UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Public Services

  • Keir Starmer – 2024 Statement on ‘Our Government of Service’

    Keir Starmer – 2024 Statement on ‘Our Government of Service’

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 17 July 2024.

    This government has been elected to deliver nothing less than national renewal, to stop the chaos of the past fourteen years, to turn the page on the era of politics as performance, to return it to public service and start the work of rebuilding our country.

    Because people are crying out for change, and that’s what this government of service will deliver through actions, not words.

    That is why today I am setting out our plan for change, to turn the page and rebuild our country so that it’s back in the service of working people. That is what our mission-driven government will be about, focused on ambitious goals bringing together the best of our country.

    We’re getting on with the job right away. Today we’re setting out new laws that will put manifesto commitments into action – improving living standards for working people and fixing the foundations of the country so that every part of the UK is supported to drive economic growth.

    Growth starts with economic stability, which is why we are introducing a budget responsibility bill which will make sure that taxpayers’ money is respected.

    From that solid foundation we can release the brakes on growth and wealth creation.

    We will reform the planning laws, a choice ignored for fourteen years, to build the homes and infrastructure Britain needs. I know how important this is.

    Our pebble-dashed semi provided a secure foundation that my parents were able to build their life on. I want everyone to have that security, including those renting, which is why we are also bringing forward tough new protections for renters.

    It’s not just security at home that matters, but security at work. That’s why we will level-up rights at work to deliver security and dignity for working people. It’s what they deserve.

    Alongside that, we’ll push forward devolution to the cities, regions and councils of England to deliver quality jobs and opportunities in every corner of this country. We’ll do that by putting local decision-makers in charge, moving power away from Westminster and back to those with skin in the game, who know their communities best.

    We’ll also ensure people in those communities feel safe and secure. That means strengthening community policing by giving the police greater powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, strengthen support for victims, and bring forward plans to halve violence against women and girls.

    We won’t stop there. I was the first in my family to go to university, and I remember the pride on my mum and dad’s faces when I graduated. I want every child to have the opportunity I had to succeed.

    And no child should feel that they have less of a chance to fulfil their potential because of the circumstances they were born into.

    That’s why we will break down the barriers to opportunity that hold so many young people back from living the life they deserve. We’ll also raise standards in schools, with one of our first steps recruiting 6,500 new teachers by ending unfair tax breaks for private schools.

    We will also get our health service back on its feet by reducing waiting times, and bring the Mental Health Act into the twenty first century to tackle the mental health crisis.

    This is a programme that will deliver the change that so many across the country are crying out for, one that is driven forward by this government of service.

    Through this work, we will stop the chaos, fix our foundations, and take the brakes off Britain by returning politics to serious government.

    That is the path to national renewal and rebuilding our country, and we take another step forward today.

  • John Glen – 2024 Keynote Speech at Reform’s ‘Reimagining Whitehall’ Conference

    John Glen – 2024 Keynote Speech at Reform’s ‘Reimagining Whitehall’ Conference

    The speech made by John Glen, the Cabinet Office Minister, at BT Tower on 9 May 2024.

    Good morning, everyone, it’s a pleasure to be here with you all.

    I would like to thank Reform for hosting this conference today.

    And I am grateful, too, for Reform’s thought-provoking ‘Making the Grade’ Report published last week – I was fortunate enough to receive it a few days in advance.

    It sets out a series of radical recommendations – a couple stand out to me, like establishing a mid-career fast stream and overhauling the methods by which we assess candidates, all of which I am keen to investigate further.

    But I was particularly taken with your description of the Civil Service having ‘a people problem’, and it’s what I would like to touch on today as we “reimagine Whitehall”.

    Indeed, if we really want to reimagine Whitehall, to make it more efficient to deliver better services for the public then we must focus on the half a million people who make up our Civil Service.

    Because it’s not the buildings that make up Whitehall, or even the physical location itself – it is the people.

    And following our Places for Growth programme, these people are now spread across the United Kingdom. With the relocation of 18,283 roles out of London, a civil servant can now work their entire career without ever having to step foot into Whitehall.

    When I spoke about this in January at the Institute for Government, I was clear that we must increase productivity in the Civil Service. Part of that work is, undoubtedly, about getting the Civil Service headcount under control.

    The Chancellor has been clear about getting it back to pre-pandemic levels. Doing so will allow us to reallocate resources to our most pressing priorities, like national security.

    But the heart of this is to get the most out of our people and deliver more with what we have.

    So, I am clear that we should have a Civil Service where the most skilled, innovative and inspired minds are called to serve, to stay and to be successful and fulfilled.

    There are three main areas of focus.

    First, performance – specifically making sure excellent performance is encouraged and poor performers are managed appropriately.

    Second, recruitment – attracting the brightest minds from the broadest backgrounds to public service.

    And third, skills – making sure the Civil Service is fit to fight the challenges we face, like the threat of climate change or cyber attacks.

    And I have seen in the Cabinet Office the transformation of our capabilities to respond urgently to the challenges around us.

    So, starting with performance.

    Now, I know from my first hand experience that there are many talented, high performing, highly motivated civil servants who work incredibly hard to serve the public each and every day.

    And for the last seven years as a minister, I’ve relied on them day in, day out – and as five years as a PPS, I observed them very closely.

    But too often, high performance doesn’t get recognised, rewarded or incentivised properly.

    The National Audit Office’s recent ‘Civil Service Workforce’ report highlighted that less than 1% of the total Civil Service pay in 21 – 22 was performance-related.

    We’re overlooking a crucial opportunity here.

    So let me be clear, I’m not advocating for hefty bonuses for civil servants. However, our current pay structure and the absence of recognition for outstanding performance can breed significant issues.

    It not only drives talented individuals towards the private sector for better compensation, but it can also fuel grade inflation, where promotions are used to circumvent government-wide pay freezes.

    This can result in a loss of expertise and excellence where it’s most needed.

    So, reimagining how we reward performance could unlock unprecedented levels of quality work within the Civil Service, sharpen our policy focus and ensure that taxpayers see tangible improvements.

    That’s why I am pleased to announce that we are developing a model of milestone based pay for some specialist functions.

    Such a system would allow departments to award performance based incentives for the delivery of specific milestones agreed with ministers.

    As a first step, we will pilot this with our most senior grades, and I hope that this will prove to be a first step in moving towards a wider system of performance related pay.

    Of course, a crucial part of ensuring a high performing Civil Service is tackling poor performance when it arises.

    From my experience in the private sector – I am sure many here would agree – there are no qualms with rooting out poor performance. Either you’re in step or you’re out of line.

    I feel this acutely, because we must never forget – as politicians – that we are stewards of taxpayers’ money, and we have a duty to do all we can to allocate efficiently.

    But we know it’s not always like that in the Civil Service. Performance management processes can be long and complicated and, frankly, that complexity means that many don’t engage at all.

    In fact, it can be all too easy for leaders to let people move to another team, to let the poor performer become someone else’s problem.

    Now, it’s understandable behaviour but it serves no one well.

    Civil servants recognise this as a problem – indeed Reform’s recent report highlighted their deep frustration with the survey work they undertook.

    We simply cannot allow poor performers to go on hiding in plain sight, dragging down their hard working colleagues and hindering  progress.

    I’m not attacking anyone – I’m just stating plainly the reality of what isn’t working.

    That’s why, during my speech in January, I announced that we were reviewing the performance management regime, in order to ensure staff are supported to tackle poor performance.

    And as part of this, we are looking at options to strengthen exit processes around capability issues.

    We’ve already started this work with our most senior civil servants.

    In fact, we’re gathering evidence from all departments about how they have implemented performance arrangements for their senior leaders. Including, how they set their strategic policy objectives, how they lay down what they expect from their people and how they tackle poor performance.

    I’m pleased to say that good progress is being made and should conclude next month.

    We are also making sure that the system which our departmental leaders use to manage their staff is up to scratch by reviewing the Civil Service Performance Management Framework.

    It’s a framework that is used across the Civil Service, and its flexibility means it suits all different departments. But my concern is how it is being used.

    The Cabinet Office does not always – or, perhaps, rarely – have the force to mandate each Department’s behaviour, but we can and will guide it with the soundest frameworks and advice.

    That’s why data is being collected from all government departments to assess how effective the approach actually is, and how consistently it deals with poor performance effectively.

    By autumn, we will have a better understanding of how these tools are being used, we will then act accordingly and if required, make radical changes ahead of the next performance year.

    Next, recruitment.

    Previously, I spoke about the difficulties many new civil servants encountered in their first weeks in the role.

    The timeline from that vacancy arising to a new civil servant being sat at their desk is – frankly – just too long.

    I’m pleased to say today that we have made huge progress in this area, using automation to replicate manual tasks at a speed 84% faster than a human equivalent with reduced errors, freeing up time for civil servants to be getting on with their day jobs.

    While I’m immensely pleased by these achievements, the long-term effects of an overly lengthy recruitment process can leave key posts unfilled. Of course some will walk away from that journey, creating a strong incentive to bypass external recruitment competitions or even forgo competitions altogether to swiftly appoint an internal candidate. Even if they are not ideally suited to the position.

    Correcting this is crucial, especially when it comes to our senior roles.

    Many of our senior civil servants rise to that status without ever leaving the Civil Service ranks. This is the type of career trajectory you can plot in the public sector if you work hard.

    The trouble with such a rise is that we are in danger of group-think:  by remaining the same, we do the same things.

    That’s why, in May 2022, we reinforced the External by Default policy, to ensure all senior civil service roles were open to external candidates unless agreed otherwise by a Minister.

    We have had some tremendous success here, and thanks to this policy, we now see over 93% of permanent Director and Deputy Director roles open to the external market.

    But, as with so many things, what is a great start, we need to go further, because this figure drops to just over 61% when including temporary roles.

    So, I’m pleased to say today that we’ve asked the Civil Service Commission to review how the external by default policy is applied, so that we can reinforce this ambition.

    And I would like to extend this principle beyond senior grades.

    Opening up recruitment in this way means we can benefit from the skills and experience of those internally, but also from the wider public, voluntary and private sector.

