me is that they’re keen to take part in courses that they know are going to get them out of the cycle of reoffending.

    They know that this is their chance to pick up a skill, to get the education that will help them to get on and become employable on the outside.

    Given what we know about the emotional and psychological make-up of these young people, we need an estate made up of establishments where they are kept safe and which inspire a culture of learning.

    I saw a good example at Warren Hill Young Offenders’ Institution in Suffolk. The Raptor Project there has groups of young people looking after flying display birds – it’s education, but not in a traditional setting.

    They’re getting the hard literacy and numeracy skills that might have evaded them at school, weighing birds and working out how much to feed them. They’re improving their communication abilities by co-operating; and they’re growing in their self-confidence, looking after something other than themselves and taking responsibility for once.

    Some of the young people there have gone on to employment working with animals. That is a testament to the skills they’ve picked up on the project, but it also highlights another of its real strengths: the connections they make with the community on the outside.

    Above all, what matters is equipping these young people with the self-discipline and ambition to learn that will set them on a new path in life, away from crime.

    The adult prison regime

    We’ve also seen that unemployment is a persistent problem and one that contributes to the vicious circle of offending.

    This was one of the reasons Jeremy Wright and I announced a rethink of the Incentives and Earned Privileges regime in our prisons, including the working day for prisoners.

    One of several problems I had with the system of incentives in prison was that it was a wasted opportunity. It rewarded offenders for simply abiding by the rules and keeping out of trouble.

    In future, prisoners will have to work towards their own rehabilitation to get privileges. They’ll be expected to take part in courses to plug the gaps in their skills and to make up for the lost time when they were skipping school.

    If they don’t engage in that, then they won’t get the same privileges as those who do.

    Work is a central pillar of this. Last year prisoners worked 11.4 million hours in our prisons. Every day we’ve got around 9,000 prisoners employed in industrial work doing a whole range of activity. Some leading prisons are already achieving regular working weeks of 30 to 40 hours.

    That’s a good start, but it is just a start. There’s more that can be done, getting prisoners used to something a significant proportion of them weren’t experiencing on the outside: the discipline and routine of work.

    When you ask them, the majority (68%) of prisoners say that having a job would be important in stopping them reoffending, and the stats bear this out. We know getting a job after release reduces the chances of reoffending by some margin [9.4% 1-year reoffending rate for those serving under 12 months]. That’s also why since last year we’ve been getting those released from prison onto the Work Programme right away, on Day One.

    Rehabilitation

    So custody can help to get offenders the skills and employment that they have otherwise missed in life.

    But that leaves something else – a solid home life. Not just a family, not just a permanent place to stay, although those things are important and they have to feature in our response.

    More broadly, it’s about getting offenders proper support when they leave the prison gates, getting them the basic life management skills they need, so we can class them as ex-offenders and keep it that way. And that’s at the heart of our plans to transform the way rehabilitation is delivered.

    There are a number of different strands to this. We’re putting in place a new ‘through the gate’ service across the country. That means most offenders will get continuous support – starting in prison and carrying on with the same providers when they leave – with the basics you and I might take for granted but which, offenders most need help with. Things like housing and healthcare.

    We’ve seen how the majority of those going into prison have a drug problem, but at the moment too many prisoners serving short sentences can’t get access to recovery programmes. It is no wonder so many are slipping back into a life of crime.

    That’s why my Department are linking up with Health to trial a new approach to drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Up to 5,000 offenders a year released from prisons in Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Lancashire will get support for their addictions, in custody and on their release.

    That continuity of care is important. Under our plans, there’ll be new resettlement prisons so offenders are released into the place where they’re going to live, to build a sense of continuity.

    But even that by itself won’t fix every problem. We saw the depressing backdrop to the lives of those who are in prison – the unstable family life, the abuse and violence, the mental health issues, drug and alcohol problems.

    Who is there to make sure those underlying difficulties don’t push someone leaving prison back into chaos, back into crime?

    Supervision till now has been reserved for those who served prison sentences of a year or more. That simply doesn’t make sense when it’s those serving short sentences of under 12 months that are most at risk of offending.

    To pay for this extension, we’re opening up the market to rehabilitation providers in the voluntary and private sectors so they can innovate and deliver what works. And they will be paid on the basis of what works.

    Today we’re publishing the interim figures from the pilot undertaken in Peterborough, which tested a through-the-gate, payment by results approach for those serving prison sentences of under 12 months. Just what we’re proposing under our reforms.

    It’s too early to make a definitive assessment. But the headline my statisticians are telling me is that the Peterborough early figures are promising. They suggest that the reconviction rate for Peterborough is coming down, while the national rate is actually going up.

    So those are positive signs, and we await the full results next year with interest.

    Now, it’s not for me, sitting in Whitehall, to tell the local voluntary group how to get results – that’s for them. They have the expertise, and ultimately – under Payment by Results – it will be down to them to deliver what works.

    But I do believe mentoring will feature heavily in turning ex-offenders’ lives around. And for me, it will be the ex offender gone straight who can best get under the skin of the person looking to move on from a life of crime.

    He will have faced the same challenges. He might well have come from the same sort of background. He knows the dysfunction passed down from generation to generation like an heirloom, and knows that the circle is a hard one to break. He knows the complexities; he knows it’s a hard hill to climb.

