UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • John Denham – 1992 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by John Denham on 20 May 1992.

    While offering you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my congratulations on your new post, may I also thank you for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this historic debate? Looking around the Chamber, I suspect that I will set a record as the new Labour Member to have sat the longest time in one sitting before making a maiden speech. I only hope that, by the end of it, no one will feel that few have sat for so long to say so little.

    We have heard some good maiden speeches tonight. I was especially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), who represents the constituency next door to mine. Last week, he wrote to the Boundary Commission suggesting that the ward of Woolston in Southampton be transferred from the Eastleigh constituency to my constituency. It is an extremely strongly Labour-voting ward. Whilst the transfer would therefore have the deplorable effect of ensuring that the hon. Member for Eastleigh remains the Member for that constituency for as long as his party selects him to do so, it would also have the admirable effect of achieving the same result for me in my constituency. That seems to provide a basis for a long-lasting partnership between the two of us.

    I am interested in election results. My majority might be described as wafer-thin. I replace the only person to break Labour’s line of electoral successes in the constituency since the second world war. Chris Chope was above all a conviction Thatcherite politician. When he told the press that he cried when Margaret Thatcher lost the leadership of the Conservative party, he restated his political position in a memorable way. He also confounded some of us by finally revealing the issue on which he could show such deep human emotion.

    It is debatable whether Chris Chope’s resolve to drive a six-lane motorway deep through a beautiful Hampshire down finally cost him his seat, but the determination with which he set about the task was certainly typical of him. I do not want to seem ungenerous. In the constituency, Chris Chope will be thanked by many hundreds of families for his work on the Housing Defects Act 1984. There are many pre-cast reinforced concrete homes in the constituency. Secondly, although a member of the Tory Right, he never attempted to play what is euphemistically known as the race card in my constituency. By refusing to use poison for political advantage he contributed to the fact that, although racism is definitely serious and present in the constituency, it is by no means as bad as it is in many other multiracial parts of the country.

    Thirdly, from the moment that Chris Chope entered the House to the moment he left it he was a politician who stood up consistently and forthrightly for the values in which he believed. As far as I know, he never tried to shift with the tides of changing public opinion. That is probably what he would most like me to say about his time in the House.

    While waiting to make my maiden speech, I could hardly say that I felt at home, but at times I felt a sense of deja vu. As far as I can remember, my first involvement in a national political campaign was during the referendum on Europe. I voted no, but as time went by, as transnational companies came to dominate our economy more than ever before, as the financial system was deregulated more than we had ever thought possible in the 1970s, and as our economy became more integrated with that of Europe, as Europe became real and inevitable, there were times when I wondered what had happened to the ghost of the “no” campaign of the 1970s. Had it, like a traditional ghost, been doomed to wander the corridors and rooms of a venerable palace? Sitting here tonight, while my eyes closed occasionally and while I listened to the voices around me, I could hear the ghosts of that campaign. I believe that such ghosts are better exorcised than reincarnated.

    I represent a large part of the great city of Southampton. There are few cities in this country which have been so shaped by the world at large and which have done so much to shape the world at large. My city’s history is international, cosmopolitan, ambitious and courageous. The banks of the Rivers Itchen and Test, which flow through and past my constituency, have over the centuries been invaded, raided and bombed. Troops have left the port of Southampton to go to many conflicts—English archers to Agincourt and allied troops to the Normandy beaches among them.

    In its time, the Saxon port of Hamwic was a rival to Viking York in the wealth and extent of its trade links, even then reaching deep into the heart of modern Russia. The Pilgrim Fathers left from Southampton—not Plymouth, as Plymouth’s tourist board sometimes claims—on their historic voyage to America.

    In the 19th and 20th centuries, the development of the modern port once again put Southampton at the heart of an international network of trade and of people. From the Huguenot weavers onwards, people have come to my city from all parts of the world and all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland to make Southampton the place that it is today. Because of that history, the international world and the European world hold few fears for Southampton today. It is a great European city and will grow as a great European city. A city council report, which was debated today while I was here, stated: Southampton must stand for quality, equality and opportunity as a leading cosmopolitan city in Europe. If any right hon. or hon. Members are at a loose end in the recess next week. I invite them to Southampton and to the international trade fair which opens next week. Visitors will be struck by the commitment, vision, participation and strong partnerships for success in Europe which exist in the city.

    After all, what is the significance of hundreds of schoolchildren and older students participating in educational exchanges, or of pensioners attending the recent European pensioners’ parliament in Strasbourg? What is the significance of a chamber of commerce forging strong links with other chambers of commerce in Rouen, Le Havre, Barcelona and elsewhere, or of trade unions regularly meeting their colleagues in Germany, France and Spain?

    What is the significance of traffic engineers collaborating with colleagues in Greece and Germany on the problems of urban congestion, or of the university, the institute of higher education and the technical college with literally hundreds of academic and training links? What is the significance of a city council whose ties with Le Havre and Rems-Muir-Kreiss are not tea parties but the real basis of economic collaboration and of co-operation in training, research and culture?

    I suggest that the significance is that Europe, in a city such as Southampton, is not an abstract entity to be dissected in an academic way as some hon. Members have done today. Instead, it is a living reality. All the links that I have mentioned, and many others, are part of a real commitment on the part of the city to make Europe work.

    My city has a breadth of vision of Europe. It is a vision that includes the understanding that Europe, above all, must be for people. Those of us who live in a great European city, one that is already organically tied to Europe in every part of its daily economic life, know that economic success is only half the challenge.

    I have constituents who ask questions about Europe. Pensioners ask whether there will be a European future for them or whether they will always be the most shabbily treated pensioners in Europe. Parents ask whether their children have a European children’s future or whether they will always have less chance of child care and nursery education than children in most other European countries. Young people ask whether they will have a European future here or on the continent without the quality of education and training that other young Europeans enjoy.

    Those who ask those questions do not do so because they do not want to be part of Europe. They want to be full partners in Europe in every way, in a Europe for people and not in a Europe with 11 players and the United Kingdom on the substitutes’ bench. In Southampton there is participation, commitment, vision and partnership.

    Yesterday, the director of the chamber of commerce wrote to me as follows: A significant ingredient in our future economic development is the close partnership existing between the Chamber and the City Council. It is a Labour city council that is at the heart of Southampton’s European drive. It is not doing everything and controlling everything, but it is shaping, guiding, focusing, supporting, providing an infrastructure, opening up the waterfront, investing in science parks and providing services which are at the core of a successful united effort in Europe. As I have said, it is a Labour city council.

    I must contrast the mood and achievement in Southampton with much of what I have heard in the House and with the Government’s record. The Government’s commitment is shallow. The bottom line is that nothing shall be done to promote Britain’s interests in Europe which can possibly conflict with the interests of the Conservative party in Britain.

    There is narrow participation in a Europe for business perhaps, but not for a Europe for people. There is myopic vision in which the options seem to be, “Take it if you like it; leave it if you don’t.” There is no understanding of grasping Europe and using it as the opportunity that it really is. There has been a rejection of partnership. The Government have turned their back on the proper role of elected government at local, national, regional and European levels in shaping a Europe for all their people.

    There is not time to dwell on the details of the many Divisions which lie ahead, tomorrow and in the coming weeks, and it might not be proper to do so in a maiden speech. I know, however, that the message which goes from the House must be that what Southampton is doing is right. Any message going from the House which questions what a city like Southampton is doing to be a great European city will be a great and bitter disappointment to the thousands of my constituents who are building a new Europe and a great European city.

  • Andrew Smith – 2004 Speech at Age Concern Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Andrew Smith, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, at the Age Concern Conference on 10 February 2004.

    Good afternoon.

    I welcome the research you have published today. It demonstrates the huge contribution that older people make to society and the economy.

    Too often in politics and the media, images of older people are negative. They’re accompanied by doom and gloom warnings about a potential health care or pensions crisis.

    And while I’m clear that we face challenges if we are all to have the income in retirement that we expect – living longer should not be seen as a problem. We’ve spent most of the last century trying to ensure that people can do just that.

    Today I want to talk to you about what the Government is doing to extend choice and opportunities for people in how they plan for retirement, and in particular about promoting the employment of older workers.

    I’ve been asked of course to speak about the state’s responsibilities, but whatever the state does there will always be a need for the voluntary sector – a vital part of a plural and strong society.

    I am interested to hear your views, so I will leave some time at the end for questions.

    The policy context

    Better healthcare, better hygiene, better living standards and more wealth means that people are living longer than ever before.

    Increasing life expectancy means that people can spend a third of their life in retirement – roughly now equal to the length of a person’s youth.

    Retirement used to be seen as the twilight phase of a worker’s life – and pensions policy used to be about providing for the last few years.

    We now find ourselves facing a much bigger policy challenge – one for a third age.

    Our pensions and employment policies need to reflect this.

    To adapt an old cliché – life should begin at 50. We should be looking to open doors, not close them.

    Our first priority when coming to power was to alleviate pensioner poverty. Since 1997 we have raised the incomes of the 2 million poorest pensioners by more than £20 a week, narrowing the gap between them and society as a whole.