    I want to create conditions that allow for civil servants to leave and gain skills outside the Civil Service but return efficiently and enriched at a later date – and for people with expert skills to join, whilst leaving open opportunities to return to outside sectors further down the line.

    Creating a more flexible and agile workforce matters greatly if we are going to instil technical innovation that we need in the civil service, where we really need ground-breaking leadership to bring the public sector in line with the tech sector.

    It is no secret that we have big ambitions to make the Civil Service a world-leader in technology-led public services, I believe that Dr. Laura Gilbert and Mike Potter will be delving into this in one of your panels later.

    And in this area many ways we are making progress.

    We’ve seen success here in lower grades, through our digital apprenticeships and talent programmes.

    But to turn that vision into reality, we need leadership from outside the Civil Service, we need beacons of innovation – setting an example of the type of tech-focused work which we need to adopt across Whitehall.

    And that’s something which is highlighted in Reform’s report, too, specifically how specialist roles need their own system of reward.

    That’s why I am announcing today – as part of the Senior Civil Service Strategy – that we will be developing a recruitment pathway specifically for experienced specialist talent to join the Civil Service.

    This new pathway would recruit specialists at a senior level, pay them competitively, on the right terms and conditions, so they can have real influence and drive innovation.

    But it will free them from some of the responsibilities that would come with a senior role in the civil service, such as line management, so they can remain solely focused on driving transformation.

    I look forward to updating more on this soon.

    Finally,  I would like to turn to skills.

    Of course, we cannot just rely on our innovative experts to ensure the Civil Service keeps pace with the rapid advances in technology we are witnessing.

    To get the very best from our public services now and into the future, we need a Civil Service that is adept, agile and resilient.

    The capabilities and skills we valued in the past are changing, and they’re changing rapidly.

    Now more than ever before we need to embrace people’s potential, and that’s why we’re focusing on our peoples’ skills.

    Not only does investing in skills increase retention and staff motivation, it also ensures that civil servants can adapt to the changing world of work.

    We need to Invest in leadership and management skills so that organisations are agile in the face of rapid change – and in digital and data skills, so that our people are confident in designing and using efficient processes that deploy new technologies

    And we must keep investing in professional skills – commercial, financial, analytical – to boost productivity and to deliver more efficient public services to our citizens.

    That’s why we’re investing in a new digital platform to make it easier for civil servants to identify and access the right training, and are working on a skills plan and new curriculum that will develop the skills we need for the future with training delivered around the country, supporting our places for growth agenda.

    It’s why we are developing digital and data skills to make the best of new technology.

    We also need to look at our organisational structures and whether these are setting us up for success.

    Within the Civil Service, managers oversee too few staff, leading to micromanagement, disempowerment and inefficiency.

    Conversely, there’s an excessive number of hierarchical levels, resulting in bureaucratic bottlenecks and delayed decision-making.

    I’m determined to address these issues by broadening management spans and flattening organisational structures to promote agility and responsiveness.

    Ladies and gentlemen, if we want to reimagine Whitehall, that act starts and ends with our civil servants.

    It’s about getting the right people in the right job, and enabling them to fulfil their potential.

    Across every department, every function and profession and across the United Kingdom.

    I’m pleased to have set out today the real progress we have made since I last spoke on this in January.

    But, I know we can and must do more.

    We need to embrace innovation.

    Make sure that skills keep pace with that innovation.

    All driven by inspiring leaders to make these ambitions a reality.

    I know the Civil Service can be a universally high achieving organisation, I also know we’re capable of so much more.

    So my message is: let’s realise the full potential of our workforce and as a consequence provide better public services to those we serve. Thank you very much.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2024 Speech on Welfare

    Rishi Sunak – 2024 Speech on Welfare

    The speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, at the Centre of Social Justice on 19 April 2024.

    Today I’d like to talk about the growing number of people who have become economically inactive since the pandemic…

    …and the moral mission of reforming welfare to give everyone who can, the best possible chance of returning to work.

    The values of our welfare state are timeless.

    They’re part of our national character – of  who we are as a country.

    We’re proud to ensure a safety net that is generous for those who genuinely need it – and fair to the taxpayers who fund it.

    We know there are some with the most severe conditions who will never be able to work.

    And some who can no longer work because of injury or illness.

    And they and their loved ones must always have the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will always be supported.

    But we also have a long-standing and proudly British view that work is a source of dignity, purpose, of hope.

    The role of the welfare state should never be merely to provide financial support…

    …as important as that will always be…

    …but to help people overcome whatever barriers they might face to living an independent, fulfilling life.

    Everyone with the potential should be supported…

    And not just to earn, but to contribute and belong.

    And we must never tolerate barriers that hold people back from making their contribution…

    …and from sharing in that sense of self-worth that comes from feeling part of being something bigger than ourselves.

    That is why this is a moral mission.

    And why the value of work is so central to my vision for welfare reform.

    And it’s fitting to be setting out that vision here, at the Centre for Social Justice.

    Over your 20-year history, you’ve inspired far-reaching changes to welfare.

    I want pay tribute to you and of course your founder, Iain Duncan-Smith…

    …who began the journey of reform in 2010…

    …a journey carried through so ably today, by Mel Stride.

    Because when we arrived in office in 2010, people coming off benefits and into work could lose £9 for every £10 they earned…

    …by far the highest marginal tax rate.

    That was morally wrong.

    So we created Universal Credit to make sure that work always pays.

    We introduced the National Living Wage – and increased it every year, ending low pay in this country.

    We’re rolling out 30 hours of free childcare for every family over 9 months of age.

    We’ve halved inflation, to make the money you earn worth more.

    And we’ve cut workers’ National Insurance by a third.

    A tax cut worth £900 for someone earning the average wage…

    …because it is profoundly wrong that income from work is taxed twice…

    …when other forms of income are not.

    For me, it is a fundamental duty of government to make sure that hard work is always rewarded.

    I know – and you know – that you don’t get anything in life without hard work.

    It’s the only way to build a better life for ourselves and our family; and the only way to build a more prosperous country.

    But in the period since the pandemic something has gone wrong.

    The proportion of people who are economically inactive in Britain is still lower than our international peers.

    And lower today than in any year under the last Labour government.

    But since the pandemic, 850,000 more people have joined this group due to long-term sickness.

    This has wiped out a decade’s worth of progress in which the rate had fallen every single year.

    Of those who are economically inactive, fully half say they have depression or anxiety.

    And most worrying of all…

    …the biggest proportional increase in economic inactivity due to long-term sickness came …

    …from young people.

    Those in the prime of their life, just starting out on work and family – instead parked on welfare.

    Now, we should see it as a sign of progress that people can talk openly about mental health conditions…

    …in a way that only a few years ago would’ve been unthinkable.

    And I will never dismiss or downplay the illnesses people have.

    Anyone who has suffered mental ill health or had family or friends who have, knows that these conditions are real and they matter.

    But just as it would be wrong to dismiss this growing trend…

    …so it would be wrong merely to sit back and accept it…

    …because it’s too hard; or too controversial; or for fear of causing offence.

    Doing so, would let down many of the people our welfare system was designed to help.

    Because if you believe as I do, that work gives you the chance not just to earn…

    …but to contribute, to belong, to overcome feelings of loneliness and social isolation…

    …and if you believe, as I do, the growing body of evidence that good work can actually improve mental and physical health…

    …then it becomes clear: we need to be more ambitious about helping people back to work.

    And more honest about the risk of over-medicalising the everyday challenges and worries of life.

    Fail to address this, and we risk not only letting those people down.

    But creating a deep sense of unfairness amongst those whose taxes fund our social safety net…

    …in a way that risks undermining trust and consent in that very system.

    We can’t stand for that.

    And of course, the situation as it is, is economically unsustainable.

    We can’t lose so many people from our workforce whose contributions could help to drive growth.

    And there’s no sustainable way to achieve our goal of bringing down migration levels, which are just too high…

    …without giving more of our own people the skills, incentives, and support, to get off welfare and back into work.

    And we can’t afford such a spiralling increase in the welfare bill…

    …and the irresponsible burden that would place on this and future generations of taxpayers.

    We now spend £69bn on benefits for people of working age with a disability or health condition.

    That’s more than our entire schools budget; more than our transport budget; more than our policing.

    And spending on Personal Independence Payments alone is forecast to increase by more than 50 per cent over the next four years.

    Let me just repeat that: if we do not change, it will increase by more than 50% in just four years.

    That’s not right; it’s not sustainable and it’s not fair on the taxpayers who fund it.

    So in the next Parliament, a Conservative government will significantly reform and control welfare.

    This is not about making our safety net less generous.

    Or imposing a blanket freeze on all benefits, as some have suggested.

    I’m not prepared to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable.

    Instead, the critical questions are about eligibility…

    …about who should be entitled to support…

    …and what kind of support best matches their needs.

    And to answer these questions, I want to set out today five Conservative reforms for a new welfare settlement for Britain.

    First, we must be more ambitious in assessing people’s potential for work.

    Right now, the gateway to ill health benefits is writing too many off…

    …leaving them on the wrong type of support…

    …and with no expectation of trying to find a job, with all the advantages that brings.

    In 2011, twenty percent of those doing a Work Capability Assessment…

    …were deemed unfit to work.

    But the latest figure now stands at 65 per cent.

    That’s wrong.

    People are not three times sicker than they were a decade ago.

    And the world of work has changed dramatically.

    Of course, those with serious debilitating conditions should never be expected to work.

    But if you have a low-level mobility issue, your employer could make reasonable adjustments…

    …perhaps including adaptations to enable you to work from home.

    And if you are feeling anxious or depressed, then of course you should get the support and treatment you need to manage your condition.

    But that doesn’t mean we should assume you can’t engage in work.

    That’s not going to help you. And it’s not fair on everyone else either.

    So we are going to tighten up the Work Capability Assessment…

    …such that hundreds of thousands of benefit recipients with less severe conditions…

    …will now be expected to engage in the world of work – and be supported to do so.

    Second, just as we help people move from welfare into work…

    …we’ve got to do more to stop people going from work to welfare.

    The whole point of replacing the Sick Note with the Fit Note was to stop so many people just being signed off as sick.