    Conclusion

    I’ve never pretended there’s a simple solution to the complex and – in some cases – hardwired difficulties that offenders face.

    But our response must be one that takes into account the themes we’ve seen running through their lives: poor health, drug addiction, homelessness, underachievement at school and unemployment.

    There’s an economic argument for doing all this. Reoffending costs the UK somewhere between nine and 13 billion pounds a year. The taxpayer has so far got a poor return for the money invested in rehabilitation, which is why we need a new way of approaching the problem.

    But there’s a broader reason why more-of-the-same isn’t an option. It’s the duty we have to society, the families looking to work hard and live honestly whose lives are ruined by crime.

    Because when it’s you who’s the victim, it’s no comfort to be told that crime rates are coming down.

    And when you find out that the person who burgled you, the person who attacked you in the street, has already been round the system scores of times, you’re entitled to ask why the system didn’t do more to prevent you getting hurt, as others had before you.

    My belief is that by understanding the context of the choices that an offender makes, we can understand far better how to get them on to a better path, and get more and more offenders off the depressing merry go round of crime.

    That’s precisely what I hope we can achieve with our reforms.

  • Chris Grayling – 2012 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    chrisgrayling

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chris Grayling on 9th October 2012 to the Conservative Party Conference.

    A few months ago I was in the Clink.

    Not the famous prison in Southwark. But the prison restaurant which bears its name in High Down prison just a few miles to the south.

    It’s one of the most innovative projects I have ever come across. A restaurant, open to the public, but where the cooks and the waiting staff are all prisoners, learning a new trade, getting ready for a return to the outside world, and with the real hope of getting a job.

    It’s an inspirational project and a real example of what our criminal justice system should be doing to try to turn lives around.

    That is only one part of what our criminal justice system should do. I was at High Down not too long after last year’s riots. Being close to London, it had a fair share of the people involved in those disgraceful events.

    I asked one of the prison officers about the rioters who had been sent there. His reply was illuminating to say the least.

    Many of them were really shocked, he told me. They didn’t really believe that anything would happen to them. Still less that they would end up in prison.

    Too often those who offend think that nothing will happen to them.

    Our job is to make sure it does.

    I’ve made no bones about my intention to be a tough Justice Secretary.

    That means I want our justice system to be firm, fair and transparent.

    One in which the public have confidence.

    A system that punishes offenders properly.

    A system that supports the hard work done by our police.

    A system which looks after the victims of crime.

    But that’s not enough on its own.

    It also has to be a system which recognises that our prisons are full of people who face huge challenges. A system which is designed to ensure that they do not return to a life of crime when they are released.

    Before I set out my plans in detail, I want to introduce you to the team of people who will be making all of this happen with me. My Ministerial team, here on the front row.

    We’ve already heard from Damian Green.

    There’s Jeremy Wright and Helen Grant. Our Whip David Evennett, and our two P.P.S.s Lee Scott, and David Rutley.

    Ladies and gentlemen, that public confidence issue is so important.

    We cannot deliver the reforms that are so desperately needed unless the public believe in us.

    And so to law-abiding citizens, I want to say ‘we are on your side’.

    That is why today I am announcing a change to the law about protecting yourself and your family from intruders to your home.

    None of us really know how we would react if someone broke into our house.

    None of us really know how frightening it would be if we were confronted by a burglar in the middle of the night.

    Or how terrified we’d feel, if we thought our family was in danger.

    You might well hit out in the heat of the moment, without thinking of anything but protecting your loved ones. And right now you’re still not sure the law is on your side.

    I think householders acting instinctively and honestly in self defence are victims not criminals. They should be treated that way. That’s why we are going to deal with this issue once and for all. I will shortly bring forward a change to the law. It will mean that even if a householder faced with that terrifying situation uses force that in the cold light of day might seem over the top, unless their response is grossly disproportionate, the law will be on their side.

    We’ve all backed this change in the past. It’s time it happened.

    We are about to start another important change too.

    It’s called ‘two strikes and you’re out’.

    So, if you commit two serious violent or sexual offences, you will get an automatic life sentence.

    Everyone deserves a second chance. But those who commit the most serious offences, crimes that would attract a sentence of 10 or more years, cannot be allowed to just go on and on causing harm, distress and injury.

    Those people are a real threat to our society, and we must treat them as such.

    Thirdly, I am announcing today that we are making big changes to community sentences, so that they deliver proper punishment in the community. Right now large numbers of those sentences deliver no punishment at all. We will change that. We will legislate to make sure there is a punitive element as part of every community order.

    We are also legislating to use more state of the art technology to enforce curfews and exclusion zones. So, for example, we’d be far better placed to know whether a paedophile has broken his order by hanging around local schools.

    We need to do everything we can to safeguard our communities.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    I will not compromise on punishing offenders or protecting the public.

    But the biggest challenge in our criminal justice system is a very different one.

    I want to see more people who deserve it go to prison. But I also want to see far fewer coming back.

    The failure of our system to prevent reoffending is stark.

    Half of offenders are reconvicted within a year of leaving prison. Some re-offend within a matter of weeks, or even simply days, of leaving jail. Around one-third of offenders sentenced for indictable offences last year had

    15 or more previous convictions or cautions.

    You know what we do?

    When someone leaves prison, we send them back onto the streets with 46 quid in their pockets.

    Back to the same streets.