    We have also taken action to help people build provision for the future. For example, we have introduced changes to the State Second Pension, so that for the first time those without earnings with caring responsibilities have the opportunity to build up pension rights.

    And through Pension Credit we are rewarding saving, for the first time.

    The forthcoming Pensions Bill is a major step forward in our drive to improve pension security and restore confidence in the pension system. The Bill will set up a Pension Protection Fund – so that as we move forward people can be much surer that a pension promised is a pension honoured.

    A layer cake of regulations surrounds pensions.

    This Bill will cut through this complexity – making it easier and simpler for firms to run pensions, helping cut costs and increasing choices for those who want to work for longer.

    Underpinning all this – the Bill will also establish a new, proactive pensions regulator will focus on tackling fraud, bad governance and poor administration.

    And last week we published our proposals to help people take control of their retirement planning, including regular “pension health check-ups”.

    We have achieved a lot, but there is still more to do to tackle the stereotypes that persistently surround ageing and open up choices and opportunities for people to genuinely plan for their retirement.
    There are around 10 million pensioners in Great Britain. Over the next forty years or so this number will increase by around 50 per cent – even when you account for the State Pension Age for women being equalised to 65 by 2020.

    I don’t need to tell you that this represents a major shift in the make up of the population.

    It’s a well documented fact that not only is the number of older people increasing, but people are living longer at a time when birth rates are falling.

    Some people have made arguments to move to a higher state pension age, releasing resources for use elsewhere in the pension system.

    These arguments can seem persuasive – with apparent easy savings for the Exchequer – and some may argue fit well with the trend towards people living longer, healthier lives.

    But we are clear that this is not the solution. And a quick look at some underlying statistics show why. For example, in Manchester the life-expectancy for a man is 71 years – that’s nearly 5 years below the national average.

    Not to mention that fact that in some local labour markets over half those aged between 50 and state pension age are not working.

    We are clear that the state pension age should remain at 65 – any change to raise it would disproportionately affect the poorest workers, most dependent on the state pension. As well as being forced to work for longer they would, because of lower life expectancy, see a bigger than average slice of their retirement taken away.

    I believe work beyond 65 should be a matter of choice.

    A choice that will become increasingly attractive to more people as outdated ideas about a one size fits all retirement give way.

    That’s why we are taking action to get rid of outdated inflexible rules – so people have the option to draw their pension whilst working part-time.

    And that’s why we will bring forward incentives to encourage people to continue working by offering them a choice if they defer their state pension – to receive either an enhanced pension or a lump sum.

    [For a single person (drawing their pension 5 years later) this would be a one-off payment in the region of £20,000 on top of their normal pension, or £30,0000 for a couple.]

    Working a few years longer can not only make a huge difference to retirement income – but also provide individuals with the opportunity for a second or third career.

    And for business, it promises access to a more experienced, skilled workforce – generally better motivated – at a time when the labour market is increasingly tight.

    But people won’t be able to exercise this choice unless we tackle the discrimination that all too often affects employment opportunities for older people.

    We need to encourage more and more businesses to respond positively – challenging stereotypes and discrimination – highlighting the benefits of an age diverse workforce.

    Research shows that workers over state pension age are more likely to be working for smaller firms – that is companies with 1-10 employees.

    In some ways we should expect this. Many smaller firms are amongst the most flexible, responsive and innovative in other respects – so it shouldn’t come as any surprise that they include entrepreneurs who see the sense in making more of what older employees have to offer.

    We need to look at why this is the case. What are they doing that other firms should learn from?

    We have consulted on a whole range of issues, including mandatory retirement, pay and non pay benefits, recruitment and training, and are currently considering the responses.

    Much of this builds on the work we’ve already done since I first launched the Code of Practice in 1999 – with the support of our partners to promote age equality in employment.

    And that’s why the Government are introducing new legislation which will bring into sharper focus the need for all of us to change culture and attitudes to older workers.

    The message is that discrimination isn’t just unfair it’s bad for business and society as a whole.

    And evidence shows that it’s working. The number of firms including an age restriction in recruitment ads is falling – showing that we are already changing attitudes.
    Moving forwards we need to take a tough look at age discrimination and as part of that learn from the best practice of the increasing number of employers who are doing without mandatory retirement ages.

    And of course our labour market programmes are crucial.

    We’ve got a good base to build from – since 1997 – employment has risen by over 1.7 million to a near record level of over 28 million. Both youth unemployment and long term unemployment levels are at their lowest levels for over 25 years.

    Older people have benefited from these improvements – the gap between the over 50 and working age employment rates has narrowed.

    In fact the number of people aged 50 or over in work has increased by over a million since 1997. This is in marked contrast to the 1980s and 1990s when the proportion of jobless men between the age of 50 and state retirement age doubled.

    We are determined to do more. I am pleased to see that your report highlights the need to provide more help for disabled people or poor health to move back to work.

    This is a priority that we in Government share. Last October we launched Pathways to Work – to challenge beliefs that people with health conditions are incapable of doing any work.

    Indeed more than a million disabled people tell us that they want a job – and we are determined to help them.

    We have designed a package to tackle the barriers they face in getting back to work – covering early intervention and support, specialist rehabilitation services, greater financial incentives.

    Early feedback is very positive. The success of the pilots will revolve around how effectively we manage to join up services and support at a local level – and make sure that they are targeted on the needs of individuals, so that they actually get jobs.

    Conclusion

    To conclude my remarks today – I firmly believe that the strategy we are putting into action is the right one.

    It is vitally important that we all – Government, employers, trade unions and the voluntary sector – work together to help change attitudes to planning for retirement and open up new opportunities for working longer.

    A great deal of progress has been made, but we still have some way to go to make sure that people build up the retirement income they expect.

    I will take some questions, and have asked the organisers to pass on to me the key points that have been made today. I hope you have had a successful day and look forward to continuing to work with you all in the future.

  • John Major – 1995 Speech to British Retail Consortium

    johnmajor

    Below is the transcript of John Major’s speech to the British Retail Consortium on 24th January 1995.

    President, Chairman, Ladies, Gentlemen.

    Napoleon once referred to the British as a “Nation of Shopkeepers”. Today the Retail Consortium would rightly take that as a compliment. At the time, the British army didn’t.

    And Napoleon was left to reflect on St Helena on the wisdom of his remark. He had plenty of time and not much to do. There were no superstores there and precious few shops. No wonder Napoleon tried to escape. He failed – so he was able to consider at leisure the merits of both the British Army and the British retail trade.

    Whatever the merits of retailing then, no one doubts today it has undergone a revolution. The variety and diversity of goods in our shops has expanded beyond all belief.

    In our supermarket are green beans from Kenya, lemon grass from Thailand, asparagus from Peru and starfruit and ortaniques from Morocco. Ortaniques. And once we used to think bananas were exotic!

    And in the high street, are small specialist shops, selling socks or ties or Belgian chocolates. The idea of a viable consumer market for shops like these would have seemed incredible even a few years ago.

    Has any peacetime activity had a more dramatic effect on our lives in the twentieth century than retailing? Personally I doubt it.

    It used to be so very different. As GK Chesterton – who belonged to the Napoleon School of Charm – wrote:

    “God made the wicked grocer

    For a mystery and a sign

    That men might shun the awful shops

    And go to inns to dine”.

    Rather unflattering – and totally out of date. Today, Chesterton would be tucking into pre-prepared haute cuisine from the chill cabinet, washed down the chateau bottled supermarket wine.

    ECONOMY

    I know, for many of you, the going has been tough in recent years. The economic and competitive pressures have been intense. But the prospects ahead are now enticing. The economic recovery is established, is virtuous and offers the opportunity to build sustained growth into the next century.

    Over the last year manufacturing has grown 5%, with productivity up over 6% and unit wage costs falling. There’s been more good news from the CBI survey only today. We hear so much claptrap about British manufacturing from people who don’t understand how it’s changing – how good its prospects are. In fact it’s once again playing a key role in the economy.

    And that feeds through to exports. Exports are leading this recovery and how refreshing that is. Up 13% on last year, with our first trade surplus since 1987. We’re net exporters of machine tools, TV sets, pharmaceuticals. British Steel are now one of the UK’s top ten exporters. Shorts in Belfast doubled their aerospace exports last year. British exports to China rose an astonishing 43% last year. We even have a current account surplus with Japan.

    With growth at 4% last year, the British economy is growing faster than any other big European country. Every year we’re seeing the international economic forecasts updated in Britain’s favour. They said we’d grow faster in 1993. We did. They said we’d do it again in 1994. We did. Now, they predict we’ll grow faster than all our main European competitors this year too. So we will. From 1994 to the end of 1996 we expect to have grown by 10%. Who’d have predicted that two years ago?

    This hasn’t happened by accident. It’s happened because sixteen years of supply side reforms have revolutionised the attitude and performance of British industry. And because the decisions taken over the last few difficult years –unpopular though they have been – were aimed at ensuring a recovery that would last.

    Inflation has now been below 3% for 15 months running – a record not achieved for 30 years. Of course it will fluctuate. But the underlying level is still the lowest for a generation. And we intend to keep it low.

    Tax cuts there will be. We are instinctively a tax cutting party. Every improvement in the PSBR brings that day closer. But we will only cut taxes when it is prudent to do so, and not before.