    Instead of being told you’re not fit for work…

    …the Fit Note provided the option to say that you may be fit for work…

    …with advice about what you could do; and what adaptions or support would enable you to stay in, or return to work, quickly.

    11 million of these Fit Notes were issued last year alone.

    But what proportion were signed “maybe fit for work”?

    6 per cent.

    That’s right – a staggering 94 per cent of those signed off sick…

    …were simply written off as “not fit for work.”

    Well, this is not right. And it was never the intention.

    We don’t just need to change the sick note – we need to change the sick note culture…

    …so the default becomes what work you can do – not what you can’t.

    Building on the pilots we’ve already started..

    …we’re going to design a new system…

    …where people have easy and rapid access to specialised work and health support…

    …to help them back to work from the very first Fit Note conversation.

    And part of the problem is that it’s not reasonable to ask GPs to assess whether their own patients are fit for work.

    It too often puts them in an impossible situation where they know that refusal to sign someone off…

    …will harm their relationship with that patient.

    So we’re also going to test shifting the responsibility for assessment from GPs…

    …and giving it to specialist work and health professionals…

    …who have the dedicated time to provide an objective assessment of someone’s ability to work…

    …and the tailored support they need to do so.

    Third, for those who could work with the right support…

    …we should have higher expectations of them in return for receiving benefits.

    Because when the taxpayer is supporting you to get back on your feet…

    …you have an obligation to put in the hours.

    And if you do not make that effort, you cannot expect the same level of benefits.

    It used to be that if you worked just nine hours a week, you’d get full benefits without needing to look for additional work.

    That’s not right. Because if you can work more, you should.

    So we’re changing the rules.

    Anyone working less than half a full-time week will now have to try and find extra work in return for claiming benefits.

    And we’ll accelerate moving people from legacy benefits onto Universal Credit, to give them more access to the world of work.

    One of my other big concerns about the system…

    …is that the longer you stay on welfare, the harder it can be to go back to work.

    More than 500,000 people have been unemployed for 6 months…

    …and well over a quarter of a million have been unemployed for 12 months.

    These are people with no medical conditions that prevent them from working…

    …and who will have benefitted from intensive employment support and training programmes.

    There is no reason those people should not be in work, especially when we have almost 1 million job vacancies.

    So we will now look at options to strengthen our regime.

    Anyone who doesn’t comply with the conditions set by their Work Coach…

    …such as accepting an available job…

    …will, after 12 months, have their claim closed and their benefits removed entirely.

    Because unemployment support should be a safety net – never a lifestyle choice.

    Fourth, we need to match the support people need to the actual conditions they have.

    And help people live independently and remove the barriers they face.

    But we need to look again at how we do this through Personal Independence Payments. I worry about it being misused.

    Now its purpose is to contribute to the extra costs people face as they go about their daily lives.

    Take for example, those who need money for aids or assistance…

    …with things like handrails or stairlifts.

    Often they’re already available at low cost, or free from the NHS or Local Authorities.

    And they’re one-off costs…

    …so it probably isn’t right that we’re paying an ongoing amount every year.

    We also need to look specifically at the way Personal Independence Payments support those with mental health conditions.

    Since 2019, the number of people claiming PIP citing anxiety or depression as their main condition, has doubled…

    …with over 5,000 new awards on average every single month.

    But for all the challenges they face…

    …it is not clear they have the same degree of increased living costs as those with physical conditions.

    And the whole system is undermined by the way people are asked to make subjective and unverifiable claims about their capability.

    So in the coming days we will publish a consultation on how we move away from that…

    …to a more objective and rigorous approach that focuses support on those with the greatest needs and extra costs.

    We will do that by being more precise about the type and severity of mental health conditions that should be eligible for PIP.

    We’ll consider linking that assessment more closely to a person’s actual condition…

    …and requiring greater medical evidence to substantiate a claim.

    All of which will make the system fairer and harder to exploit.

    And we’ll also consider whether some people with mental health conditions should get PIP in the same way through cash transfers…

    …or whether they’d be better supported to lead happier, healthier and more independent lives…

    …through access to treatment like talking therapies or respite care.

    I want to be completely clear about what I’m saying here.

    This is not about making the welfare system less generous to people who face very real extra costs from mental health conditions.

    For those with the greatest needs, we want to make it easier to access with fewer requirements.

    And beyond the welfare system, we’re delivering the largest expansion in mental health services in a generation…

    …with almost £5 billion of extra funding over the past 5 years, and a near doubling of mental health training places.

    But our overall approach is about saying that people with less severe mental health conditions…

    …should be expected to engage with the world of work.

    Fifth, we cannot allow fraudsters to exploit the natural compassion and generosity of the British people.

    We’ve already cracked down on thousands of people wrongly claiming Universal Credit…

    …including those not reporting self-employed earnings or hiding capital

    And we’ll save the taxpayer £600 million by legislating to access vital data from third parties like banks.

    Just this month, DWP secured guilty verdicts against a Bulgarian gang caught making around 6,000 fraudulent claims…

    …including by hiding behind a corner shop in North London.

    And we’re going further.

    We’re using all the developments in modern technology, including Artificial Intelligence…

    …to crack down on exploitation in the welfare system that’s taking advantage of the hardworking taxpayers who fund it.

    We’re preparing a new Fraud Bill for the next Parliament which will align DWP with HMRC…

    …so we treat benefit fraud like tax fraud…

    …with new powers to make seizures and arrests.

    And we’ll also enable penalties to be applied to a wider set of fraudsters through a new civil penalty.

    Because when people see others in their community gaming the system that their taxes pay …

    …it erodes support for the very principle of the welfare state.

    Now, in conclusion some people will hear this speech and accuse me of lacking compassion.

    Of not understanding the barriers people face in their everyday lives.

    But the exact opposite is true.

    There is nothing compassionate about leaving a generation of young people to sit alone in the dark before a flickering screen…

    …watching as their dreams slip further from reach every passing day.

    And there is nothing fair about expecting taxpayers to support those who could work but choose not to.

    It doesn’t have to be like this.

    We can change. We must change.

    The opportunities to work are there…

    …thanks to an economic plan that has created almost a million job vacancies.

    The rewards for working are there…

    …thanks to our tax cuts and increases to the National Living Wage.

    And now, if we can deliver the vision for welfare I’ve set out today…

    …then we can finally fulfil our moral mission, to restore hope…

    …and give back to everyone who can, the dignity, purpose and meaning that comes from work.

    Thank you.

  • Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Public Services

    Tony Blair – 2004 Speech on Public Services

    The speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 23 June 2004.

    Over the coming three months, I will be setting out an agenda for a third term Labour Government. A major part of that agenda will be about the future of public services in health, education, law and order, transport, housing and employment. But the battle over public services is more than a battle about each individual service. The state of our public services defines the nature of our country. Our public realm is what we share together. How it develops tells us a lot about what we hold in common, the values that motivate us, the ideas that govern us.

    The New Labour Government was created out of the reform of progressive politics in Britain. For the first hundred years of our history as a party, we had been in government only intermittently.

    Our ambition was to govern in the way and manner of Labour in 1945 and the reforming Liberal Governments of the late 19th and early 20th century: to construct a broad coalition of the better off and the less advantaged to achieve progress, economic and social, in the interests of the many not the few.

    In seven years, we have delivered a stable economy, rising employment, and big reductions in unemployment and poverty. With that behind us, we have invested in our public realm. In particular, we have systematically raised the capacity and quality of our public services. Over the last few months there has been a growing recognition and acceptance that real improvement is happening.

    Now, on the basis of this clear evidence of progress, is the time to accelerate reform.

    In simple terms, we are completing the re-casting of the 1945 welfare state to end entirely the era of “one size fits all” services and put in their place modern services which maintain at their core the values of equality of access and opportunity for all; base the service round the user, a personalised service with real choice, greater individual responsibility and high standards; and ensure in so doing that we keep our public services universal, for the middle class as well as those on lower incomes, both of whom expect and demand services of quality.

    I am not talking about modest further reorganization but something quite different and more fundamental. We are proposing to put an entirely different dynamic in place to drive our public services: one where the service will be driven not by the government or by the managers but by the user – the patient, the parent, the pupil and the law abiding citizen. The service will continue to be free, but it will be a high quality consumer service to fit their needs in the same way as the best services do in other areas of life.

    This is a vision which combines choice, excellence and equality in a modern universal welfare state.

    We will contrast such a vision with that of the Conservatives whose essential anti-public service ideology is shown by their policy to subsidise a few to opt-out of public services at the expense of the many; to abandon targets for public service performance; and to cut the overall amount of public spending drastically. There are frequent gyrations in their precise policies; but unchanging in each new version is that a privileged minority can and should opt out in order to get a better service.

    By contrast, I believe the vast majority of those on centre-left now believe in the new personalised concept of public services. It is true that some still argue that people – usually other people – don’t want choice. That, for example, they just want a single excellent school and hospital on their doorstep.

    In reality, I believe people do want choice, in public services as in other services. But anyway choice isn’t an end in itself. It is one important mechanism to ensure that citizens can indeed secure good schools and health services in their communities. And choice matters as much within those institutions as between them: better choice of learning options for each pupil within secondary schools; better choice of access routes into the health service. Choice puts the levers in the hands of parents and patients so that they as citizens and consumers can be a driving force for improvement in their public services. And the choice we support is choice open to all on the basis of their equal status as citizens not on the unequal basis of their wealth.

    This is the case we will take to the British people. It is a case only possible because of our investment. Without investment in capacity and in essential standards and facilities, sustained not just for a year or two but year on year as a matter of central national purpose, there is no credibility in claims to be able to extend choice to all. They become mere words without meaning for the great majority of citizens, as demonstrated by the last government which promised these things but refused the investment in capacity and so ended up making its flagship policies on choice the assisted places scheme, a grammar school in every town, and subsidies for private health insurance; all of them opt-out policies for a small minority at the expense of the rest.

    Some propose to return to these policies. To return to choice for the few. To offer what is in effect not a right to choose but a right to charge. To constrain investment, either by directly cutting it or by siphoning it off money to subsidise those currently purchasing private provision.