    Back to the same groups of people.

    Back to the same chaotic life styles.

    Back to the same habits as before.

    So why are we surprised when so many commit crime all over again?

    It costs the economy at least £9.5 billion a year.

    It blights communities, and ruins lives.

    It is a national scandal.

    But the impetus to break this cycle is not just an economic one, or an issue of public safety.

    We know – and have known for some years – the factors which affect people’s life chances.

    But the statistics – even if we think we know them – really are grim.

    Around a quarter of prisoners were in care as a child;

    Just think about that.

    A quarter of people in our jails today were in care as children.

    I find that truly shocking.

    Nearly a third of them experienced abuse as a child;

    Half our prisoners have no qualifications;

    Half haven’t been in paid employment in the year before custody;

    About two thirds have used drugs in the month before entering prison;

    Nearly a quarter have a severe and enduring mental illness.

    Nearly three quarters of the prison population were identified as having either a severe and enduring mental illness, a substance addiction … or both.

    These are issues we simply cannot ignore.

    We have to address them if we are to stop re-offending.

    I want to say to offenders ‘We will send you to prison. But we want to change things so that you don’t keep coming back’.

    Over the past two and a half years I have been working with Iain Duncan Smith to transform our welfare state. It’s now time to do the same in justice.

    As Employment Minister I pioneered the use of large scale payment by results contracts to help the long term unemployed through our Work Programme. It’s a simple proposition really. You decide what works best, and we pay you when you are successful.

    It’s an approach that’s already beginning to make a difference getting the long term unemployed back to work. I plan to bring that same approach to preventing reoffending. We will allow nimble private and voluntary sector providers to innovate, to find the right mix of training and mentoring, to do what works in ensuring that those leaving prison and community sentences do not reoffend.

    And there will be more.

    Inside prison, there will be more purposeful regimes. Maidstone prison for example has a textiles facility which produces work wear, and a laundry that employs offenders working a 33 hour week. There is plenty offenders can, and should, be productively doing.

    Inside prison we must give prisoners proper skills and training. Take the Timpson’s academy in Liverpool prison. Prisoners receive training in shoe repairs, engraving, and dry cleaning. The workshop is fitted out to look like a Timpson’s shop, and offenders have the opportunity to apply for a job with the company on release.

    We will make more effective use of drug rehabilitation and alcohol treatments to help tackle the root cause of crime and re-offending. In Kirkham prison for example, they have recruited 2 ex users and offenders as ‘Recovery Champions’ to support the Substance Misuse Services. We will also build on the already ongoing work to make prisons drug free, not somewhere that offenders get sucked into ever more damaging cycles of behaviour.

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    We are already proud as a Government of our reforms to Welfare and Education.

    When we meet here again in a year’s time, I want there to be a real sense that our justice reforms are starting to make an equally big difference to our society.

    When you think about the reality for the people who are in our prisons, you realise that we have absolutely no choice. It just has to happen.

    There’s one other aspect of our prison system that also has to change.

    We have to do something about foreign national prisoners. Their number has increased by forty per cent in the last ten years. They account for more than ten thousand of the places in prison.

    It is a tough task. But it’s one we are already tackling, so that more foreign prisoners are sent back to serve sentences in their own countries.

    It’s something that Jeremy Wright and I will be putting a lot of effort into sorting once and for all.

    There’s another priority for us as well.

    Just before the General Election David Cameron and I went to a small community centre in Liverpool to meet a group of mothers, all of whom had seen violent crime rip their families apart. They all told the same story, of a criminal justice system that seemed to be more on the side of the offender than of the victim and their family.

    They said they didn’t receive enough information about what was going on. Sometimes the offender was back on the streets and they didn’t even know it. They felt that they were being forgotten.

    Well I haven’t forgotten that conversation, and I think it’s time to make sure we put the victim and their family first. That’s why one of my first actions on becoming Justice Secretary was to appoint a Minister for Victims, Helen Grant. I am sure she will do an excellent job.

    Her first task will be to appoint a new Victims Commissioner to work with her to make sure we put victims first. I want that person to be someone who knows at first hand what the impact of crime can be. Then I want them both to work with victims and their families to make sure their interests come first.

    There’s one other promise I want to make to you today.

    At the last election we promised to do something about our out of control human rights culture.

    It’s just crazy that people who are determined to attack our society are able to go back to the courts again and again and claim that it would infringe their human rights to send them back to the countries they come from.

    We know we cannot deal with this in the way we want while we are in coalition.

    But we cannot go on the way we are.

    So my commitment to you is that Damian Green and I will give this Party a clear plan for change on human rights.

    A plan we can take to every doorstep. A plan we can use to fight the battle that we all want to win at the next election – to secure a majority Conservative Government.

    Ladies and Gentlemen.

    My goals for our criminal justice system are simple.

    I want to send a message to law-abiding citizens that says ‘we are on your side’.

    I want to send a message to victims that says ‘we will support you’.

    I want to send a message to criminals that says ‘we will send you to prison, but we will also help you go straight’.

    This is what I believe a tough, fair justice system should look like.

    This is what a revolution in rehabilitation should look like.

    And that is what we will deliver.

  • Chris Grayling – Speech at Swearing in Ceremony

    chrisgrayling

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, at his swearing in ceremony on Monday 8th October 2012.