    ECONOMY AND RETAILING

    I know that my bullish assessment of our economic prospects is not yet reflected in every part of the retail sector –especially those which depend on a buoyant housing market. But the overall picture shows retail sales at record levels – up on last year and well above the last peak in 1990.

    But consumers are more careful and cautious today. This recovery isn’t coming in a rush. The evidence suggests that the biggest dampener on consumer spending isn’t taxes or take home pay but the fear of unemployment. President: if so, that should soon change. Because unemployment in Britain has been falling for two years – last month’s fall was one of the biggest since records began. It’s falling in all regions. Vacancies are at their highest levels for over four years. The prospects for jobs are good. Over 70% of new jobs are now full-time. So there is good reason for consumer confidence to return more strongly.

    COMPETITIVENESS:

    Let me turn to two aspects of competitiveness: one in your control, one in the Government’s.

    First, quality and supporting local firms. In the 1970s, people turned to German or Japanese goods because British goods were often seen as unreliable or shoddy. But that has changed.

    The best retailers have long known this: now others are joining in. Your Consortium – with DTI and the Textile Confederation – are encouraging greater UK sourcing of clothing, textiles and footwear. Of course, retailers want to offer their customers a world wide choice. But, where it makes sense, they’re buying British.

    This is not just about national preference. It’s about enlightened self-interest. Increasingly “British” has quality stamped right through the product. And increasingly, quality is selling Britain right around the world.

    DEREGULATION

    So, better local sourcing to build on quality is something you can do for yourselves. Deregulation is an area where I can help you.

    I am committed to cutting red tape. Of course we must protect consumers. But over-regulation is deeply damaging. It costs profits, investment, efficiency and jobs.

    We have already made significant progress. Last year we reformed the law on Sunday trading. We have legislated to relax outdated rules on late night shopping and to enable children to go with their parents into suitable hostelries. In the last budget Ken Clarke announced our plans to simplify VAT rules to help up to 600,000 small businesses with their cash flow.

    One area that particularly concerns me is the plight of smaller businesses. Over seven million people – 35% of the workforce outside Government – work in businesses with fewer than twenty employees.This is where the new jobs will come from. So we mustn’t strangle business – especially small business – in red tape. Otherwise over-protected consumers may become unemployed workers.

    We’re tackling three aspects of this problem.

    First, over-fussy regulation. I know that nothing makes businessmen’s blood boil more easily. That dreadful phrase “It’s more than my job’s worth” is the inevitable prelude to over regulation.

    The new Deregulation Act has given us new powers to ensure that rules are enforced fairly and consistently. We intend to make good use of them.

    So we’re reviewing all laws affecting business, to bring them into line with three key principles.

    – Businesses should have the basic right to a clear, written explanation of what action an enforcement official wants them to take. A retailer told to renew his floor or his tiles should be able to ask why; whether it’s just the enforcer’s whim or whether it’s the law; and whether his competitors are having to do the same.

    – Businesses should also have the right to put their point of view to enforcement officials before action is taken –unless it’s a genuine emergency.

    – And in future there will be a new model appeal system to hear the merits of the case. We’re working on that right now and will be consulting business about it.

    The result should be a radical shift in power. The onus will be on the enforcer to avoid excessive action; not on the business which has to count the cost.

    Second, we will continue to sweep away unnecessary regulation.

    The Deregulation Act will give us new and quicker ways to cut red tape without requiring full-scale legislation. We have long needed this power – and we mean to use it. We’re earmarked fifty-five measures already. We shall be bringing the first batch to Parliament very soon.

    We’ll be scrapping bureaucratic controls over a wide area. Cutting back paperwork that burdens building societies and the insurance industry. In future, you’ll be glad to hear, the Transport Secretary will no longer have to approve parking control equipment. We’ll also be changing absurd rules – like those on greyhound betting. At the moment there’s one rule for horses and another for dogs. In future, you’ll be able to bet through the tote on the greyhound derby at Wimbledon, even if you’re enjoying an evening at the track at Hove. At present, for some daft reason, you can’t.

    And we’ll be cutting back on the excessive information businesses have to provide in areas like consumer credit. Of course we’ll protect consumers, but too much paper confuses everyone and it’s a burden on small business in particular.

    Deregulation helps business. But it also makes life simpler for everyone. We will simplify licensing procedures for community buildings, like village halls. We mean to combine licence applications and reduce inspection visits. This should be a real help to local groups like Women’s Institutes, charities and playgroups.

    We have been looking at the rules on how charities can invest their money. Clearly charities must act wisely and prudently. But the present law came into force thirty years ago. I can tell you tonight that Michael Howard will shortly act to increase the proportion of money charities can invest in equities from the present 50% limit, to 75%. On the charities’ own figures, this simple change could boost their income by up to 200 million pounds a year.

    These measures are early steps. I hope you’ll go on helping us identify others: that’s a genuine invitation.

    I can announce one further measure tonight. The present law on sales of liquor on Sunday is absurd. Why can people buy liquor in a shop at noon but not at 11.30; or in a pub at 3.00 o’clock in the afternoon but not 4.00 o’clock? Now we have Sunday trading there is no logic in these regulations. They are old fashioned, out of date, patronising, Government-knows-best restrictions. And they should go.

    So we propose as soon as we can to sweep them away, and replace them with simple and sensible laws. Supermarkets will be able to sell liquor throughout the six hours they may open on Sundays. Smaller off-licences will be able to trade from 10.00 in the morning to 10.30 at night. And the compulsory afternoon break on Sundays, when pubs now have to close from 3.00 o’clock to 7.00 o’clock, will be abolished – though the licensing magistrates will be able to re-impose the break if local circumstances make that necessary.

    Thirdly, as we sweep away out-dated rules here, we must make sure that new rules don’t flood in to replace them. Not least from Europe. That’s why we continue to oppose the European Social Chapter, which all other political parties are committed to introduce in Britain. I’m sure they are sincere but I’m also sure they’re wrong. They are arguing for more regulation. For a minimum wage. I believe both would cost jobs. I want jobs. So we won’t have Social Chapter regulation and we won’t have a minimum wage.

    I do not believe many people realise just how damaging the Social Chapter could be for this country. Before I secured our opt-out we had seen the harm that could be done by attempts to bring in costly social legislation. The attempt to impose rigid hours of work on all employees across the Community in the Working Time Directive. Or the original version of the Parental Leave Directive – which would have imposed costs of over a billion pounds on UK business every single year.

    The Social Chapter could open the floodgate to a new tidal wave of damaging and unnecessary legislation. The European Union shouldn’t decide rules on redundancy payments. They should be decided here. The European Union shouldn’t lay down rules on workplace creche facilities. They should be decided here. The European Union shouldn’t decide terms and conditions of employment for part time workers. They, too, should be decided here.

    It is vital to our competitiveness and jobs that Britain remains outside the Social Chapter. Our opt-out is not negotiable. So far as I’m concerned we’re out and we’re staying out.

    PLANNING

    President, deregulation affects the whole climate in which you work – you need the assurance that Government will not overburden you with red tape. You also need a clear framework for planning where to put your business. Where to expand.

    We will shortly be responding to the Select Committee’s report on shopping centres and their future. But let me make two things clear now:

    – New development is necessary. I know it’s often controversial. But we can’t treat our towns and villages as museums of the past:

    – So our policy is not to smother investment – in either town or country. We have introduced tougher tests for out-of-town development. But we haven’t padlocked the gate to every new, green field site.

    As so often in Government, we have to balance competing interests. The consumer wanting choice and access. Retailers – large and small – who must remains competitive. The attractions for many of large scale shopping. But the need, too, to keep our high streets and town centres vital places both to live and work in.

    Survival was never achieved by standing still. Town centres themselves must adapt – whatever their size. We all have an interest in meeting this challenge: Government, local authorities; and not least you, the retailers.

    One hundred town centre management projects are already under way. I warmly welcome the involvement of a number of you present here this evening – Boots, Marks & Spencer and others – who have been pioneers in this field.

    The age of the motor car has forced many changes on rural areas in particular. We need innovative ideas to help improve choice for country communities which have lost the village shop and for people without cars, particularly the elderly. Can we make better use of new technology in these areas? Can retailers think of better ways to provide transport to shops?

    This year, the Government will be publishing a White Paper on rural issues. There is, I know, a concern amongst those who live and work in the countryside that our thinking is dominated by urban considerations. It isn’t. To prove that, the White Paper must set out a coherent view of the relationship we expect between towns and cities and the countryside. It must take account of changing economic circumstances as well as the need to preserve and enhance the beautiful parts of our country. I intend the White Paper to set out a policy which will last well into the next century, so it is very important that everyone contributes to the debate. I hope the British Retail Consortium will put their ideas to John Gummer and William Waldegrave who are taking this forward.

    CRIME

    Lastly, I want to say a few words about crime.

    We know how devastating crime can be for the victim. What is not so well known are the economic consequences. This is a vital issue for your members. Crime costs retailers some 2.5 billion pounds every year. Or to put it another way: retailers’ profits would increase by over 20% if crime could be eliminated.