    Our goal is fundamentally different and more ambitious for the people of Britain and I will set it out today.

    Let me go back to 1997 and describe our journey as a government.

    We inherited public services in a state of widespread dilapidation – a claim almost no-one would deny. This wasn’t because public services and their staff were somehow inferior; on the contrary, our health and education services had achieved about as much as it was possible to achieve on constrained budgets and decades of under-investment. The problem was too little resource, and therefore grossly inadequate capacity in terms of staff and facilities.

    This under-investment was not tackled in the Eighties and into the Nineties, even as economic conditions allowed. On the contrary, it was maintained as an act of policy and philosophy right up until 1997. So in 1997 the hospital building programme had ground to a halt, despite a £3bn repairs backlog. Capital investment was at its lowest level for a decade. Waiting lists were rising at their fastest rate ever. Nurse training places had been cut by a quarter. Training places for GPs were cut by one fifth. In education, teacher numbers had fallen by 36,000 since 1981. Funding per pupil was actually cut by over £100 between 1992 and 1997. Police numbers were down by 1,100.

    Underinvestment and chronic lack of capacity led, inevitably, to a failure to meet even basic standards. Standards not simply unmet, but undefined, for the simple reason that defining them would have demonstrated how far each public service was from achieving them.

    So there was no national expectation of success at school for young people – although nearly half of 11 year-olds were not even up to standard in the basics of literacy and numeracy and a similar proportion left school at or soon after 16 with few if any qualifications.

    There was no effective maximum waiting time either for a GP appointment or for hospital treatment – although the hospital waiting lists stood at over 1.1 million and many patients were waiting more than 18 months even for the most urgent treatment, with rates of death from cancer and heart disease amongst the highest in Europe.

    There were no national targets for reducing crime or dealing with youth offending, though crime had doubled since 1979 and it was taking four and a half months to deal with young offenders from arrest to sentence. Community penalties were not properly enforced, fines were not paid.

    And not only were none of these basic foundations in existence. Perhaps worse, there was a fatalism, cultivated assiduously by those opposed to public spending on ideological principle, that this was the natural order of things, that somehow there was a ‘British disease’ which meant we were culturally destined to have second-rate education and health and rising crime. The nation with some of the best universities in the world somehow destined to have crumbling, substandard primary and secondary schools; the nation which under Labour founded the National Health Service in the 1940s – one of the great international beacons of the post-war era – still leaving patients on trollys in corridors, with easily treatable conditions – hip and knee-joint replacements, cataracts – largely untreated because of lack of facilities.

    Our first task in 1997, within an indispensable framework of economic stability and growth, was to invest in capacity; to herald public investment in education, health and law and order as a virtue not a curse; and to define basic standards and to reform working practices so that extra resources delivered real capacity improvements service by service. We did so with confidence and optimism. With confidence that public service staff – the doctors, teachers, police officers, and the vital ancillary staff of all kinds – would rise to this challenge, with the better pay, training and incentives they needed and deserved. And with optimism that they would bring abut radical improvement – not immediately; not until the resources and reform programmes on which they depended had started to make an impact; but in a sustained fashion once the real rates of investment – rising now to 7.5% a year in health and 6% a year in education – had begun to drive reform and build capacity.

    Let me pause to say what that year on year investment means. In health, it means a budget now doubled from £33bn in 1997 to £67bn this year, and set to rise to £90bn by 2008, bringing our health spending towards the European average for the first time in a generation. This is enabling us to recruit 20,000 more doctors, 68,000 more nurses and 26,000 more therapy, scientific and technical staff. In education it means a budget nearly doubled, from £30bn to £53bn, again bringing us towards international standards with 29,000 extra teachers in our schools. In law and order it means a 25% real increase in police funding since 1999, and police numbers up 11,000. Across the public services, infrastructure being transformed – new buildings, ICT, equipment, facilities, in every locality in the country in ongoing programmes of investment. The schools capital programme, for example, up from £680m a year in 1997 to £4.5 billion a year today, enabling us to embark on a programme to bring every secondary school in the country – all 3,400 of them – up to a modern standard by 2015. A completely different physical environment for learning, transforming the potential of our teachers.

    But money alone was never going to put even the basics right. We in government never tired of saying – alongside so many public service leaders themselves, frustrated at past failure – that it had to be money tied to reform to ensure that basic standards were defined and delivered in each service. The workforce had to be modernized as it was enlarged and better paid; basic standards and practices defined and delivered; rewards tied to service improvements; a new engagement with private and voluntary sectors; and full accountability to the public which was being asked to pay for the service improvements, with proper independent inspection and assessment.

    So our policy was not simply smaller class sizes and more teachers – although we achieved both. It was also literacy and numeracy programmes, building on best existing teaching practice, to raise basic standards systematically nationwide – 84,000 more 11 year-olds a year now up to standard in maths and 60,000 in English. It was a radical recasting of the teaching profession to embed teaching assistants alongside teachers and give them a defined role – now more than 130,000 of them, double the number in 1997. It was a reform of secondary education – including Excellence in Cities and the specialist schools and academies programmes – tackling failing schools systematically and embedding higher standards and a culture of aspiration school by school. Substantial progress is now evident on all fronts: the number of failing schools is down, there is a new culture of achievement and expectation in our secondary schools, and 50,000 more 16 year olds a year now achieving five or more good GCSEs.

    Similarly, our policy in heath was not simply more doctors, nurses and new buildings – although we have achieved a step-change in all three. It was the first national system of hospital inspection. The first national maximum waiting times for GP appointments, hospital treatment and A&E. New national service frameworks for treatment of cancer and heart disease. Premature deaths from heart disease – the single biggest killer – are down by a quarter since 1997, with a third more heart operations, twice as many patients receiving immediate access to clot-busting drugs and cholesterol lowering drugs now prescribed to 1.8 million people.

    The statistics don’t of course tell the real story of lives saved and transformed.
    Take, for example, the family turning up at A & E with their elderly relative who has fallen at home.

    Before the investment and reforms now in place they would most likely have faced a long and worrying wait, probably in a shabby casualty department. They would have read the stories about ‘waiting 48 hours on a trolley in a corridor’ and expected the same.

    Today, their elderly relative will be seen and treated within 4 hours at the very most, but typically much quicker. There will be more staff in the A & E than previously and the facilities will very likely have been refurbished with play areas for children and so on.

    In law and order, too, it is a similar story of bold statistics proclaiming real change – not only the 11,000 extra police, but also 3,300 community support officers where this type of role simply didn’t exist in 1997. Overall crime, according to the British Crime Survey, down by 4 million incidents a year, with the blight of burglary down to its lowest level for over 20 years.

    This week we held a reception at No 10 for front-line staff. Many of them were people whose jobs didn’t even exist seven years ago. New Deal advisers who have helped cut youth unemployment to a few thousand nationwide. Sure Start workers. Nurse consultants. Community Support Officers. NHS Direct staff. Classroom assistants. All of them giving us the capacity to help thousands upon thousands in new ways.

    So, taking stock, we have raised capacity to a new plateau. And it is from this plateau that we can climb to the next vital stage of public reform, to design and provide truly personalized services, meeting the needs and aspirations of today’s generation for choice, quality and opportunity service by service on which to found their lives and livelihoods.

    Choice and diversity are not somehow alien to the spirit of the public services – or inconsistent with fairness.

    The reason too many of the public services we inherited were stuck in the past, in terms of choice and quality – and the two or even more tiers of service they offered – was because their funding, infrastructure and service standards were stuck in the past too.

    Back in the 1940s, the public services were top-down in their management – like so much else at the time, and this remained too entrenched thereafter. But they were every bit as good as the private sector in terms of choice and quality – if not far better, particularly after the 1944 Education Act and the founding of the NHS, which offered services and opportunities transformed from the pre-war years within a post-war economy and society governed by rationing, funding constraints, and pervasive low skills and aspirations. Aneurin Bevan said the NHS civilized the country. It extended choice, quality and opportunity in its generation: it didn’t limit them. And when it came to means rather than ends, Bevan was entirely pragmatic about how provision should be funded and structured within the new NHS, consistent with its values of equality and fairness.

    The following decades saw a growing divergence between the availability of choice – and the perception and often the reality of quality – between the public and private sectors. But on the basis of the new plateau of capacity, we can change that, whilst keeping intact the ethos of public service.

    Choice and quality will be for all – driven by extra capacity, without charges or selection by wealth.

    In health, we will set out tomorrow a new guarantee of treatment within a set time which starts from the moment a patient is referred by their GP – not the time that they get onto the queue for their operation. Every patient will have a right to be seen and treated within this period, with a choice of which provider undertakes the treatment.

    In education, we want every parent to be able to choose a good secondary school. So we are providing for every secondary school to become a specialist school, with a centre of excellence in one part of the curriculum; and to raise aspiration and achievement in areas where the education system has failed in the past, we will expand the number of academies significantly. We will also reform the curriculum so that students get a better and broader range of options for study beyond the age of 14, developing their talents and challenging them to achieve more.

    In law and order, we will re-introduce community policing for today’s age with dedicated policing teams of officers and community support officers focused on local priorities, implementing tough new powers to deal with anti-social behaviour. There will also be personalised support for every victim of crime as we introduce a new witness care service nationwide.

    The same principles will be extended across the public services. In social housing, for example, we will extend choice-based lettings – which give council and housing association tenants a new service to identify locations and properties, in place of traditional schemes where tenants were simply allocated a property on the basis of a centrally-imposed points system.

    In welfare, every person of working age able to work – wherever they live and whatever their needs – will receive personalised support, including personal advisers able to provide tailored support to help people back into work, not just registered job seekers but steadily more of the three million of working age who are otherwise economically inactive.

    As we accelerate reform on the basis of enhanced capacity, these personalized services will be made available in every community.

    Over the last seven years New Labour has time and again shown how ideas that are supposed to be irreconcilable can be brought together: social justice and economic efficiency; fairness at work and a flexible labour market; full employment and low inflation.