    Mr Attorney, I am very grateful for the Lord Chief Justice’s kind words.

    It has long been an ambition of mine to be appointed Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor and I am hugely honoured to be here.

    I know there is curiosity about having a former journalist and businessman stepping in to this high office, and not someone steeped in traditions of the legal profession, like my many distinguished predecessors.

    So let me say a word about the office and how I intend to approach it.

    I have the highest respect for this country’s judiciary, which rightly enjoys a worldwide reputation for integrity and quality.

    I also believe very much in the rule of law, which is obviously vital for good government and prosperity.

    So I am as committed as any of my predecessors to the serious, weighty responsibilities that come with being Lord Chancellor – whether that is the protection of judicial independence, the robust defence of justice, or working closely with the Lord Chief on judicial appointments and discipline.

    I’m really honoured and proud to receive the Great Seal, and it’s a particular privilege to share today’s ceremony with two such accomplished men.

    Lord Dyson I have not met previously. But his eminence and reputation as a Justice of the Supreme Court certainly precede him. I congratulate him on his appointment as Master of the Rolls – an office he will perform with the same distinction he has shown in the rest of his sparkling career.

    Oliver Heald I have known for many years as a fine lawyer and colleague. I applaud him on a richly deserved two-for-one honour: taking silk and being appointed Solicitor General certainly counts as a good day at the office.

    My views on the justice system are, I believe, pretty mainstream. I want to deliver reform to strengthen public confidence but also ensure that our system does much better at turning offenders away from crime. The rehabilitation revolution is my vocation.

    I know that judges have been leading a wide range of reforms already and made good progress. I want to support you in your efforts to go further and faster.

    No doubt we won’t always agree on everything. But I’m very conscious of my responsibility to support your role.

    And I’ll defend your independence, even as I push for improvement and modernisation in our justice system.

    It’s a pleasure to be here and a profound honour to serve in this high office. I look forward to working with you all as colleagues and friends and intend to live up to the big responsibilities I’ve taken on.

  • Nick Griffin – 2013 Speech on Russia

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Griffin, the Leader of the BNP, in the European Parliament on 23rd October 2013.

    All this fuss over the activities of an unelected pressure group, which was warned in advance not to invade the waters of a sovereign nation and break legitimate laws.

    No Russian citizen has ever voted for Greenpeace. They have no democratic mandate whatsoever.

    But imagine how much bigger the fuss would be if Russia launched a totally illegal assault on a legitimately elected political party.

    Imagine if the Russian government were to use the excuse of waves of lies from a controlled mass media to arrest the leaders of the opposition.

    Imagine if President Putin were to tear up the constitutional rights of democratically elected parliamentarians and spit in the face of a growing body of opinion of up to 20% of voters.

    We’d never hear the end of it – and rightly so. But when these things happen in Greece, you hypocrites either say nothing or actively applaud the repression.

    No one ever voted for Greenpeace, but half a million Greek voters have been disenfranchised by the attempted murder of Golden Dawn at the behest of EU bureaucrats, German bankers and Zionist gangsters.

    This looters´ coup against the Greek people, by the puppets of the privatisation criminals, is a thousand times more important than this artificial hysteria on behalf of an unrepresentative group of watermelon green cranks.

    You really should stop lecturing Russia about a speck of dust in her eye, when you have a large splintered beam in your own.

  • Iain Gray – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Iain Gray, the then Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, to Labour Party conference on 27th September 2010.

    Conference,

    I want to begin by congratulating Ed Miliband on his election. I know he is going to expose the Tories and the Liberals for what they are, lead our fightback and be the next Prime Minister of this country.

    And you know what, Ed gets Scotland. He knows that Labour is already fighting back in Scotland.

    Fighting back as services are cut, capital projects are cancelled and the recovery is choked off.

    In Scotland all of this is already happening.

    The SNP have cut 3000 teachers from our schools. 1000 classroom assistants are gone. This year alone 4000 posts in the NHS to go, including 1500 nurses.

    The SNP ended our school building programme, cancelled our rail link projects to Edinburgh and then Glasgow Airports.

    They cut the budgets which support enterprise and economic development, reduced university places by 1000 and cut support for 16 –18 year olds staying on at school.

    Unbelievably they did all of this in the good years, the best of times, when they had more money than any Scottish government has ever had.

    The price is high.

    90% of our new teachers this year have no permanent job. Highly trained, highly skilled, highly motivated, they should be inspiring and encouraging the next generation.

    Instead they are sitting at home, on supply, waiting for the phone to ring.

    This movement fought to end the curse of casual labour in the docks but the SNP have casualised the teaching profession.

    The price is high.

    £2 billion worth of schools and hospitals lost. And 37,000 construction jobs gone with them.

    The price is high.

    Unemployment still ri sing in Scotland. Poverty rising again. Economic growth lagging.

    Alex Salmond inherited a Scotland where unemployment was lower than the rest of the country. There were more people in work than ever before. Youth unemployment had all but disappeared. Poverty was falling faster than in any other part of Britain.

    He has thrown all of that away.

    That is Alex Salmond’s legacy of failure.

    Ending it is our challenge. Labour’s obligation.

    Because when unemployment rises and poverty flourishes and opportunity disappears, people will look to Labour. They will look to us. And we must not let them down.

    In May one million Scots said Labour speaks for us.