    When we think about retail crime, instinctively we think of pilfering and petty shoplifting. They are bad enough. But alas, too often nowadays we are seeing crimes of quite a different order. Arrogant gangs of intimidating youths on organised shoplifting sprees. Ram-raiders who drive their trucks through shop windows. And not least, a number of appalling crimes of violence against your staff.

    You have already launched the Retail Crime Initiative. We will continue to work in partnership with you – retailers, local authorities and the police – to establish effective crime prevention schemes.

    First, we need to get planners and local authorities to think more carefully about town centre designs. We need better liaison between police and retailers to share intelligence. Paging and ring round schemes to give early warning and quick response. Radio links between retailers, private security firms and the police. Local crime prevention panels and security committees. There’s a lot going on. But we need more.

    Second, I believe we’ve got to get more closed circuit TV schemes in city centres. These schemes have huge potential in the fight against retail crime.

    Already, about 250 schemes are up and running or planned:

    – In Airdrie, CCTV in the city centre cut crime by 73% in six months;

    – In King’s Lynn, car thefts fell by over 90%;

    – In Newcastle and North Shields, crime levels were cut by 20%. And business insurance premiums fell too.

    Crime prevention makes excellent commercial sense. Yet only about a fifth of retailers join in crime prevention schemes. A recent survey suggested that a further half of all retailers would like to get involved. I believe we must involve them in schemes like business watch and City Centre TV. And quickly.

    Third, we have to challenge the attitudes that accept crime as a way of life and effectively punish the criminal.

    We’ve given the courts the power to pass long prison sentences for serious crimes: up to life imprisonment for robbery and serious violence, including violence against retail staff. Burglary and theft can also carry substantial prison sentences. We’re acting to tackle persistent juvenile offenders can be dealt with more effectively. Stiff sentencing not only keeps the criminal out of circulation, but clearly demonstrates society’s abhorrence and intolerance of crime.

    These changes have all been put in place. They take time to work but they amount to a comprehensive change in our attitude to the criminal. We will continue to look at what further initiatives may be necessary.

    President, I have always admired the way the retail industry contributes to the community as a whole. The extent to which you take part in voluntary activities – nationally and locally. Charities, sport, help for the needy and disadvantaged.

    Retailing is above all a local activity. And your long term interests have always been intertwined with the interests of the local communities. So I welcome the way in which retailers are becoming increasingly involved in social projects which tackle crime at its roots. It is important for you and it is vital for our society that we help young people to discover that there be better alternatives to crime. You can help to put this message across.

    President, you said in your introduction that retailing is a British success story. I agree. After nearly two hundred years, we are still a “nation of shopkeepers”. We take pride in that. So let’s ensure that in the years to come, we can still take pride in that. Getting that depends on a healthy and flexible economy and a stable and secure society. Tonight I have set out some ways in which we can work together to achieve this. My task above all is to keep the economic framework sound. To avoid the bad old days of boom and bust. I pledge to do so.

  • David Cameron – 2015 Speech in Romania

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Romania on 9 December 2015.

    Introduction

    Thank you President Iohannis for welcoming me to Bucharest today. It’s a pleasure to be here and to have had good discussions with you, and with Prime Minister Ciolos.

    The United Kingdom and Romania share important ties. We are partners in the EU, partners in NATO – and good trading partners too. Our bilateral trade is growing – up to a record high of €3.5 billion last year.

    The UK is an important energy partner for Romania and a firm supporter of the need to strengthen energy security across Europe.

    We have also worked together, as you’ve just said, in the face of adversity, with British doctors providing specialist burns treatment in the UK for some of the victims of the tragic nightclub fire in October.

    Today, we have talked about how we can strengthen our co-operation further on defence, on migration and on EU reform.

    Defence

    On defence, as a country that is already investing 2% of our GDP on defence, Britain welcomes Romania’s commitment to meet this target by 2017.

    Our armed forces already train together and today we have discussed how we can strengthen our collaboration further.

    Romania is updating its naval fleet, which is a potential opportunity to work together with the United Kingdom.

    And we’re deploying UK military officers to the new NATO headquarters here.

    Imigration

    On migration, on the Middle East and Africa, we have also discussed how together we can pursue a comprehensive approach to tackle the root causes of migration.

    That means doing more to help alleviate the poverty and the conflict that drives people from their homes in the first place.

    And it means doing more to break the business model of the people smugglers. We must break the link between getting in a boat and embarking on a new life in Europe.

    The UK is playing its part. We are the largest European donor to the humanitarian crisis in Syria.

    HMS Enterprise is on deployment in the Mediterranean – helping to save lives and also to detain the smugglers.

    And we are providing practical assistance to European countries on the frontline – with UK border officers helping with the screening and the registering of migrants.

    EU reform

    We have also discussed how we can reform the EU to make it more competitive – and to address the concerns of the British people about our membership.

    The United Kingdom is a vital member – the second largest economy, a significant net contributor and a leading security partner.

    I want Britain to stay in a reformed European Union. That’s why I am seeking important reforms to address the concerns of the British people about the status quo.

    As the President of the European Council said earlier this week, we are making good progress; but I recognise that some areas are more difficult than others, particularly the reforms I have proposed on welfare.

    I support the principle of free movement to work – it is a basic treaty right and a key part of the single market. And Romanians, alongside other Europeans, make a valuable contribution to the United Kingdom in a wide range of fields, from finance to science and medicine.

    But it was never envisaged that free movement would trigger quite such vast numbers of people moving across our continent. And countries have got to be able to cope with all the pressures that it can bring – on our schools, our hospitals and other public services.

    Net migration in the UK is running at well over 300,000 a year and that is not sustainable.

    So we do need to find ways to allow member states to make changes to their social security systems that will help them to deal with this issue.

    At next week’s summit we will have a substantive discussion about all the reforms that I have proposed. And I am confident we can find solutions in each area.

    The EU has shown before it has the flexibility to respond to the concerns of its member states. Now, it needs to do so again starting in December and then with further discussions in February.

    Conclusion

    This has been a very useful meeting.

    I am delighted to be the first British Prime Minister to make a bilateral visit to Romania this century. It shouldn’t be another 15 years before one comes back again.

    And I look forward to strengthening relationships between our 2 countries in the future.

  • Jim Murphy – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jimmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, to Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.

    Good morning.

    The conference season marks autumn for many, and what an incredible summer we had. We all have our favourite moment from the summer of sport and London 2012, but I want to start by thanking a group who performed brilliantly this summer.

    Some of them with the dust of Afghanistan still in their boots. Men and women with a quiet humility and a pride in their country. We should thank the 17,000 members of the UK Armed Forces who served so that in safety the athletes could compete and we could celebrate.

    This year our country has lost 39 service personnel in Afghanistan.

    Today there remain almost 10,000 of our service personnel in Afghanistan. Each of them and their families should be in our thoughts. Their efforts are about the Afghan people having the lives and livelihoods they deserve – free from the tyranny of the Taliban, part of a global economy, and a country at peace with its neighbours.

    But a distant warning bell should ring ever more loudly with each passing month where there isn’t a political process to match the military might of the past decade. That must be our focus, and we look forward to the day when we can welcome the last of our Forces home as heroes.

    Afghanistan remains the UK’s defence priority in a world of profound uncertainty, where unstable states outnumber stable countries two to one.

    What has been the Government’s response?

    A defence posture without a strategy.

    Service personnel sacked just days before collecting their pension.

    And who could forget the aircraft carrier chaos?

    Only this Government would build two carriers, mothball one, sell our Harrier fleet and have no planes to fly off a carrier for almost a decade.

    At each election the Conservatives stand on a platform of ‘government doesn’t work’. Judging by their actions they seem hell-bent on proving their claim.

    And what will we hear from them next week? No doubt we will get the same old blame game. But it won’t work because let’s be clear: two-and-a-half years into their Government and in the absence of a defence strategy it just isn’t good enough having a catch-all slogan of “it’s not my fault”.

    And what of the Lib Dems? I remember a Lib Dem MP complaining to me at the last election that they couldn’t get votes because the public didn’t know what they stood for. Well say what you want about the Lib Dems but that’s certainly one achievement in Government – never again will they ever lose votes because people don’t know what they stand for: it’s any power over all principle.

    As for the SNP, they want to debate how many questions there will be in the referendum because they can’t decide on many of the answers about independence. It’s time for them to come clean about their plans because when it comes to defence, separation is a powerful idea from the 19th century ill-suited to the 21st century.

    What does this mean for Labour? We face an enormous challenge from a Tory Party that is born to rule and the Lib Dems determined not to die.

    The task for Labour is not just relentless attack – it’s responsible answers.

    In opposition we must deal with the issues we would if we were in power.

    That is why the Shadow Defence team have been clear about the need for defence savings.

    And that is why with a future Labour Government defence spending will be subject to independent expert review. We will account for and justify our spending decisions. No smoke and mirrors, no delay in tough decisions, and a culture of consequence. A defence budget policy alongside a defence industrial strategy that celebrates and supports the 300,000 British workers who do so much to contribute to the defence of our nation.

    But while politics is about highlighting differences it is also about making a difference, and while we are out of office we are not without power.

    That is why we started a national campaign to end discrimination against our Armed Forces, to strengthen the Covenant and to support veterans’ carers.