    It is the same with choice, excellence and equity. There is no reason except past failure why excellence need mean elitism – why there can only be good schools and universities if a majority are kept out of them; why there can only be real choice and diversity if a majority are deprived of them. With the right services, expectations and investment, we can have excellence for the great majority, with choice and equity. And we don’t base this on theory, but on what is now happening in practice.

    Consider healthcare, where we have now been trialling choice in the public services for a number of years. The evidence shows there is demand for choice and that this is not only compatible with equity but that choice itself helps to ensure equity.

    In the NHS there have been trials in elective surgery with patients offered a choice of up to four hospitals for treatment, often assisted by a Patient Care Adviser. Take-up is high.

    Half of all those offered a choice of where to have their heart operation in the nationwide cardiac scheme took up the offer. More than two thirds of patients offered a choice in the London trial took up the offer. Three quarters did so in Manchester.

    The schemes have had a dramatic effect on waiting times. In the London pilot, extending patient choice led to a decrease in waiting times of 17% (compared with a 6% fall nationally).

    The recruitment of overseas suppliers into the NHS – setting up new treatment centres extending choice – has also had a significant effect. As the FT put it a fortnight ago: ‘By introducing a clutch of overseas providers … to provide treatment centres for National Health Service patients, the government has at a stroke transformed a significant chunk of the country’s health care … exposing to scrutiny some of the myths on which private medical care is sold.’

    Greater choice and diversity are having a similarly positive effect in education and childcare. Our new under-fives provision – Sure Start, nursery places for three and four year-olds, better maternity and paternity support, a massive extension of childcare supported by tax credits – is enabling parents to choose the provision that is best for them and their children, where previously there was often no provision at all. It is also giving parents much greater flexibility in their working life, where previously they often had none, or indeed little incentive to work at all.

    In secondary education, specialist schools have shown significant improvements in results, and most secondary schools and are now exploring the best curriculum areas in which to develop real centres of excellence and boost their provision. We have made it far easier for successful and popular schools to expand where they wish to do so, including special capital grants for new premises. New secondary school curriculum options, including junior apprenticeships for 14 to 16 year-olds, are giving pupils more choice to meet their aspirations, and we will take curriculum reform further. Academies are offering a wholly new type of independent state school, serving the whole community in areas where better provision is needed, and are proving popular. I have opened two of the new academies in the past year; it is truly remarkable what is possible when investment, aspiration and inspirational leadership – not tied down by past failure – go hand in hand.

    Let me return to my starting point. With growing capacity in our public services we can now accelerate reform. We have the opportunity to develop a new generation of personalised services where equity and excellence go hand in hand – services shaped by the needs of those who use them, services with more choice extended to everyone and not just those that can afford to pay, services personal to each and fair to all.

    It is now accepted by all the political parties that the economy and public services will be the battleground at the next election. That in itself is a kind of tribute to what has been achieved. The territory over which we will fight is the territory we have laid out.

    For our part, we must fight it with a boldness no longer born out of instinct but of experience. When we have refused to accept the traditional frontiers but have gone beyond them, we have always found more fertile land.

    And there is another reason for approaching our task in this way: the world keeps changing ever faster. With the change comes new possibilities and new insecurities. It is always our job to help realise the one and overcome the other; to provide opportunity and security in this world of change; and for all, not for a few.

    Take a step back and analyse seven years of this Government. Setbacks aplenty, for sure. But also real and tangible achievement and progress for many who otherwise would have been kept down, unable to realise their potential, without much hope and with little prospect of advance. Now we have to take it further: always with an eye to the future, always maintaining the coalition of the decent and the disadvantaged that got us here, always recognising that in politics if you aren’t adventurous, you may never know failure, but neither are you likely to be acquainted with success.

    There is still much to do and we intend to do it.

  • Francis Maude – 2005 Speech on Social Reform and the Conservative Party

    Francis Maude – 2005 Speech on Social Reform and the Conservative Party

    The speech made by Francis Maude on 28 November 2005.

    Eight years ago Tony Blair understood something rather important. He understood that people want Britain to have a government committed to a strong and competitive economy, to first class public services, and to a cohesive society where no one is left behind or left on their own. There was indeed such a hunger, and he persuaded them that his would be such a government. Now people feel let down, and there is now widespread disillusion with politics.

    The task facing the Conservative Party under its new leader is to show that we are a credible and appealing alternative Government that both wants and is capable of delivering the objectives set out by Tony Blair, and which his Government has failed to deliver, largely because Gordon Brown has blocked the way. The means we propose to deliver these objectives must be authentically Conservative measures, based on well-tried principles, but applied to contemporary Britain.

    I want to talk tonight about the second objective. The first is pretty obvious really. There is today a more competitive global economy than ever. The statistics are well known to the point of triteness: China’s insatiable appetite for half the world’s steel, cement and cranes; the opening up of China’s heartland when ocean-going ships can trade a thousand miles up the Yangtze in a few years’ time, with an almost infinite source of cheap labour; the one million engineering graduates being produced every year in India. We all have our favourite lists.

    The simple fact is that Britain’s competitive position is deteriorating. The World Economic Forum and other league tables of competitiveness are not some kind of random guesswork. They reflect real factors and real considerations. Gordon Brown seems to have had a disarmingly naive view that if Labour accepted the outlines of the Thatcher/Major economic reforms and gave the Bank of England independence, then Britain’s economic future was assured. An optimal state of economic efficiency would have been attained and additional tax and regulatory burdens could be painlessly absorbed.

    But just as there is no successful business today that believes that optimal efficiency is ever achieved, that steady-state management is ever an option, we should not delude ourselves that anything other than continuous economic reform can give Britain a serious economic future. Britain needs constant supply side reform to ensure that we are able to compete. It is no good simply assuming that because Britain is currently more competitive than much of the EU therefore its position is forever secure. The competitive gap against our EU partners is closing, and against the rest of the world is widening.

    This is not the time or place nor am I the person to set out detailed policy prescriptions. But the questions to be addressed are clear. What is the right tax framework to attract investment to Britain? What needs to be done to ensure that the Labour market is as flexible as it can be? How do we constrain the apparently ineluctable flow of new regulation so that the regulatory burden on business is no worse than proportionate to the risks being protected against? What needs to be done to ensure that the level of research and development is high and sustainable and that new products, services and processes are exploited commercially in Britain rather than elsewhere? There are many other questions, and Britain needs good answers if we are to flourish.

    I turn now to public services. First class public services are essential for so many different reasons. We want excellent health care because we don’t want to be sick or in pain, and we want to live longer. We want good education because it leads to a more fulfilled and rewarding life. But these things are important also because poor health care and inadequate education mean an economy that is held back.

    It is not seriously disputed now that the way we provide state-funded healthcare and education in Britain is seriously flawed. Monopolistic, egalitarian, paternalistic in the worst sense, it urgently needs reform. There is no single silver bullet answer. The MacDonald’s approach of uniform franchises stamped out across the country according to some Whitehall-designed template belongs to yesteryear. Its origins were in the egalitarianism that was an inviolable dogma for so long. This egalitarianism dictated that for some to have access to a better education or better healthcare than others was unfair and wrong.

    So there must be a uniform National Health Service lest local differences benefit some communities and patients more than others. There must be only comprehensive schools lest excellent grammar schools increase the disadvantage suffered by the less able. It was better to remove the advantages enjoyed by some rather than create better opportunities for the rest.

    As we now know, this thesis was deeply flawed. It was never possible to have uniformly good standards of healthcare or educational attainment across the country. There are at least as great disparities today as before egalitarianism caught hold. Thirty years ago two thirds of Oxbridge entrants were from state schools. Today it is just over one-half.

    So what is the direction of reform now needed to give this first world country first world healthcare and education? What about this for starters?

    “We need to explore the usefulness of choice and contestability [competition] to extend opportunity and equalise life chances…We must develop an acceptance of more market-oriented incentives with a modern, reinvigorated ethos of public service. We should be far more radical about the role of the state as regulator rather than provider, opening up healthcare for example to a mixed economy under the NHS umbrella, and adopting radical approaches to self-health. We should also stimulate new entrants to the schools market, and be willing to experiment with new forms of co-payment in the public sector.”

    Or this:

    “…it is only by truly transferring power to the public through choice, through personalising services, through enhanced accountability, that we can create the drivers for continuous improvement in all our services.”

    Or this:

    “In both the NHS and in education, there will in one sense be a market. The patient and the parent will have much greater choice.”

    Yes, you guessed it. Not some ideologically driven worshipper at the shrine of Friedrich Hayek, some geeky devotee of market theory. But that most pragmatic of party leaders, and the most electorally successful in recent years: Tony Blair. These excerpts come from speeches made in the last three years. Just look at the ideas he promotes here. The creation of markets within publicly-funded healthcare and education. Co-payment, the polite word for charging for public services. The treatment of patients and parents as red-blooded consumers, with full-on choice made available to them. Allowing private, even for-profit, providers to compete with the conventional public sector providers to create real choice for these consumers.

    I do understand why it’s so difficult for many Conservatives to support Mr Blair when he makes this kind of speech. After all when the last Conservative Government was introducing reforms along these lines, Mr Blair’s Labour opposition opposed them root and branch. They deployed every trick of rhetoric and deception to persuade people that these were measures born of extremist dogma, intended to enrich fat cats, and without any regard to the interests of the weakest in society. Then his Government when in office reversed many of the measures, such as GP fund-holding and grant-maintained schools, just when they were beginning to yield real benefits for patients and pupils.

    Because Mr Blair’s Labour Party in opposition, from the most cynical and opportunist motives, behaved in this manner, it is indeed tempting for us to play the same game: tit for tat. It is precisely that kind of game-playing approach that has engendered in the public such a dangerous degree of cynicism about and disengagement from politics. We must eschew it.

    We have not always done so. When the Blair Government introduced legislation to create foundation hospitals we opposed it. Not because we were against the idea; we had ourselves introduced something similar when Ken Clarke was Health Secretary fifteen years previously. The Blair scheme was compromised and flawed, for sure, but the idea that hospitals should be given a much greater degree of independence and autonomy was one we all strongly supported. Our justification for opposing the legislation was that it didn’t go far enough. It was better that there should be no bread than half a loaf. Another reason for opposing these reforms was that they might not work and therefore we shouldn’t be associated with them.