    And we do: when we campaign for safe streets, clean hospitals, improved literacy in our schools, apprenticeship opportunities for our young people, we speak for Scotland.

    When we stand shoulder to shoulder with carers, with knife crime campaigners, with C Diff families, with commun ity groups facing funding cuts, with newly qualified teachers on the scrapheap and nurses in the firing line, then we stand up for Scotland.

    We had our election failure in 2007. And we learned the lessons.

    We rediscovered the values which bind us, the purpose which drives us and the vision which calls us.

    We remembered that we are a movement, not just a party, driven by principle not just a programme.

    We came out stronger and we are fighting back.

    With an outstanding Secretary of State for Scotland in Jim Murphy we took on our opponents in May and we won the trust of the country once again.

    We are ready now to make Labour once again the biggest party in the Scottish Parliament.

    People say to me, why would you want to be First Minister when money is so tight, when the decisions will be so hard.

    I say: it is when times are hardest that Labour values are needed most of all. Changing our country and our world for the better is one part of Labour’s purpose. But our purpose, too, is to protect those most in need, to see that the lot of the poorest does not diminish, that the limited chances of those on the edge, on the margins of our communities do not slip beyond hope.

    So when the time comes to take hard decisions I will not shirk them. I will not hide. But I will take those decisions for the good of the many with Labour values as the touchstone and the guiding principle.

    We will need to see pay restraint in the months and years ahead. In particular, I want to see excessive salaries and bonuses at the very top end of the Scottish public sector scaled back.

    But those at the bottom of the pay scales must be protected. That is why if I am elected First Minister in May I will introduce a Scottish Living Wage, of over £7 per hour.

    In a 21st Century Scotland no one who does a fair days work should receive less than a fair days pay. In a Labour Scotland we will make sure that no one does.

    Labour colleagues in Glasgow City Council have shown that a Living Wage works, so beginning in the public sector but building out from there, through partnership, and procurement we will create a movement, a campaign against poverty pay.

    Labour in Scotland may well be asked to deal with the choices presented by the Tory cuts, but it is the most vulnerable who will deal with the consequences. I say to every Scot: Labour will be by your side when no one else will dare to care. That is our mission. That will be the hallmark of my leadership in Scotland.

    This week a new chapter in Labour history began. But the values which will shape it are the values which have always shaped the story of our movement.

    In May we can write a new chapter in the history of Scotland. I want the story of Scotland – my country – to be shaped by those Labour values too. Hard times or not, I want a Scotland of fairness, of opportunity of excellence.

    A Scotland to be proud of.

    A Scotland to fight and struggle and organise for.

    A Labour Scotland.

  • Iain Gray – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Iain Gray, the then Leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament, to Labour Party conference on 28th September 2009.

    The Tories have not changed.

    David Cameron has come a long way.  He isn’t hugging hoodies and huskies any more. He is embracing Europe’s extremists.

    In Scotland we are not surprised at the company Tories keep.  We have watched them nuzzling up to the nationalist government from day one.

    In Scotland, we do not have to imagine a leader who will say anything, promise everything and be whatever you want to get into office.  We already have Alex Salmond.

    A year ago he didn’t mind Thatcher’s economics. But now he’s a Keynsian in the crisis.

    A climate change warrior by day, a gas guzzler by night; sending his car round the corner for a curry.

    He really did turn up for the opening of a new shortbread tin. And he really did stand up the chief executive of Diageo with 900 jobs at stake. He had an important raffle to draw on TV that day.

    While Scots are doing everything they can to get through the recession, what is Alex Salmond doing?

    He’s in his Bute house Brigadoon. Picking furniture for imaginary embassies round the world. And choosing curtains for his office in the united nations. Planning tv schedules for SBC – that’s the Salmond Broadcasting Corporation.

    No mandate.  No majority.  And no shame.

    The SNP are not a government.  They are a campaign. The day may well come when the people of Scotland want a referendum to settle their constitutional future once and for all. But not now, in the midst of a recession. And not on a question rigged by the SNP.

    In 2007, in a tight election the SNP won votes by cynically making promises they had no intention of keeping.

    Parents trusted them to cut class sizes.  They haven’t.

    Students trusted them to pay off their student loans. They didn’t.

    First time buyers trusted them to help with their deposit. They let them down.

     

    With twice the resources Donald Dewar ever had, the SNP have built fewer houses, fewer schools, and fewer hospitals than Labour ever did.

     

    Labour in power had a vision of a modern, prosperous, fair Scotland.  We started building the infrastructure to connect Scotland to the world.  We began to heal the Tory legacy in places like Ravenscraig.  We expanded apprenticeships and student places in our universities.  Funded the pipeline from research to jobs, in photonics and bioscience and renewable energy.  Trained more teachers than ever before and guaranteed them jobs.

     

    In just two years the SNP have cancelled the rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports.  They have slashed the enterprise budgets which supported innovation and regeneration.  Halted the expansion of higher education, and thrown 1000 teachers on the scrapheap.

    Alex Salmond is not taking my country forward he is dragging it back.

    That’s what happens when Labour loses power.

    My Scotland would not be a country where two year-old Brandon Muir dies at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend and the First Minister says “everyone did all they could.”  My Scotland would be a country where we would not give up on the 20,000 children living as Brandon Muir lived.