    Our country is brilliant at turning civilians into soldiers, but we are not good enough when the time comes to turning soldiers back into civilians. Finding work is so important and that’s why we launched the Veterans’ Interview Programme. All answers don’t come from the inside of a Ministerial red box – they can come from our instincts and our values and that’s why I’m delighted that Labour in opposition has signed up some of the biggest companies in the country to guarantee job interviews to unemployed veterans. It is simply wrong for anyone who has served in Afghanistan and comes back to a public parade and heroes’ welcome to be sacked by their Government almost immediately and then be expected to simply join the back of the queue at the local Jobcentre. It’s unfair and it’s wrong. It shouldn’t happen and under the next Labour Government it won’t.

    But our task it not just about developing policy, it’s also about changing our Party.

    At last year’s conference we agreed the creation of Labour Friends of the Forces, a group to campaign to strengthen the bond between our Party and the Forces.

    Then, four patrons joined me on stage. Today I can announce that we now have almost 700 members.

    And you’ll remember that together we agreed that we would be the only Party ever to offer a £1 membership for serving and former members of our Armed Forces. I’m delighted to confirm that a fantastic 406 current or former Forces have joined the Labour Party this year.

    More than 1,000 new military members and supporters but that’s still not enough. Our commitment to the service community has always been core to our values – now we want it to be part of our Party’s DNA.

    Today I can announce that the Labour Party is the first and only party to ensure that our procedures are now in line with the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant. The sacrifice of service will not be a barrier to clear but a badge to be honoured in our movement and no Labour Party member will be disadvantaged as a result of service in the Armed Forces.

    Conference, we do all of this because we are idealists. We believe in the utility of service.

    Ours is a patriotism that pre-dates the Olympics.

    We believe in solidarity with those who have served our country.

    Our Forces are central to our national security and to our national character. Let us each make it clear that they are crucial to the future of our Party too.

  • Jim Murphy – 2012 Speech to Reform Conference

    jimmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary, to the Reform Conference on 21st November 2012.

    I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to you today. Reform is a home for strategic thinking and intellectual curiosity and this event is certainly in that spirit.

    My argument today is that value for money and prioritising affordability in defence should not just be viewed as a response to recent events, but rather essential components of a sustainable and deliverable defence posture.

    But I also want to argue that affordability alone is not enough, and that in defence a drive for advanced Armed Forces, maximising high skills, technology and international partnering, is also vital.

    This approach, to design an advanced and affordable defence posture, combining constrained spending with far reaching reform, will be Labour’s focus in coming months.

    Action to date

    During our period of Opposition we have sought to lay the foundations of our work.

    Our independent review on defence procurement looked at ways to deliver programmes to time and to cost and will provide the basis of our thinking on defence industrial policy.

    Our wider shadow defence review is analysing the threat environment and key capability fields required for a future core equipment programme. This will lead to a more detailed look at Force structures.

    Context

    The security context in which this work is taking place is transformative.

    New threats are matched by new technologies, uncertainty equalled only by unpredictability.

    Fifteen years ago it would have been hard to believe that we would experience September 11th, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Arab Spring. Forecasting forthcoming years is arguably more difficult. Today energy security, climate change, demographic shifts and the spread of CBRN materials are threats alongside state-on-state warfare or contorted religiously-inspired terrorism.

    The growing strength of Al Qaeda in parts of Africa, the rise of new powers in Asia Pacific, weak states outnumbering stable states by two to one and new threats in cyberspace all consume our attention.

    In this context the UK must aim to have flexible Forces with whole spectrum capabilities, able to respond rapidly whether through preventative measures, reactive disaster relief or multilateral interventions.

    Value for money: the challenge

    And these external threats exist in a volatile financial climate in which defence spending is set to increase over the medium term at a lower rate than it did during the last Government’s period in office.

    The ambition we have for our Forces is an extension of the ambition we have for our country, but to be realised it must be affordable, and that means we are going to have to do things differently.

    The previous Government’s record on defence is strong and we are proud that we increased the Defence budget by 10% in real terms during our time in office. The equipment programme was upgraded and modernised, military operations were conducted with success and welfare for the forces community was greatly enhanced. However, despite all the investment and improvements, during our time in office some of the procurement problems which plagued successive administrations were not sufficiently tackled.

    The global economic downturn means the majority of the UK’s allies are making spending cuts across their public sectors, with unavoidable consequences for capability and global reach.

    In the UK the challenge has become more acute because decisions taken by this Government haven’t stimulated domestic growth and UK austerity is set to be extended.

    In short, budgetary restraint is unavoidable, however undesirable.

    Priorities

    But if the size of the defence budget is an expression of our nation’s ambitions, the profile of the budget is an expression of our priorities.

    For us the priorities are clear.

    Carrier strike and improved ISTAR are vital.

    Strategic warning capabilities and intelligence will be essential to provide early indicators of threats and potential crises.

    Two state of the art fighter fleets, advanced unmanned vehicles supporting all three Services and strategic air lift are also key components.

    Skills must be a strategic capability. We need highly trained service personnel able to use higher technology platforms; Reservists using niche civilian skills in military con texts; advanced special forces; a high skilled, broad-based defence industry; and expertise throughout acquisition.

    In most conflicts, even counter-insurgency, the edge can be found through technology, which can help minimise casualties while extending global reach. Remote surveillance, manoeuvrability in cyberspace, better communications and acting at distance with accuracy are all necessary features of our future force.

    But alongside this must be a greater focus on international alliance-building. Shared threats and financial challenges demand that we pool resource and expertise. The UK-France accord may lay the ground for a landscape of multiple discrete bilateral or regional arrangements between European nations. More widely, NATO is the primary military grouping through which action will be taken, and Europe’s focus should be on greater deployability and burden sharing within the Alliance, not on new EU Headquarters for a joint force the UK will continue to oppose. As the US pivots – and I say this as someone who takes a positive view of our role in the EU – it is vital that European nations work together towards meeting military objectives, not naval gazing on our own structures.

    Furthermore, European NATO nations are making deep cuts to defence budgets in isolation of each other, the aggregate consequence of which could be cross-Alliance shortfalls or duplication – Forces by default rather than design. ‘Smart defence’ in Nato must become a reality.

    Our defence posture today is also challenged by an internal force we don’t talk about enough, which our domestic public opinion. The public is wary and weary of interventionism following recent conflicts and the financial crisis. There is a risk of a growing ambivalence towards acting on responsibilities beyond our borders, but we cannot let the legacy of Iraq be increased potential for another Rwanda. We must make the case for strong, proactive defence postures, in t urn redefining the nature of interventionism.

    Our goal should be prevention before intervention and early intervention before conflict. The careful prevention of development policy and diplomacy can be more effective than the painful cure of military action. Whether in tackling climate change, investing in civil society and governance, or diplomatic engagement, the spectrum of soft power capabilities at the UK’s disposal to defend our interests and promote our ideas in the world should be capitalised on.

    People

    An enduring priority for Labour will also be supporting our service personnel and their families.

    Ed Miliband has spoken about Labour’s One Nation approach to developing a country where everybody has a stake and where we protect the institutions that bind us together. I don’t want to engage you in a debate about one nation politics except to say that on whatever side of the fence you sit, or indeed if you sit on the political fence, upholding the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant is the embodiment of one nation politics. Service is an act of solidarity. We must strengthen the support to those who go to the frontline as well as the bond between the service community and country at large.

    We have begun to lay out new proposals in this area. Our country is brilliant at turning civilians into soldiers, but we are not good enough when the time comes to turning soldiers back into citizens. That is why we started the Veterans’ Interview Programme, which has signed up 22 major UK companies to change their HR programmes, including by offering guaranteed interviews, to support service-leavers in finding employment. We want to increase opportunity as a means of smoothing the transition from military to civilian life. Similarly, Labour has argued for legislation to protect veterans from discrimination and for greater support for service carers and orphaned service children. The principles of the Cove nant, we believe, are there for us all to uphold – whether in politics, business, civil society or the Forces.

    Government record

    In defence our task is to ensure there is no imbalance between projected expenditure and affordability on an enduring basis and that Planning Assumptions are met through advanced Armed Forces.

    Ministers may claim that this has been achieved.

    There are, however, worries over capability gaps following the defence review, notably in surveillance and carrier strike; the impact of civilian and military skills shortages is unclear; Planning Assumptions now rely an increase in Reservists yet plans are under-developed at best; and only half of the MoD budget is claimed to be balanced yet we have seen no evidence that this is the case.

    Labour’s approach

    Labour’s approach, by contrast, will combine savings and strategy to match the needs of the frontline to those of the bottom line.

    I want to outline to you our emerging thinking on how to strengthen affordability in defence to help deliver advanced Armed Forces, and there are six main areas I want to touch on.

    First, we are open about fiscal restraint and the choices that necessitates.

    Second, a future SDSR would take a zero-based approach, ensuring every penny is accounted for.

    Third, we want to instil a new discipline in defence spending, ending the habit of ‘pushing to the right’, and I will set out how we plan to do this.

    Fourth, we want increased, real-time scrutiny of ten-year budgets, with increased accountability.