    Both these are bad reasons, and it did us harm. Harm because it looked opportunistic and self-serving. Harm because it lacked authenticity. People rightly felt that these were measures in a direction that a Conservative Government could easily have introduced itself, so how could it be authentic for the Conservatives to be opposing them? The result of course is people saying of us: “We don’t know what you stand for.”

    The second example has to be the introduction of top-up fees for higher education. Again the Blair Government’s approach was compromised and flawed. There was an absurdly interventionist regulator created to do what it was already in universities’ interest to do: to find and attract the brightest of students whatever their background and social circumstances. The scheme was so adulterated that the additional financial benefit to British universities to enable them to compete worldwide will be minimal. There was an arbitrary target for the number of school-leavers who should go into higher education.

    Nonetheless the core elements of the scheme were ones with which most Conservatives would feel comfortable. It introduced a price mechanism, albeit very truncated in effect. It will encourage students to look carefully at what value they expect to get out of a degree. Stripped of the regulator, it could make universities much more independent of the state, dispersing power to create independent institutions in a way Conservatives over the decades would approve. It fosters personal responsibility in students. It extends co-payment.

    In short it felt like the sort of direction that Conservatives could plausibly have wanted to travel, embodying values that Conservatives tend to proclaim as their own. Many Conservatives were deeply unhappy to be whipped to vote against the Bill. And again much of the public simply felt confused about what the Conservatives were up to. We were saying we were for the smaller state and for bigger citizens. Yet here was a measure that although flawed was demonstrably a smaller state measure, which enhanced personal responsibility and thus seemed to create bigger citizens, yet the Conservatives were against it. No wonder people scratched their heads trying to figure out what we stood for.

    Now Tony Blair is planning measures to introduce greater consumer choice, more plural provision, and greater institutional autonomy in schools and in the NHS. The proposals have been criticised, rightly, for being pale and timid reforms that conspicuously fall below the level of the rhetoric I quoted earlier. There will be a debate whether the Conservative Party should support the legislation in principle, assuming it does actually take reform in the broad direction we favour. There will be a particular concern that our support might be the deciding factor whether the reforms go through at all, given the high levels of dogmatic opposition in Tony Blair’s own Labour ranks. That Labour opposition will be stirred up covertly by Labour’s own institutional roadblock, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown.

    So what should be the Conservative stance? Combine with the Labour left to shore up Gordon Brown, or combine with genuine reformers of whatever party to promote reform? Should we be tactical or strategic? Should we, regardless of our own narrow partisan interests, engage in building a long term alliance across the party divide in favour of serious public service reform?

    For we should be in no doubt that people are hungry for realism and hungry for change. Poll after poll shows that people no longer believe that the problems of poor healthcare and education can be solved simply by throwing more money at them. They are willing to be persuaded that even quite radical reforms are needed. But they are deeply suspicious of the motives behind the grand schemes of politicians. They impute the worst of motives to any schemes of reform. They are inclined to see them as flowing from dogma and ideology, or designed to benefit the few rather than the many, or aimed at enriching sinister business interests.

    Neither should we underestimate the difficulty of persuading people that radical reform is needed. There is no automatic view that choice is an obvious good. We know what people tend to say: “we don’t want choice; we just want the schools, hospitals etc to be better”. It is not immediately obvious to most people that encouraging more diverse providers into the system, voluntary organisations, not-for-profits, even commercial providers, will improve things for service users. We who agree with Tony Blair’s arguments that I quoted earlier know that choice, diversity and pluralism work. But convincing the public that the uncertainty and disruption that certainly flows from such change is worth while is a very tough call, let alone persuading them of the merits of the sort of co-payment that Tony Blair has argued for. These are the hard yards of political debate.

    It is unlikely to be achieved by one party working alone. And it doesn’t need to be. There are Labour MPs, admittedly of the dreaded Blairite persuasion, such as Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers, who share the analysis and are willing to argue publicly for it. There is a growing number of LibDem MPs, including the brightest among them, the “Orange Bookers”, who know that this is where the future lies. And the simple truth is that the most important thing for this country, after delivering strong economic growth, is to create public services that are worthy of its citizens. This is a central contribution to delivering social justice for them all.

    We must work together in a broad alliance with whoever shares the broad diagnosis and prescriptions to win a broader consensus with the public. If we can do that we will be ready to serve in Government. More than that, we will be worthy of it.

  • Therese Coffey – 2021 Comments on Quarry House in Leeds

    Therese Coffey – 2021 Comments on Quarry House in Leeds

    The comments made by Therese Coffey, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on 26 March 2021.

    Designating Quarry House in Leeds as our second HQ with Ministerial offices builds on our presence in towns and cities across Britain. Leeds has a leading role in this country’s recovery as we build back better and deliver our Plan for Jobs. DWP ministers are excited about our second office, giving us direct entry into the Northern Powerhouse.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2012 Speech to the Fire Sector Summit

    Brandon Lewis – 2012 Speech to the Fire Sector Summit

    The statement made by Brandon Lewis, the then Minister of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 24 October 2012.

    I would like to say how delighted I am to be invited to speak to this summit – an event that grows in importance every year.

    I am particularly pleased that the summit brings together all parts of the fire industry – not only those who deliver the fire and rescue service at the sharp end, but all those who, often behind the scenes, do so much to ensure the buildings we live in and the products we use on a daily basis, are safe.

    A success story

    And in terms of fires you should all congratulate yourselves on a considerable success story. In England, fire fatalities and non-fatal casualties fell by 34% and 54% respectively between 2001 to 2002 and 2011 to 2012, and the average area of fire damage fell by 20% in dwellings and around 10% in other buildings during the same period. Last year, total fires fell by 6% to 227,000. I very much hope that these trends continue way into the future.

    As part of government’s commitment to maintaining a high profile focus on prevention activity, the Fire Kills campaign is currently running its hugely successful national advertising campaign. As with last year, we are encouraging everyone to test their smoke alarms when they change their clocks this weekend as you are four times more likely to die in a fire if you do not have a working smoke alarm. I would ask that in order to extend the reach and breadth of the campaign, you use your own websites to disseminate this important message. By working together we have the opportunity to really drive home the importance of fire safe behaviour and maintain the downward trend on fire deaths.

    The interaction between the fire industry and fire and rescue is a complex one – and for that reason I am delighted that the Fire Sector Federation is playing an increasingly important role in pulling all parts of the fire industry together, into a forum where ideas and knowledge can be exchanged. And I would particularly like to thank Brian Robinson, the Chairman of the Federation, for his hard work and perseverance in bringing the Federation to life.

    The importance of co-operation

    Growth is a top priority for this government. Supporting business growth for both new and existing companies is fundamental to our approach. And encouraging the creation of new businesses and sectors is crucial to this country’s future. These new businesses will help to create the necessary wealth and growth, and much needed jobs. But we need also to ensure that both new and existing businesses are strong and resilient, including safeguarding and protecting them from the devastating effects of a fire.

    All of you here today will know a fire can result in a business loss both in terms of its employees, its contribution to the local economy, and ability to recover and trade again in the aftermath of an incident.

    I urge the fire sector to go out and proactively engage with representative bodies for industry and commerce and make the case for effective and proportionate fire protection – passive and active interventions – in all areas of business in England.

    False alarms

    The industry also has a vitally important role to play in ensuring that we make the best use of innovative technology. You will know better than me the scope for technology to improve resilience to fire – but one area where more can be done is in limiting the number of false alarms. Last year there were 249,000 fire false alarms.

    London Fire Brigade says that despite a reduction of 23% in false alarms in the last 5 years, a fire engine is still called to a false alarm every 12 minutes in the capital, costing an estimated 34 million every year. More importantly, these unnecessary calls impact on the Brigade’s ability to attend real incidents, deliver training and carry out vital community safety work.

    I believe that technology can address this issue. To that end I have asked Brian Robinson to see what the industry itself can do to drive down false alarms through improved technology. Brian has asked a Fire Sector Federation working group under Martin Harvey to look into this issue – and I very much look forward to hearing their findings.

    Workforce development

    Another area where I see significant improvement is in relation to workforce development in fire and rescue services. Here collaborative working between the Sector Skills Council – Skills for Fire and Rescue, and the Chief Fire Officers Association amongst others – is starting to produce tangible results, especially in the risk critical areas of intervention activity. Such work helps underpin integrated risk management plans, interoperability, national resilience and common working. Much energy is being devoted to this work. I would like to thank Max Hood, the chair of the National Occupational Committee for his efforts in leading this work.

    Public procurement

    I know that many of you have an interest in public procurement and accessing new markets. This is an area where government is keen to help. As you may know, the government has put in place the Contracts Finder website, aimed at making it easier for suppliers to find and apply for public sector contracts. It is the main source of government opportunities worth more than £10,000.

    My department has already approached certain fire and rescue authorities to help populate pipelines and is very grateful for the assistance given to date. We are now asking all fire and rescue authorities for help to get as much information on future procurements in the pipeline – this should not be difficult as fire and rescue authorities should already be publishing this information existing contracts and tenders under the local government transparency code. The information on future procurements will help strengthen the UK supply chain by identifying current gaps between supply and demand and giving industry the confidence to invest for the future.

    The government is also committed to devolving power away from Whitehall so that fire and rescue authorities can decide how they can deliver services in a way that best meets their communities’ needs. I hope that the fire sector can join together to develop new ways of working and further innovation that can stimulate growth for all.

    Youth employment

    I want to speak a little about youth employment. In response to the challenge of youth unemployment, year the Deputy Prime Minister has launched a £1 billion Youth Contract to help unemployed people get a job. The Youth Contract will provide a number of new opportunities for young people, including apprenticeships and work experience placements. Many of you will be aware of the The Prince’s Trust Fire Industry Scheme, and some have supported it. I wish to thank you for that, and encourage others to get involved if they can.

    I know a number of fire and rescue authorities have started training apprentices. I was particularly impressed to hear that in Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service 12 young people have started a community safety apprenticeship.