    My Scotland would not be a place where the father of a young man stabbed to death comes to his Parliament to be told by the First Minister that he’s going to abolish jail sentences for hundreds of knife criminals. My Scotland would be a country where if you carried a knife, you would go to jail.

    Alex Salmond is not lifting my country up, he is dragging it down.

    That’s what happens when Labour loses power.

    The next election is a choice, between a Labour government or a Tory government. Alex salmond wants a Tory government. His senior civil servants are already planning for it.

    The SNP believe that the unemployment, the social division, the fractured lives that the Tories would bring are all a price worth paying for their campaign for separation.

    Alex Salmond refused to debate with Jim Murphy – because, he said, he debates with me, every Thursday.

    What’s so special about Thursdays Alex?  How about St Andrews day? Clear your diary. Debate my vision of Scotland against yours. Tell us which side you are on.  I dare you.

    In the Scottish Parliament from Opposition, we delivered 8000 apprenticeships, stopped the unfair, unworkable Local Income Tax, and forced the strongest climate change legislation in the world on the SNP.

    But in Opposition there is so much more we cannot do.

    That is what happens when Labour loses power.

    We must fight, fight and fight again for the future we want to see.

    Last year conference, I said that Labour MSPs would stand shoulder to shoulder with MP colleagues, and with our Prime Minister in the Glenrothes by election and we would elect Lindsay Roy the new Labour MP.

    We did.

    And together we can do the same in Glasgow North East and make Willie Bain a Labour MP. And then we will make Gordon Brown Prime Minister again.

    Together we will defeat those whose sole creed is self interest, whose sole purpose is division whose sole principle is expediency. Whether they are Tories, or nationalists.

  • Ian Gow – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Ian Gow in the House of Commons on 1st April 1974.

    Maiden speakers, like Chancellors of the Exchequer, do not lack advice. I have been told to speak about my constituency, about my predecessor and about non-controversial matters, and, above all, to speak briefly. The first two pieces of advice are comparatively easy to follow. In a Budget debate in which there are real differences of view on both sides of the House it is more difficult to follow the third piece of advice.

    I arrive in this place after my third attempt. On the first occasion I fought a most distinguished former Member of the House, Mr. Richard Crossman to, whom we would all want to send our best wishes.

    When I arrived at Coventry, East the Labour majority was 7,000. After the election it rose to 13,000. On my second attempt I fought Clapham. When I arrived there the Labour majority was a mere 500. After the election it rose to more than 4,000. The House may wonder how, with that track record, I managed to arrive here at all. At Eastbourne in 1974, despite a reduction in the size of the electorate of more than 10,000 people since 1970, the Tory majority increased, and, for the first time since 1918, the Labour Party candidate lost his deposit, and handsomely at that.

    The constituency which I have the honour to represent comprises not only the town of Eastbourne but some of the most beautiful and historic villages in the country—Pevensey with its famous castle, Westham, East Dean, West Dean—and the spectacular scenery of Beachy Head and the Seven Sisters.

    In Eastbourne we have as high a concentration of senior citizens as anywhere else in the country, and there is real need to rectify the present population imbalance, to provide more local employment and to improve both the stock and the quantity of housing. To these matters I shall seek to return on another occasion, if I should have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

    Because of its splendid situation, climate and amenities, my constituency has always attracted the retired. Among my constituents is the former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, now Lord George-Brown. The House will recall that he resigned from the previous Labour Government because he did not like the way in which it was run. He then came to live in my constituency, and I can assure the Government that when they can stand it no longer a warm welcome and happy retirement will await them in my constituency.

    My predecessor was Sir Charles Taylor. He served in this House for 39 years, a record of service rarely equalled. It was a record of service recognised by the county borough when it conferred upon him the honour of freeman. He loved this House and his work in this House, and I believe that the House will miss him.

    There are two proposals in the Budget which I warmly welcome. The first is the increase in pensions. For too long those who have been members of the working population have enriched themselves at the expense of the retired. One of the marks of a civilised and just society is how we treat those who have retired, and I welcome the Government’s proposals unreservedly. But I have just one comment to make to the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services. Last Wednesday she announced that in future pensions will be increased annually in proportion to the increase in national earnings. I believe that we want to make it clear that what worries retired people today is not so much increased earnings but the rate of inflation which is in prospect under the present Government.

    I also welcome the decision to disallow non-business interest for tax purposes. I was in respectful agreement with the present Home Secretary in 1969 when, as Chancellor, he first disallowed such interest, and I was in respectful disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) when he restored the allowance in 1972.

    I am afraid that here the limited bouquets I offer to the Chancellor must end, but I will try not to be provocative. I believe that the whole philosophy of a £500 million food subsidy is grossly misconceived. If that amount of money is available to relieve hardship, the purpose would have been achieved much more effectively by increasing family allowances, by increasing the family income supplement, or by increasing the rate of supplementary benefit.

    What is needed above all today is economic and financial realism. The introduction of food subsidies at this stage and on this scale will be a positive encouragement to the British people to believe that somehow they and the Government can opt out of the real world. Indiscriminate subsidies, whether on food or on housing or in the nationalised industries, encourage a retreat from reality and conceal the true costs involved.

    For too long there has been a tendency by both Governments to hide from the British people the harsh truths of economic reality. Until that trend is reversed, I do not believe that the really serious economic problems which face our country will be overcome.