    Fifth, we would reform of procurement practice so more projects are delivered to time and cost.

    And, lastly, we would work with industry to design a fresh defence industrial strategy which supports sovereign capabilities and exportability.

    Labour cannot make commitments now as to which cuts in defence spending if any we would be able to reverse.

    Some decisions we simply could not reverse, for example the loss of Nimrod. Some cuts we wouldn’t reverse because we agree with them, which is why the Shadow Defence Team has been clear about where we would make multi-billion pound savings if in government, including in reform to MoD structures and personnel, the equipment programme, selling assets and reform of the Army’s non-deployable regional structure.

    So while there are some we wouldn’t and some we shouldn’t, for other cuts the Government has made we are simply unable to make commitments now because we are not in a position to know what the health of the finances will be in 2015. In the same way that families and businesses worry about the uncertainty of their future financial stability and spending power, so too do all policy-makers.

    Not knowing the state of the books in 2015 means we cannot guarantee which of the current government cuts we could reverse, other than through switching existing spendin g or freeing up resources through reform. That is why, for example, we have urged the Government to go further in tackling ‘top heavy’ manpower imbalances and suggested using a portion of the savings to research veterans’ mental health.

    We can commit, however, to a Labour government being determinedly disciplined on public spending. We have made it clear that we will hold a zero based spending review, and as part of that approach a Labour SDSR would examine which capabilities could meet our global objectives in line with our financial requirements, questioning and justifying every penny piece of expenditure.

    New discipline

    And we would go further.

    We support the principle of a ten year defence budget with in-built contingency being verified by the National Audit Office. Because this would reach across two Parliaments some may think that this comes close to one Government seeking to bind its successor. This is not the case. A new Government would of course be free to alter the budget, but what I hope would be more likely is that in formulating a decade-long budget a sense of bipartisanship would be encouraged with both Government and Opposition entering into the process.

    Within this, Labour would introduce a new discipline in defence spending and would abide by the principle that any increase in cost and expenditure resulting from decisions made in a Planning Round would have to be accounted for across the rolling ten year MoD budget cycle, either through savings or increased revenue. Decisions could not be routinely deferred, creating a bow wave in the budget.

    By challenging the MoD’s habit of ‘pushing to the right’ as a short-term fix for in-year savings we would help to prevent against imbalances between the bottom line and the order book.

    Under our plan, the NAO would report on the outcome of each Planning Round and judge whether the Core Equipment Programme remained affordable and deliv erable.

    The report would include an MoD justification of its decisions and the Defence Secretary would present it to Parliament.

    I share Education Secretary Michael Gove’s frustration that the current culture of the NAO and PAC reporting can limit risk, but I don’t share his conclusion. I want to change structures and increase accountability. Real-time reporting with a right of reply for the MoD will allow those with ownership of decisions to explain their actions, which we hope will both increase openness and end a retrospective blame game which can be corrosive to trust and policy-making.

    Levene report

    This enhanced financial rigour would be coupled with an embrace of many of the Levene proposals. We support, for example, empowering the Service Chiefs to run their Services with greater freedom with a focus on financial accountability, just as we must ensure enabling services such as the DIO are delivered efficiently and professionally.

    Economic contribution of defence and Scotland

    But while these moves are vital, we believe that the UK will be unable to deliver strategic military goals without wider reform of procurement and industrial policy.

    And this is essential not just for defence but for our economy. It is estimated that the UK defence industry employs over 300,000 people and generates over £35 billion per year to the UK economy.

    In Scotland the largest single workplace is Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde at Faslane, which employs around 6,500 people. The 4,500 strong workforce at shipyards in Glasgow and Rosyth are sustained by MOD work. Independence would shut these yards, an act of economic vandalism putting families’ futures at risk, not just Scottish security.

    Procurement and industrial strategy

    While the Government emphasises buying off the shelf as its ‘default’ position, we want to use procurement power to provide certainty, support supply chains, increase transparency and to establish an active industrial strategy in partnership with business. Within this there is a trade off: on the one hand government must provide clear strategic direction, and in return industry must deliver on agreements.

    We believe the Government could be more explicit in the capabilities it intends to purchase off the shelf and those it regards as ‘sovereign’. And we are examining whether ‘Off-the-shelf’ purchases should be subject to a ‘UK control’ test that states there must be UK-based upgrade capability to perform UORs.

    When an effective market exists competition is of course the best procurement policy. However, the fact is that there is seldom a viable market for major defence projects. It is right that we explore how certain value for money tests could include wider employment, industrial or economic factors, something the MoD has rejected. This is complex, but given the social a nd economic impact of defence procurement it should be looked at on a cross-Departmental basis.

    Defence decision-making could be made more transparent through the MoD publishing the cost-benefit analysis which provided the basis for awarding contracts, while respecting commercial sensitivities and any classified security issues. This would also add greater accountability to the senior civil service, something exposed as necessary during the West Coast Main Line fiasco.

    A culture of confident professionalism is required in procurement. We propose a new mixed civilian and military service to manage acquisition, offering a permanent professional career choice in procurement, ending two-year stints and the undue influence of “cap badge loyalty”.

    We also need a broader new culture of consequence. As sometimes happens in the US, the UK Government could be prepared to return a project to the Main Gate stage when forecast cost or timescale exceed set targets. Changing specifications and an acceptance of missed targets should not be the norm.

    Furthermore, many have commented that the search for the ‘exquisite’ can delay the deployment of the excellent. All platforms must provide for 100% of frontline requirements, but we must instil a culture change where design is to cost and 100% of requirement.

    There has been a long-running debate over reform of DE&S. We have practical reservations about the GOCO model, in particular over accountability to Parliament and the length of a contract being at odds with the life cycles of equipment programmes.

    We support integrating private sector expertise in policy-making. There is no dogma, only a belief in partnership to deliver positive policy outputs. In Opposition, just as would be our approach in government, Labour’s approach will be characterised by learning from those on the frontline of defence industrial decision-making.

    But we are also clear that elements of t he MoD-industry relationship need to change. Following cash-for-access revelations in the Sunday Times we proposed a new code of conduct. If someone breaks the rules there should be sanctions; if a company employ a lobbyist this should be done within the rules and with total transparency.

    Conclusion

    In today’s security landscape we need a policy response as broad as the set of external and internal threats we face.

    The global trends reshaping defence are increasingly interdependent in nature and their interaction – unpredictable and complex – can exacerbate threats. Demographic and climate change, for example, can increase the pressure on resources which can in turn inflame regional tensions and the potential for conflict, which can test our international governance structures.

    The wrong lesson to learn from recent history is that this complexity and unpredictability inherent to security policy today means that Britain cannot sustainabl y achieve our ambitions in the world, and that we must trade policy in one area against another.

    But that is not good enough. That would be the defeatists’ view. A more comprehensive approach is required. I believe that the right lesson to learn is that by working in partnership with industry, the military and our international allies we can achieve this. We must take a longer-term look at the politics of defence finance, change our whole approach to procurement and its culture and see specialist expertise, whether skills or technology, as means to attain competitive edge. Without this, however many painful cuts are made now more may follow because we won’t have put defence on a sustainable footing.

    On future structure, equipment, organisation and culture Labour will work with those who bring expertise and insight to the table, but, we will work by the mantra that if you defend the past you lose the future.

    Defence is becoming more intricate and complex while the world is becoming more interdependent and multifaceted. Our aim in defence policy is an advanced Armed Forces supported by an advanced equipment programme able to help the UK defend our interests and ideas around the world. And the foundation of that is affordable defence finance.

    That is our goal and we want to work with you to achieve it.

  • Jim Murphy – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jimmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, to the Labour Party conference on 26th September 2011.

    Conference.

    Good morning. Right now it is the afternoon in Afghanistan and there are 10,000 of our Forces there, many of them Reservists. And there are two thousand engaged in Libya and deployed in other countries across the world. They bear the burden of their bravery, they demonstrate their patriotism and they carry our pride.

    Afghanistan must remain the biggest defence priority for our nation, and now that a timetable has been set for withdrawal it is essential that the military effort is matched by a new political effort. It is in our national interest and our withdrawal cannot precipitate a collapse but rather a continuation of progress. The UK has fought in Afghanistan four times and we have no intention of doing so for a fifth time.

    Tragically, since we last gathered 50 of our people have lost their lives in taking on the Taleban. And it’s important that there remains an all-party consensus over our responsibility to remember them and always care for and support their families.

    Today I want to reflect on how we support our Forces, talk about our policy and some of our reforms.

    Recent events have again shown that we live in a more interconnected world than ever before – global recession, global terrorism, global warming. New threats are emerging and new technologies are required. Defence is becoming more expensive, more intricate and more unpredictable. The contest for clean water supply and population growth demand our attention alongside terrorism and cyber attack. In recent years we have seen states fail and in recent months we have seen governments fall. We are confronted by violent groups and malevolent individuals determined to do us harm. The pace of change is quickening. Wars amongst the people rather than across borders will be increasingly common. There are 27 States of Concern, from Chad to Uzbekistan. Today there is no opt-out. David Cameron is learning that on the job.

    But at this very moment our resilience is also tested: funding is constrained and public opinion is wary. And it’s because our values or interests don’t stop at our shores that we believe in a country with the power to persuade and the ability to act.