    The apprentices are young people who have already had some contact with Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, for example through the Prince’s Trust courses, cadets and Fire Fly following a targeted recruitment campaign.

    To support them through the application process, they put on a 10-day pre-recruitment course – run by Salford City College – to give candidates an understanding of working with people in the communities they would serve, as well as meeting a community safety adviser who is already in the job, so they know exactly what the role entails.

    I would like to commend Greater Manchester for this valuable initiative, and wish the new entrants every possible success in their apprenticeship, and future careers.

    Retained duty system firefighters

    And finally, the one area where industry and the fire and rescue service co-operate on a daily, if not hourly, basis is in the retained duty system. There is no doubt that the retained duty system is the backbone of the fire and rescue response in large swathes of the United Kingdom. We must, as leaders in the fire sector, wherever possible, bring to people’s attention the valuable work done by retained duty firefighters, and encourage employers and members of the public to offer their services to this essential service.

    Thank you.

  • Brandon Lewis – 2012 Speech to the Chief Fire Officers Association Conference

    Brandon Lewis – 2012 Speech to the Chief Fire Officers Association Conference

    The speech made by Brandon Lewis, the then Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 20 September 2012.

    Introduction

    I am delighted to be here today in my second full week in my new job. I’d like congratulate Vij (Randeniya) on his election as the new CFOA President and thank Lee (Howell) for all his work as part of the presidential team.

    I would like to put on record my thanks to fire and rescue authorities for the important role they played in torch relays across the United Kingdom and during the Olympic and Paralympics Games.

    Although the role that fire and rescue authorities played has gone almost unnoticed in the public eye, the effort and resources which were put in place were greatly appreciated across Government. I am pleased that a number of fire and rescue authority staff who made a significant contribution in delivery of services will be receiving recognition in the form of a commemorative medallion.

    I’d also like to play tribute to Bob Neill, who I know had a deep understanding of the issues you face, a huge knowledge of the sector, and who worked closely with you on resetting the relationship between central and local government, devolving power and responsibility to the front line professionals, to communities and their local elected representatives – where it rightly sits.

    I am very pleased to have been given this brief and I look forward to working with you and your elected members in the coming weeks, months and, hopefully, years. I’m particularly pleased to say that my new brief maintains the link between fire and rescue and local government. Alongside my fire responsibilities I am also local government Minister. This is particularly important to me as I am a keen proponent of local determination on service delivery, on prioritisation and on spending decisions. Keeping the fire and local government link is vital in this and I am sure you will be pleased to hear that I intend to continue Bob’s good work here, embedding localism, continuing the integration of funding via the business rates system, and more importantly, getting out of the way to let you do what you do best.

    Fire prevention

    We will of course, continue to support you where it is appropriate. Thankfully, the number of fires and associated fatalities and injuries continue to fall. The latest statistics show fire deaths in the home have more than halved in the last twenty years – and fell 12 per cent last year.

    This is a fantastic achievement and the Fire Kills campaign is a great example of how effective a partnership between Government and local fire and rescue authorities can be. The campaign’s annual report for 2011/12 was published last week. It clearly demonstrates the range and impact of fire prevention activity being delivered by both the Department through its media campaign, and by its partners. The outstanding success of this campaign is, as you know, in large part due to the sterling, and often innovative, work undertaken at the local level to embed its fire safety messages with both the general public, and with those who may be especially vulnerable to the risks from fire.

    Ultimately, the commitment of you and your local partners to the prevention agenda saves lives and resources. It ensures that our communities are safer places, less exposed to the destruction and devastation caused by fire.

    The challenge must now be to maintain that clear focus on fire prevention, community safety and resilience. Working together allows us to deliver consistent safety messages, tailoring and targeting the campaign to maximise its effectiveness at the local level.

    Next month, the Fire Kills campaign will again be running the hugely successful national advertising campaign to encourage everyone to test that their smoke alarms are working when changing their clocks. I’m sure you’ll already be considering how best to support this at the local level.

    By working together we have the opportunity to really drive home the importance of fire safe behaviour and maintain the downward trend on fire deaths. Given its impact, I am committed to maintaining a high profile focus on community fire prevention and safety activity.

    Resilience

    Prevention activity doesn’t just relate to improving fire safety. We have a model for civil contingency delivery that fits with our views of localism: planning and action at local level based on local risks and with partners having local accountability to make your localities more resilient places.

    I know fire and rescue authorities are increasingly providing strategic leadership to local multi-agency emergency planning activity, with Chief Fire Officers chairing four of England’s 38 local resilience forums.

    This means fire and rescue authorities working with partners locally to better identify and mitigate complex resilience risks that could disrupt everyday life; including flooding, severe winter weather, disruption to fuel supplies or security threats. I hope, as I’m sure you do, that your role in responding to these types of emergencies is not called upon. But in my role as Minister for fire, resilience and emergencies I am keen to hear more about the good examples of the role of fire and rescue authorities in local multi-agency planning that strengthens our ability to quickly respond and recover from disruptive events.

    A clear vision for local delivery: the national framework

    At the very heart of the Government’s ambition is putting power back where it belongs – in communities and with the locally elected councilors who represent them.

    Fire and rescue authorities have been empowered with greater freedoms and flexibilities. You now have general powers of competence and an equivalent general power along with the ability to consult locally to allow charging for additional activities including the option for charging for persistent false reports. These are good examples of central Government stepping back and letting you get on with your job.

    The Fire and Rescue National Framework is currently proceeding through parliament, and will be fully in force in October this year. I’ve come to it new. But I like what I see. For me, it embodies the right approach; setting high level principles instead of detailed requirements – it’s ‘what’ not ‘how’. I am pleased to hear that CFOA has welcomed this document. I would also like to thank you for the support and advice I understand you gave to officials as part of the working group. I think we should all be proud of the Framework, one that moves away from prescription to empowerment, and one that clearly sets out three bold priorities for fire and rescue authorities to:

    identify and assess the full range of foreseeable fire and rescue related risks their areas face, make provision for prevention and protection activities and respond to incidents appropriately

    work in partnership with their communities and a wide range of partners locally and nationally to deliver their service; and
    be accountable to communities for the service they provide.

    It goes without saying that this includes the business community. I firmly believe that businesses have the right to expect that those enforcing regulatory compliance do so in accordance with the fundamental principles of better regulation. I know that CFOA are keen to address shortcomings in this area and to lead work at the local level to develop fire safety audit and enforcement responsibilities to reflect more closely the aspirations that businesses have. Essentially, this means for helpful, proportionate and consistent advice on compliance.

    Given that economic growth and business support is our number one priority, I commend you for your approach and look forward to a positive progression of this significant tranche of work.

    Our national resilience to major fire and rescue related risks remains a priority for government. But we can only do this together, through true partnership, working across all local and national responders.

    That is why we have put in place the Fire and Rescue Strategic Resilience Board, and it is already bringing key partners together to consider national resilience issues. Of course, government will continue to set the strategic direction, but our approach to national resilience must be based on and drawn from local capability alongside your professional expertise.

    We can only prepare effectively if we have an approach to resilience based on local expertise and knowledge. Communities rightly expect their local fire and rescue authorities to play their part in keeping the country safe; every major emergency originates as a local emergency and being able to plan effectively for all incidents and emergencies, irrespective of whether they are of a local, cross-border or national nature, is essential.

    In delivering for your communities, you need to engage them – give them a real understanding of the risks being faced and the full range of what you are doing so they can better understand why you make the decisions you do.

    We all know there are some increasingly tough decisions to be made on how best to allocate prevention, protection and operational resources locally – this needs to be done in a way that meets community aspirations in an open and consultative way.

    By giving communities a voice, you give them a choice:

    choice to make their views known on whether their priorities are the same as yours
    choice to come up with new ideas on service provision
    choice to challenge you on these issues

    Going further, we are today launching a consultation on assurance statements, a mechanism for showing the public how the services they provide are run by their authorities. I know that some of you have mixed feelings on such statements. But for me this is about demonstrating a commitment to greater openness, showing the taxpayer how their money (including council tax) is spent, enabling communities to hold their authorities to account over how they spend the public’s money and for the decisions that they make. And some of you are already doing it very well. Every aspect of council business – including the decisions they make for the delivery of fire and rescue – should be open to public scrutiny including senior pay, councillor expenses and local services.

    Economic context

    I am of course mindful of the financial backdrop we all face. We have taken tough decisions necessary to reduce the budget deficit that we inherited from the last administration. Every bit of the public sector needs to do its bit to help, and local government accounts for a quarter of the public sector.

    I value the incredibly important service that fire and rescue authorities deliver for local communities, and the part they play in national resilience. Despite the need to cut the national deficit, fire and rescue, as a frontline emergency service, has been given funding protection with reductions back-loaded to give more time for sensible savings to be made and reductions applied to fire and rescue authorities have been less than those applied to local authorities in general.

    You will know that we are currently consulting upon plans for 2013-15 funding as part of the business rates retention scheme – this consultation is due to close on the 24th of September and I know that many of you have already engaged in the process. I would urge those whose voices have not yet been heard to ensure they make their views known.

    I know that you are anxious to see what funding might look like from 2013, but I’m sure you will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the consultation, nor can I pre-empt the announcements on funding for 2013/14, which I expect to be made in December in the usual way.

    Despite the challenges, or maybe because of them, I know that you as the professional leaders for the fire and rescue sector are making great strides in efficiency. You have well established processes in place to use integrated risk management plans to make strategic and operational decisions on the siting of fire stations, the staffing and equipping of such stations, and hours of operation of each station. You are looking at your own service configuration to delivering services in a new environment. Some of you are looking at how you use your estate, I know for example that Merseyside are working with the police to share headquarters, that partners in the North West and partners in the South are sharing control rooms.

    Just last week I visited my local constituency fire and rescue authority, Norfolk, who updated me on their Combined fire and rescue, police and ambulance station in Sheringham which officially opened in January this year.

    Sharing buildings is also bringing collaboration on other matters, and I am sure that all of you are looking outside your own sector to see how the country’s national emergency services estate could be better used – sharing facilities and back office services. I know that you are increasingly working with the Ambulance Service and that inter-agency collaborations and interoperability are becoming increasingly important. I’m sure there are ways that we can work and share with the Ambulance Service and other partners and not only improve the services we deliver but also become more efficient.