    I want to recall with approval what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in the House on 21st November 1967 in the debate on the devaluation of the pound. He described the Labour Party—I do not believe that hon. Members will dissent from this—as being based on “interventionists, centralisers and subsidisers”. I was uneasy at the extent to which the Conservative Party when in Government followed the very course which my right hon. Friend warned against in 1967. There is a danger for politicians, particularly when in Government, to succumb to the temptation to intervene, to centralise and to subsidise, and it is very much easier to subsidise than it is to withdraw the subsidy, as I believe the Government will discover to their cost.

    Finally, I want to say something about the underlying strategy of the Budget. The House is entitled to assume that the Chancellor thinks that the Budget will solve, or at any rate will go a long way to solving, the grave economic dangers which our country is facing. Because of the widespread expectation that we are all entitled to a steady and regular improvement in our standard of living, it is particularly difficult for politicians, who have frequently encouraged that expectation, to disappoint it. But what was needed above all in this Budget was to secure a genuine switch of resources from domestic consumption into exports, to reduce the borrowing requirement and, perhaps most important of all, to secure real incentives for further investment in British industry.

    None of these objectives has been achieved by the Budget. I wish the Chancellor and the Government well, but I fear that the Budget has only postponed that solution to the nations’ problems which the people, with some degree of encouragement from the Labour Party, were entitled to expect.

  • John Major – 2015 Speech in Singapore

    johnmajor

    Below is the text of Sir John Major’s speech at the Singapore at 50 Conference held at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore on 3 July 2015.

    It is now over 40 years since I first came to Singapore as a young Banker, and frequent visits since then have kept me abreast of the remarkable way in which it has developed.

    It has been an extraordinary evolution since independence, and especially since Singapore broke free of its relationship with Malaysia.

    It is sad that Lee Kuan Yew – such a magisterial figure in your history – is not here for your 50th Anniversary, but I’m delighted to share a platform with his successor – my good friend and colleague of many years, Goh Chok Tong.

    In this session we are looking at some of the new challenges faced by democratic governments. In the brief time available to us, I can only skim over the surface, but I hope to say enough to provoke debate.

    First, some context. We live in a new age, in which electors demand openness, freedom of information, and a swift response to public concerns. They are not remotely passive; they react swiftly and sharply to policies they dislike – sometimes even when they know those very policies are in the long-term interests of the country.  

    This points up a structural change – in politics and government. As individuals become more assertive, it is far more difficult for the political parties that form governments to obtain – and then retain – support.

    Partisan allegiance to political philosophies is fading in many countries and, as unquestioning philosophical support falls away, governments must rely on popular and successful policies to retain support.

    In principle, this is excellent – thoroughly democratic – but it has a downside: success may take a long time, and holding on to public affection can drive government to short-term policies. This is the antithesis of what Singapore has always done – and an unwelcome trend.

    An even bigger problem is that market forces are becoming more powerful and national governments less so. This is the effect of a truly global market. Globalisation has implications for domestic governments.

    If a country is to compete in our global economy, external rules and regulations may have to be adopted; every nation’s currency becomes more sensitive to events – sometimes events on the far side of the world; inward investment must be attracted in the face of global competition; the price of essentials to everyday life – food, energy – may rise or fall as a result of external factors. All this is unsettling.

    And international agreements can demand unpopular action in a Nation State – on climate change, for example. Singapore illustrates this: as a low lying island State, Singapore needs sensible policies on global warming from nearby States: notably China, India and Indonesia. But such policies are often unpopular in those countries.

    We could all extend this list in our world of inter-dependence. The plain truth is that – more now than in the past – governments are not in control of events – but are driven by them. Sometimes, election promises – made in good faith – have to be abandoned for reasons outside any national government’s control.

    All this can make for an uncomfortable democratic legitimacy. And it will not get any easier in the future.

    These dilemmas arise from a world changing faster than we have known. They leave governments struggling to keep up with new challenges – both domestically and in the wider world. They are expected to understand events, then analyse, and respond to them, but with the 24 hour professional media – they are rarely given much time to do so.

    This dilemma is more difficult for democracy than autocracy. Autocracy can make decisions and implement them speedily.  Democracy is slow, often painstaking, because it has to obtain consensus and agreement.

    This may be less efficient management, but it is what the majority of public opinion demands. In the longer-term, democracy – the imposition of public will – is bound to prevail in any country that has fair elections.

    It is 25 years since Sir Tim Berners-Lee set out an idea at Cern that developed into the World Wide Web: it has changed our world. Moreover, it is largely uncontrolled by government – and, probably, uncontrollable in a free society.

    The Web continues to develop in a manner that is bound to influence and change government. It is casting a light on how people think and what they do in their professional and personal lives. We know more about one another – our fears, our hopes, our quirks – than ever before.

    The Web influences behaviour – for good or ill. It can offer truth or lies. It affects what people do. It might encourage some to take up charity work – or seduce others to become suicide bombers for an extremist sect, as it recently has a boy from Dewsbury in England.

    It can post, as one foolish man has done, security information that puts governments at risk and lives in peril. Almost nothing is off limits. People react to peer pressure, and the Web enhances that pressure.

    We can’t dis-invent the Web – nor should we wish to do so: it is a magnificent invention. The question for government is: can its misuse be controlled, and can it be used to improve the quality of life?