    We will never wrap ourselves in the cloak of jingoism but the Labour Party will always be strong on defence.

    But I want to tell you what can often be the most effective defence policy – and it’s not always a new piece of military hardware. It is a world-class international development policy. Investment in education, democratic reform and viable economies can hinder the spread of conflict. The careful prevention of development policy can be so much better than the painful cure of military action.

    And I know that when development and diplomacy don’t succeed the decisions about deployment will always be controversial.

    This Government was right to act to prevent the slaughter of thousands in Libya, just as a previous UK government was unforgivably wrong to sit idly by and watch the murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda.

    I know that post-Iraq these decisions are even more difficult. We will debate, we may not agree, and so it should be – the decision to place our people in harm’s way will never be taken lightly.

    I don’t want the anger that many people felt about the action that was taken in Iraq to defeat the shame we all felt about the failure to act in Rwanda.

    I was delighted when Ed Miliband offered me this role as Shadow Defence Secretary. Firstly, because I want to do what’s right for our Forces and their families. Secondly, working with a brilliant Shadow Defence Team, I wanted to challenge the ill-informed orthodoxy of the past which says that Labour is the party of the NHS and the Tories are the party of the Forces. At a time when the Tories are proving that they are neither, a Labour opposition needs to be both if we are to be a Labour government.

    Just think what the Tories have done since they came to power:

    The Army cut 7,000.

    An island nation with aircraft carriers but without aircraft. You don’t need to be a military strategist to know what aircraft carriers are meant to carry – the clue is in the name.

    Soldiers serving in Afghanistan opening their inboxes for news of loved ones only to read that they have been sacked by email.

    Generations of our troops are losing increased pension payments. This change is permanent while we all know that the deficit is temporary. We should be clear it is quite simply wrong that a man in his late 80s who jumped out of a landing craft at Normandy back in 1944 is having his pension payments permanently cut to pay for George Osborne’s economic policy.

    Compare it to Labour’s record:

    Doubled compensation payments.

    Improved housing and healthcare.

    A budget up 10% in real terms.

    I’m proud of our record. You should be too and we should never let the Tories tarnish it because we don’t win the next time unless we stand up for what we did last time.

    But despite everything the truth is that no party has a monopoly of wisdom or experience on defence.

    We often talk about the heroes of our Movement: Hardie, Attlee, Bevan or Gaitskill. Brilliant and bold politicians none of whom sought the description as heroes.

    But there is another sort of heroism. That is the heroism of service in the Forces. It exists in all parties and has always been strong in ours. And the wisdom that comes from Service is precious. Jim Callaghan was in the Royal Navy before he was Prime Minister and Dennis Healey served in the Army before he served as Chancellor.

    There are many others – and that’s the case today. Let me introduce you to:

    Dan Jarvis, the first person to resign their Commission to stand for Parliament since the Second World War.

    Jon Wheale, who saw service with the Gunners in Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

    Sophy Gardner, RAF Wing Commander, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, a real ground breaker she was the first woman in every job she had.

    Frankie Caldwell, Captain in the Royal Tank Regiment, who served in Iraq and was awarded the MBE for his service.

    Each of them believed in a better world so they joined our Forces. Each of them believes in a fairer country so they joined our Party.

    We should be clear: we are proud of them and want more just like them.

    And that’s why today I’m delighted to announce that that is exactly what we are going to do. If you have served and if you want to be part of our Movement we know that we are stronger with you.

    Now, from today, if you are a Veteran you can for the first time ever join the Labour Party for just £1. We are the first and only party to change our rules in this way.

    So I want to introduce one more person to you. Stephen Burke, Corporal Tank Commander Stephen Burke, who served in Cyprus, Kuwait and Iraq and the first person to join through ‘£1 for the Forces’ campaign.

    Conference, even in opposition we are making things better with plans for procurement reform and success on the Military Covenant. The Covenant is the bond between nation and the Services which proclaims that no one should be disadvantaged in the provision of public services if they have served in our Forces – it is a reflection of our solidarity. When the Government reneged on its commitment to enshrine the Military Covenant in law we supported the work of the Royal British Legion in forcing a u-turn and next month the principles of the Covenant will be written into law. The Covenant is not binding on businesses, charities or political parties, but I want our Party in the future to change the way we do our politics so that we are the first to voluntarily sign up to its principles.

    But I want us to go further. Today we are setting up a new organisation – Labour Friends of the Forces. Its patrons include our very own Dan Jarvis MP and former General Secretary of NATO George Robertson. This will be a campaigning body within our Movement to expand our engagement with the service community.

    Because of all of these changes and the work that many of you are doing Labour can now be the most welcoming of any political party to our Forces community. That is the challenge to me, the team and to all of us together – changing our Party. So when we talk about refounding our party we are rebuilding a political home – and creating a political Home fit for our Heroes.

  • Jim Murphy – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jimmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy to Labour Party conference on 27th September 2010.

    Conference, in May we face a big election in Scotland – but we face it with confidence.

    Although the general election was painful for us and the millions we stand for, our results in Scotland were stunning. Every seat held. An increase in the share of the vote. All by-election losses regained. Over a million votes for Labour.

    We’re not just the Scottish Labour Party – we’re Scotland’s Labour Party. We should be so proud of Scotland’s achievement.

    Peculiarly, it was also a good election for the Tories too.

    Remember they boasted they would win 12 Scottish seats – and they did. One Tory. 11 Lib Dems.

    But not a single person in Scotland voted Li b Dem in order to put the Tories into power.

    That’s why people are so angry about what they see.

    Let’s be under no illusions. This is a Tory Government and would be cutting hard and fast even if there was no deficit. For them, the deficit is a handy excuse to let them do what they’ve always done.

    The Lib Dems haven’t put the breaks on the Tories – they have bolstered them.

    Just look at the decisions they’ve made – Tory decisions, most of them, and all supported by a Lib Dem Party that has lost its heart.

    Taking away help from pensioners, carers, disabled people.

    I believe that we didn’t lose our economic credibility in Government and we all know that we won’t lose it in Opposition.

    But the Tory budget will cast 125,000 Scots out of work – remember how much the closure of the Ravenscraig hurt Scotland, it is emblematic of the Tories affection for Scotland. But this current Tory budget is the equivalent of a Ravens craig every two weeks. Under this Government, someone in Scotland loses their job every six minutes. You will be pleased to know that I am going to make a short speech but by the time I sit down, another mum or dad will be without an income.

    And the most immoral cut of all – axing the Future Jobs Fund. A simple idea: at the height of recession, instead of paying people benefits – support them to do a job. Not a made up job. A real job in a real firm.

    And what a success. 11,000 young Scots. A Future Jobs Fund job created every hour.

    The Tories claim it’s not sustainable. No evidence, no research – just assertion.

    So I went and asked those in Scotland who took part – how was it for you?

    I have never seen more compelling responses. Daily, there were testimonials from people who came to praise the scheme. I saw it for myself. A young man in Buchan said he didn’t think he’d fit in to his company but after 6 months wrote to say “it is wit hout a doubt in my mind, the best thing to happen. It’s not just about paid work – it’s about life experiences.”

    That is the policy immorality of this Government laid bare: a gang of Cabinet millionaires whose lives are unaffected by their decisions taking jobs in the Western Isles, in the Central Belt and in the East End of Glasgow.

    The Lib Dems are part of a Tory Government that’s going where even Thatcher feared to tread.

    It took Thatcher six years to cut support for the unemployed. This government did it in six weeks.

    Nick Clegg has sold his soul and lost his way.

    Scotland knows that’s hard enough to cope with one Tory party – now we’re being asked to stomach two. Because make no mistake. This is a Tory Government with Tory values.

    So conference, Scotland has a message for the Lib Dems. If you vote like a Tory, if you speak like a Tory, if you act like a Tory – Scotland will treat you like a Tory.

    The SNP paid for years for heralding Thatcher’s arrival and became the Tartan Tories and the Lib Dems will be known as the Tories Little Helpers for years to come – you’ve sold out and come the next election Scotland is coming to get you.

    When Nick Clegg stood on a stage just 30 miles from here in a city that knows unemployment all too well, he spoke eloquently, right into the camera lens, but turned away from the unemployed.

    But for all the thousands of words he spoke, he didn’t mention unemployment once. It was almost as if he had his job now and was disinterested in those who will lose theirs in the future.

    This coalition is composed of one party that doesn’t seem to care about unemployment and another that doesn’t understand it.

    His only message to Scotland is that this won’t be like the 1980s. Too right, Nick.

    It wont be like the 1980s because back then a decent Liberal Party stood up to Tory cuts and you’re on the other side this time.

    It won’t be like the 1980s because the Labour Party is determined not to spend every day of a decade in well intentioned but futile Opposition.

    It won’t be like the 1980s because we wont let the Liberals do to our shipyards what the Tories did to our steelworks.

    Because the ideology behind this government is an ideology that says the state is bad.

    I don’t have an ideological commitment to the state. I have an ideological commitment to making poor people better off, and know the state can help do that.