    Engagement

    Well, in 2 weeks, you can imagine that I am only just scratching the surface of what your issues are. I have already met with Cllr Kay Hammond, who as you know is the new Chair of the Fire Services Management Committee. I outlined to Cllr Hammond that I want to strengthen my engagement with your elected politicians, and I have made clear that as well as having a more regular engagement with the FSMC, I will want to meet chairs and members of fire and rescue authorities. I know that as the professional leadership of the sector you will want to support your councilors in meetings with me.

    I also want to broaden my engagement with CFOA as the representative body for senior professionals. I will be meeting with your president, vice-president and vice-president elect. After this I want my engagement to be with the Board and the Council – I want to hear a broad range of views, and I will make time to engage with you on a regular basis and intend to get out and about visiting as many of your areas as possible.

    CFRA

    The National Framework specifically embeds the key role of the post of the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser who provides professional, independent advice both to senior officials and Ministers. The post was first created in 2007 with Sir Ken Knight filling the position since that time. However, earlier this year Ken indicated that, having completed five years, and with the Olympics behind us it was the right time to move on.

    Having served in Fire and Rescue for over 40 years, including positions as Chief Fire Officer of County, Combined and Metropolitan Fire Authorities as well as the Fire Commissioner for London, Ken has provided consistent and professional advice to my predecessors as he continues to give me. I have hugely valued his input in my first weeks.

    The Secretary of State and I recognise the value and importance of professional advice within the Department and therefore we will shortly be advertising for Ken’s successor whilst I am delighted that Ken has agreed to remain in post until the appointment is made. I hope that senior professionals will take an interest in the post, seeing it as an opportunity to utilise their knowledge and experience to support officials and Ministers.

    We will also be continue to provide opportunities for secondments from the sector to contribute professional views to the development of government policy and give individuals a chance to develop and to experience the workings of government. I hope you will see DCLG as a good place to send your brightest officers as a key part of their career progression.

    There will be other opportunities to say thank you to Ken but I wanted to place on record the Government’s appreciation for the support and advice he has given through the last challenging five years, and of course the previous 41 years in fire and rescue.

    Conclusion

    I hope that I have given you a clear indication of where my priorities lie. I recognise that there are tough times ahead but I believe fire and rescue authorities and Chief Fire Officers can provide the leadership needed to continue to deliver a trusted and excellent public service. A new and more collaborative national-local relationship provides an opportunity for fire and rescue authorities, and organisations like CFOA, to play an ever stronger part in setting the agenda and in keeping our communities and our nation safe. I look forward to working with you all. Fire and rescue services are hugely respected in the UK and have the ability to reach high.

    Thank you.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2021 Comments on Public Services

    Rachel Reeves – 2021 Comments on Public Services

    The comments made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 7 February 2021.

    This Government has eroded not only our public services to the brink of collapse, but so much of what it means to be an honourable and transparent government.

    While this Tory Government has denied key workers in our public services a pay rise, they paid 900 management consultants at Deloitte £1,000 a day to work on test and trace.

    The beating heart of our country is the key workers who have kept us going through this last year. That’s why we applauded them. Children weren’t banging pots and pans for management consultants. They were clapping our key workers.

    The public is also paying a high price for this Government’s mismanagement and waste. This current Tory Party is rife with conflicts of interest. It’s all cheques and no balances.

    People expect all of us seeking government to spend their money with care and respect – and a Labour government will.

    Labour will clean up government contracting by strengthening FOI, introducing a new Independent Anti-Corruption Commissioner, and an Integrity and Ethics Commission to make us a world leader in good governance and transparency.

  • Tim Yeo – 2004 Speech at Conservative Party Spring Conference

    Tim Yeo – 2004 Speech at Conservative Party Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tim Yeo on 6 March 2004.

    Welcome to this session – delighted to have David Davis and Shailesh Vara with me. You’ll be hearing from them soon and later from four of our outstanding PPCs.

    “Young and hopeful” – I think that includes us on the platform.

    It certainly includes most of you in the audience.

    But it’s really the millions of young people who are the future of our country.

    Who are being let down by this Labour Government.

    We can all remember Tony Blair’s promise that education, education, education would be their priority.

    Seven years later what has Labour delivered?

    Take class sizes. An important issue for parents.

    Labour promised to reduce them.

    But the number of secondary school classes with 30 pupils or more has gone up by more than half since 1997.

    That’s 130,000 more young people in classes with over 30 pupils than when Tony Blair gave that pledge.

    What about exam results?

    Ministers try to persuade us standards have risen.

    But the truth is that one in three 11 year-olds leave school unable to read, write or count properly.

    That’s a fact that ought to shame even Tony Blair.

    And here’s another one. Last year more than 33,000 young people left school without a single GCSE.

    Maybe that’s partly because the number of pupils bunking off from school has risen more than a fifth since 1997, despite more than £600 million of spending on various Ministerial initiatives and gimmicks.

    For those who are at school the situation inside the classroom isn’t always good. According to the teaching union NASUWT there’s an attack on a teacher every seven minutes.

    A year ago a poll showed that one in three teachers are considering leaving the profession within five years, because of the target-driven culture and lack of discipline.

    And for youngsters going to university, Labour’s broken promises on top-up fees means they’ll start their working lives burdened with huge debts.

    As for bureaucracy, under Labour non-teaching staff are recruited faster than teachers.

    So Tony Blair’s school report is not good.

    Meddling Ministers.

    Money wasted.

    Frustrated teachers.

    Stagnating standards.

    So much for Labour.

    What will we do to put this right?

    Our plan is radical. It has three elements.

    First, we believe it’s time to give pupils and parents much greater control over how the Government spends their money on their children’s education. I’ll come back to this in a moment.

    Second, we will give schools more freedom. We know it’s the commitment of teachers that determines the quality of education.

    It’s time to get the target-obsessed bureaucrats off their backs.

    To set teachers free.

    To be accountable first and foremost to parents.

    Free to restore discipline in schools and stop the small minority of disruptive pupils from wrecking the chances of their classmates.

    Free to do what they do best – teach.

    Which brings me to the third element.

    Restoring confidence in standards.

    Whatever the spin about better exam results, we know Labour has downgraded the system with its culture of prizes for all which undermines students’ real achievements.

    Universities and employers tell the same story of falling confidence in the qualifications young people acquire at school.

    We will make the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority institutionally independent like the Bank of England, to prevent political manipulation.

    We will address other problems too. Wearing my health hat for a moment, I know that physically active young people are healthy too.

    Because of that we will bring sport back into the schools, something Labour has been too busy flogging off school playing fields to attend to.

    As a parent myself I know what benefits sport can bring.

    Labour’s failures are not confined to schools.

    Our universities are under-funded.

    Labour’s solution will saddle students with huge debts.

    By contrast, we will keep our promises on top-up fees and tuition fees, while giving universities the cash they need.

    That’s good news for students and universities. Bad news for Labour MPs who have to explain why they broke their manifesto promises.

    And under the Conservatives universities won’t be told by yet another bureaucrat, appointed by the Minister, who they can admit and who they can’t.

    But fixing the funding of our universities is not enough.

    We need vocational training that stimulates and skills up those young people who don’t go to university.

    Labour’s system of vocational training is an expensive mess – respected by neither students nor employers.

    Later this year I will set out our Conservative framework for skills training which will address this fundamental failing, a failing that becomes more and more critical as international competition for jobs and investment intensifies.

    Let me close by returning to my first element – the core of our strategy to improve standards in schools.

    The Pupil Passport.

    The right for every parent to choose the school their child goes to.

    Take the example of a child in an inner city borough, with two secondary schools in the vicinity, one good and one bad.

    Currently if the good school is full and the bad one has empty seats then parents may be compelled by the surplus places rule to send their child to the bad school, regardless of their wishes.

    The only way parents can avoid this is to appeal against the decision.

    But although appeals have risen 50 per cent since 1997, only a third are decided in the parents’ favour.

    The Pupil Passport means that child would be able to attend the good school, which itself could expand.

    I can announce today, following Oliver Letwin’s speech setting out the spending plans of the next Conservative Government, and confirming that extra cash will be available for schools, that the Pupil Passport will not be confined to inner city areas as we originally envisaged.

    Instead it will be rolled out progressively across the whole country.

    Because we want every family to be empowered.

    To have the choices which in the past have been available only to the better-off.

    People who could afford to move to the catchment area of their favoured school.

    Under the Conservatives you’ll be able to go to the right school even if your family lives in the wrong street.

    Good schools will attract more pupils.

    And since every girl or boy who is accepted by a school will have funding that goes automatically with her or him, that school will be able to expand in response to demand.

    A popular faith school, for example, within the maintained sector, will be able to grow. So would a successful comprehensive.

    In some areas, completely new schools will spring up. The other side of this coin is that schools which few parents choose for their children will find their numbers decline.

    That will put pressure on budgets.

    It will provide a spur to encourage those schools to improve.

    No longer will they be able to rely on the LEA to ensure that their classrooms are filled with youngsters whose parents have been ordered to send them there.

    Unlike Labour a Conservative Government will not reward failure.

    Because we will abolish the surplus places rule.

    The rule which enables the council to decide the school your child goes to, even if you know it’s the wrong one.

    We are talking to local government colleagues and others about what this means for the future role of LEAs.

    And about how money will be allocated.

    About how the value of the Passport will be set.

    Our aim is to give every family the power now enjoyed by a few.

    Because we know the power of choice is the power to force improvement.

    At the next General Election we will offer the country a clear choice.

    Either continue down this Labour path of stagnating standards where Ministers know best, where you take what you are offered. Don’t you dare ask for anything different.

    An education system in which the State looms too large and people are too small.

    Or follow the new Conservative path.

    Bigger citizens who have more control. Where you choose what you want.

    A path which leads to higher standards.

    Transforming the way public services are delivered.

    That’s the choice we’ll offer the next generation of young and hopeful Britons to help fulfil their aspirations.

    Together our task is to help them choose the right option.