    I believe it can – but controlling misuse begs the question: what is misuse? It can’t be misuse simply by embarrassing governments – but it must be misuse where it aids illegality and crime: governments cannot ignore that.

    The plain truth is that social media has added a new dimension to the opportunities and pitfalls of government. It can either help or hinder. It can help because a direct form of communication can aid government in understanding public needs and attitudes and responding to them.

    This is a valuable tool that governments have barely begun to explore – let alone implement. They should do so.

    But it has a negative side, too. Social media can whip up opposition to decisions that are demonstrably necessary – but may be unpopular in the short-term: it is a medium that can force democratic politicians into an ill-thought-out response, or one that is, frankly, wrong.

    It can put enormous pressure on governments for an early decision, and pre-frame public attitudes before facts are fully explored – or explained. This is a truly negative development for good governance.

    We saw the power of social media in the Arab Spring. It supported and encouraged uprisings that brought down autocratic governments and dismissed long-term despots but – in the absence of order – left behind chaos that continues to destabilise countries across the Middle East.

    Good government requires tolerance and understanding by Governors and Governed alike and, at the moment, that is not available in many countries. As it settles down – it is, at present, in its infancy – social media can enhance tolerance or inspire chaos:  hopefully, it will be the former.

    And, of course, it has highlighted the growing problem of terrorism which poses some acute dilemmas for democratic governments.

    Last year, there were over 13,000 terrorist attacks around the world – mostly in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. No other region had more than 1,000 incidents – but many countries were affected, and yet more will be.

    As this happens, it will create a friction between measures to protect the citizen – and measures to uphold civil rights. There is a delicate balance here.

    Secondary problems arise also for countries with no domestic terrorist threat – most obviously the problems of displaced persons and massive migration. No country dare be complacent.

    To many people in Singapore, the problems of the Middle East, of Syria and Iraq, may seem far away, but the ugly truth is that they are influencing jihadist groups worldwide.

    Nationals from the Philippines and Indonesia appear to be fighting in the Middle East. There are Maoist insurgents in Sri Lanka and jihadis in Pakistan and India. There are Muslim militants in Southern Thailand. The point is simple: no country is immune.

    Even Singapore – although serious counter-terrorism plans are in place – has had impressionable youths radicalised by Islamic State.

    A big question lies in front of government: how can they harness each aspect of modern technology – to improve governance and make life easier for the citizen.

    Some answers are obvious: technology and digital tools can target and deliver services better. They can improve access to services, ensure better traffic control and parking, be better informed on shortcomings to be corrected.

    All this is already being implemented in many parts of the world. “Smart” cities surely lie ahead – with digital advances enhancing urban living, using energy efficiently and engaging more actively with citizens. The scope here is obviously long-term – but almost infinite.

    One aspect of modern technology – cheap and easy communications – is already affecting human behaviour. I come from the age of the quill pen – but even I have come across Google Hangouts, Skype, Facetime, which can bring people together from every part of the world: on one level, this is a benevolent development that increases familiarity and can reduce or remove tensions.

    This is excellent – but again has risks attached to it: it can also be used to oppose, to frustrate, to magnify difficulties – all of which can complicate the exercise of government. And it can – indeed, is – being used to radicalise young minds.

    But I am optimistic that long-term advantages can outweigh short-term problems. Governments can use technology – and especially the Internet – to improve governance. The technological uses are frankly too wide and pervasive to mention here – except to note that they exist and are increasingly being implemented across the world.

    In nearly every aspect of our lives, technology can improve both business efficiency and services, although we have not yet remotely explored all the options.

    But we do know that the internet and social media is a valuable tool to obtain clarity about what electorates need and want.

    It can improve education enormously, and thus national economic wellbeing. The scope here – for young and old alike – is huge. The best lecturers – and minds – in the world can be available to everyone.

    This raises a mischievous question: in fifty years’ time, will we need universities? I hope so – believe so – but know others who take a different view!

    The internet can disseminate and receive information. “We didn’t know” – as an excuse for inaction by government or individuals – is on its way to becoming obsolete.

    It can cherry pick best practice from across the world.

    And, as it extracts information, it can spot trends – to plan policy for the future.

    One worry for government is whether social media can undermine or diminish them. The answer to that is that it can – and will – unless and until government becomes sufficiently familiar with it to regard it as an ally and not as a threat. Then it can – and, I believe, will – be a worthwhile ally.

    Let me summarise: in brief, social media will change the nature of government in ways we have not yet begun to realise. On the credit side, the information tools at its command will give government the ability and knowledge to target its policies more accurately, more inexpensively and more productively. It can help deliver better and more efficient government.

    Conversely, government will be under greater pressure to succeed, to be in touch, to reflect the public will. I suspect the impact of all these changes will be to make government more complex, and the public more demanding.

    One last question arises: why has Singapore – a small island State – been so successful in a world of many nations of greater size and with more resources?

    There are many reasons. But, at their heart, it is because Singapore has always judged what is in Singapore’s interest and acted with determination to implement it.

    Singapore looks to the future more rigorously than any nation I know. She has leveraged every opportunity to remain ahead of the curve: this conference illustrates that perfectly: each session celebrating fifty years of independence is geared to look to the future.

    That is why Singapore has succeeded in the past; and – I believe – why you will continue to succeed in the future.