    Our journey back starts here in Manchester, but the road runs through Scotland and Wales. These are our next big tests as a party and I know our new leader Ed Miliband will offer any and every support to Scotland in May.

    Many Scottish families battered by the recession caught in the middle of a perfect political storm: a Tory Government at Westminster that is causing unemployment and an SNP Government at Edinburgh that isn’t doing enough to stop it.

    But it doesn’t have to be that way.

    So I am delighted to welcome here today my friend and colleague, the next First Minister of Scotland, Iain Gray.

  • Jim Murphy – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jimmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy, the Secretary of State for Scotland, at the 2009 Labour Party conference.

    Wherever I go in Scotland I am in awe not just of the beauty of our country but the brilliance of our people.

    Our cities that have helped shape the world can still have their best decades ahead of them.

    Visiting our islands and seeing the wind and wave power technology of the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland and in Aberdeen which we want to be the renewable energy capital of Europe

    On the River Clyde hundreds of apprentices I met making Britain safer by building Royal Navy ships

    Parents I listen to balancing all the pressures of modern life and putting their children first.

    Scotland’s pensioners who worked hard and saved hard to make Scotland all that it is –  probably the most powerful small nation on earth.

    And we are stronger, fairer and more self-confident. But after repairing decades of Tory damage we still have a lot to do to build on our success.

    Of course we have so much in common across the UK but there are also many differences – that’s the nature of devolution.

    But the one big choice over the next year is the same – Labour government or Tory government; Gordon Brown or David Cameron; Gordon’s experience or the most superficial Tory leader in modern history.

    And David Cameron wants to make the Tories a one nation party again – but that nation isn’t Scotland.

    In Scotland David Cameron is even less popular today than Mrs Thatcher was in the 1980s – but he is no less a threat to Scotland’s families and our economy.

    And the Scottish Tory candidates are probably the most hard-line in living memory.

    They think the only problem with the 1980s was that their party didn’t go far enough in cutting back the welfare state and they can’t wait to finish the job.

    Back then they allowed generations of Scots to get stuck on the dole and would have done the same in this recession because they opposed Labour’s £500 million investment to prevent the newly unemployed from becoming the long term unemployed.

    Of course Labour will cut costs, but we’ll protect frontline services. However, the Tories would make savage cuts immediately, they would risk the recovery.

    Because they believe in small government; in the politics of sink or swim and in the politics of your on your own. Today’s Scottish Tory candidates are Mrs Thatcher’s grandchildren.

    And Scotland’s distrust of the Tories isn’t just because of what they did in government in the last recession but because of what they have said in opposition throughout this one.

    They are probably the only opposition party anywhere in the world demanding that their government does less to help those on modest and middle incomes during this global recession.

    In Scotland they are hated by many for their past and distrusted by most because of their present.

    The Tories still don’t get Scotland. But Scotland gets them. And doesn’t want them back.

    It will take an enormous effort from us but we have the team to do it. I am delighted to introduce Labour’s Leader in the Scottish Parliament and Scotland’s next First Minister Iain Gray.

  • Jim Murphy – 2007 Speech to the Work Foundation

    jimmurphy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jim Murphy, the then Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, to the Work Foundation on 21st February 2007.

    We have made progress – but we need to go further.

    This is a common phrase that myself and many of my colleagues in Government often use – but what does this actually mean? It can’t just be more of the same. “To go further” means that we have to look for new ways of doing things to achieve the goals to which we aspire; some of which we have yet to achieve.

    In 1997, we developed solutions to the problems of the day. The New Deal, the National Minimum Wage, transforming our laws on race, disability, age and sexuality as well as the record investment in public services, were all radical in their time. But now these policies have been accepted by most as part of a progressive political settlement.

    We need to maintain our ambition, and be as radical now as we were back then. Solutions tailored to today’s problems will not be successful if they are bound by yesterday’s policies.

    The key challenge for welfare now, it is to deliver for those people who face the most deep-rooted barriers to work.

    Why? Because we cannot write any one off. Not just because of a sense of social injustice. Not just because children should have the right to grow up free of poverty. But also, because if we do, the economy as a whole will suffer – and every single member of our society will see the consequences.

    Achieving this goal of a right to work for all, in the context of ever more rapid global and demographic change, will mean reaching out to those furthest from the labour market, the most disadvantaged and excluded in our society. It will mean extending the boundaries of welfare further than ever before.

    This seminar, as you know, is part of a series of seminars which are contributing to the Pathways to the future process – announced by the Prime Minister and Chancellor in the Autumn.

    We are at a crucial stage in the evolution of the welfare state. The reforms over the last decade have changed the focus for the vast majority of our customers – from that of passive dependency to active engagement with the state. Throughout this, either implicitly or explicitly, the contract between the citizen and state has evolved.

    And if you look at progress over the last decade, the where the contract has been expanded the furthest, and the more explicit the contract has been, the more success we have had.

    Take Jobseekers’ Allowance alongside the New Deal. A written contract outlining what is expected of the customer, and what they can expect in return. Results are clear. Youth unemployment has been virtually eradicated.

    Take the proposed Employment and Support Allowance – again, an agreed set of objectives, with rights and responsibilities embedded at the heart of the benefit design. Based on the Pathways to work model which has been the most successful programme for people with health conditions and disabilities across the world.

    These are founded on a something for something premise. Government to provide more support; customers to have a duty to take up that support. This contract has revolutionised the way in which the state and the citizen interact – and it has been crucial for the success of our welfare to work policies so far.

    Therefore, to achieve the challenges that we are faced with over the next decade, I believe we have to widen and extend the contract further than we ever have before.

    The contract we are talking about here is a complex one. A citizen is at times, a customer of the welfare state; but is always a taxpayer. And the state is, at times, the direct service provider; but is always the guarantor of its citizens’ rights.

    It is across this diverse network of relationships that the contract must deliver. And to deliver for the next decade, I think there are three key elements that will be need to underpin to its evolution and construction over the years to come.

    Firstly – Given that our aspiration is to extend the right of work to all; the assumption of a person’s ability to engage with the labour market should be the default position when determining a person’s interaction with the welfare state. But the pre-requisite to this, has to be that the Government fulfils its responsibilities of promoting and protecting the right to work for all.

    The passage of the Welfare Reform Bill shows how far we have come in acheiving the right balance. The proposals introduce additional responsibilities to a group of people who it would not have been conceivable to place conditionality on a decade ago. Yet because we have committed to providing extra support, the overwhelming majority of stakeholders have welcomed this.

    We would not be successful had this support not been guaranteed. We know that increased responsibilities on a citizen can only be embedded in a system if they have increased rights. We are committed to our part of the bargain – our side of the contract.

    Given that is the case, I believe the primacy of the belief that all have the potential to work, should be at the heart of the citizen’s side of the contract. To not, I feel, is an insult to our customers, and a get-out clause for the state.

    Secondly – even if the state takes a step back from delivery; it does not take a step back from responsibility.

    As I have said, the key challenge for welfare is to reach the hardest to help. Our success will hinge on our ability to understand the specific barriers these groups face; and our capacity to tailor support to the individual in the community. The state cannot do this alone. The skills of local providers will be increasingly more important.

    So where the state is removed from direct service provision, it must take on the role of arbiter and monitor of the contract. The market can not, should not and will not be left unchecked. Whilst we must harness the potential of the market, we must also be strong in holding providers to account on behalf of our customers.

    This is about much more than the nuts and bolts of how provision is delivered. It is about ensuring that provision, no matter what its derivation, is underpinned by our values and our priorities.

    And thirdly – the citizen as a taxpayer must never be neglected.

    We must maintain the right to provide progressive public services.

    And to do this, we must take it upon ourselves to promote a sense of progressive self-interest.

    We need to reinvigorate the sense of social contract – that what happens to our neighbours, matters to us.

    Over the last decade, benefit expenditure on Jobseekers Allowance, incapacity benefits and lone parents has fallen by around five billion in real terms. But this is not simply an economic argument. Progressive self interest is about making the wider connection between personal aspiration and the continuing right of the State to enable collective solutions that meet those aspirations. It is also about re-energising the consent for Labour’s values and policies.

    But even those who are already won over on this argument need to be convinced that our way of doing things is the right way of doing things. To do this, we have to ensure efficient and effective service provision.

    In this, we must be bold. If there are providers out there who can deliver a service better than the state, we should not shy away. Just because it is the Government’s role to ensure there is service provision for all; it does not necessarily follow that it is also Government’s role to deliver that service. Rather it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the provision that people have is the best service they can get.

    I believe our success in tacking the challenges created by demographic change and globalisation rests not just on technological improvements or scientific advancement. It rests on people. Individuals, able to fulfil their potential – crucial for them, and critical for the country.

    It is only through developing a better relationship between citizen and the state that we can meet our goals. And improving that relationship means developing and enhancing that relationship on all sides – for customers, the state and taxpayers.

    We sometimes talk about rights and responsibilities as if it is a balancing act which we need to perform in order to maintain an equilibrium.

    But the ultimate responsibility of the state is to promote and protect its citizen’s rights. This includes the right to work.

    The ultimate responsibility of the citizen is to utilise and capitalise on that right.

    The contract is key. If we can get the balance right, if we can all honour the deal that we make, we will all reap the reward.