Below is the text of the speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Shadow Secretary of Defence, on 3 October 2000.
Last week the Prime Minister said he had reached his irreducible core. We may not know what his irreducible core is – only his focus groups can tell him that – but we do know that he has reached it. The question is what does he do now he has reached it. I always thought that once you had finished eating an apple you threw away the core.
Today’s debate is not about the Prime Minister’s core, but about what his Government has done to the Armed Forces and how we will rectify that.
We are proud of our Armed Forces. We only need to look at the rescue of the British Army hostages in Sierra Leone to see how good they are. We are proud of their outstanding success. Yet it was not without loss. I would like to pay tribute today to all those who took part, particularly Bombardier Brad Tinnion who gave his life fighting for his comrades and his country.
Yet behind the headlines, in the Gulf our RAF pilots are fired upon nearly every day by the Iraqis. And in Kosovo and Bosnia our forces patrol an uneasy peace with calm assurance. And last week the Navy came to the rescue of the victims of the Greek ferry disaster.
Still in Northern Ireland our troops stand in support of the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Let me say that again, Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Peter Mandelson says that the name conjures up the wrong image. This should come as no surprise from someone who has called our own troops ‘chinless wonders’ But for me RUC stands for dedication, service and sacrifice.
In many other areas around the globe they are the unsung heroes. But the armed forces are leaving in droves. Do you blame them?
Exercises are cancelled, soldiers are being sent into action with guns that don’t work, whilst having to use mobile phones on the battlefield, upgraded bombers that can’t drop bombs and short of enough pilots to fly them anyway.
Fighter jets that won’t have guns, ships without missiles, sailors shouting ‘bang’ in gunnery training instead of firing live ammunition. And service families living in sub-standard accommodation for too long.
Conference, a few weeks ago, people couldn’t get fuel for their cars. Well at the end of last year Navy ships were unable to leave port because they couldn’t even afford the fuel.
The result is that the Armed Forces have 5,000 fewer servicemen and women than they did when we left office. That’s the equivalent of 10 Army battalions. Or 20 destroyer crews.
Last week the Prime Minister pompously talked about difficult choices. What he didn’t say was that because of cuts, the RAF has to choose either to scrap its Tornadoes or Jaguars.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is defence of the realm – Labour style.
Yet today Robin Cook struts his stuff on the world stage, only too happy to commit our overstretched forces everywhere and anywhere. The Armed Forces are the best in the world. But the truth is that behind the gloss, they are being really hurt – yet despite that they show dedication and professionalism in marked contrast to this Government. But whilst they squabble, new threats around the world are emerging.
We are seeing a dangerous and widespread proliferation of long-range missiles, biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons taking place amongst the rogue states of the world. Missiles are now capable of reaching from the Middle East right to the heart of Europe. It won’t be long before they are able to strike here.
The Americans are responding to this new threat, developing anti-missile systems to defeat this new danger. But instead of supporting our American allies, Mr Blair has run away from the problem and instead is playing games with his plans for a Euro Army.
The Blair Government has led the creation of a Euro Army to rival NATO, and the EU is busy creating what Mr Prodi has confirmed is a European Army of some 200,000 men. Blair’s short-sighted short-term use of Defence as a bargaining chip in the corridors of power in Brussels has risked all our security.
A Conservative Government will support the Americans in their development of defences against weapons of mass destruction. And we will put paid to any divisive and political notion of a Euro Army. We want to improve European defence capabilities – but within NATO, never outside it.
But even worse, Labour believes that the Armed Forces are a social experiment in human rights. But what they don’t understand is that being a member of the armed forces isn’t about rights. They give up many of their rights to defend ours. They are expected if necessary to kill or be killed – events just a few weeks ago in Sierra Leone are a stark reminder of this fact.
Yet by applying the European Convention on Human Rights to our forces this Government is putting their effectiveness into the hands of campaign junkies, jobbing lawyers and even judges. Theirs is a creeping tide of political correctness threatening to overwhelm our forces’ military effectiveness.
So when we return to Government we will take the Armed Forces out of this politically correct morass, safeguard their unique ethos, and uphold the primacy of military effectiveness.
Labour’s policy of asking the forces to do more with less has damaged all three services. Labour’s cut of 18,000 men from the Territorial Army was vindictive. Less than a year after the cut was made they were getting ready to call them up for service in Kosovo.
In Government, I promise we will return the Territorial Army to its full effectiveness and restore their important place in support of our regulars. The Army is overstretched and 8,000 men understrength. Full manning will be a priority for a Conservative Government.
We also appreciate and value the dedication and loyalty of service families. And they will be at the centre of our thinking and our policy making.
For us defence of the realm is the first consideration of any Government. Some people say defence doesn’t matter but sixty years ago what Churchill referred to as that brilliant youth risked all in the skies above in the defence of their country and the people they loved.
My father was one of those few. And he never ceased to tell me the reason so many of his friends died was because politicians had failed to heed the warnings and left us without strong defence. But then this Government doesn’t like history ……
It’s a Government which seems to hate the country it was elected to govern, which sets one part of the country against the other. That pours hundreds of millions of pounds into a shapeless piece of foreign plastic, which no one wanted, whilst insulting pensioners and service families.
But what we understand is that no country ever created a future by making war on its past.
At the election there will be a choice between spin and substance, between being embarrassed about our nation and being ambitious for our nation.
Confident and united at last behind William Hague, ours will not be a battle just for Government but for the heart and soul of the country that we love.
Below is the text of the speech made by David Heathcoat-Amory on 4 October 2000.
It is a great privilege to take over the Trade and Industry job from Angela Browning who has done so much to expose the myth that New Labour helps business, or even understands it.
And I’m very lucky to have a team like Alan Duncan, Nick Gibb and Richard Page, as well as Doreen Miller, Peta Buscombe and John Mackay in the Lords. Each of them on their own knows more about Trade and Industry than the entire Labour front bench put together.
One of the puzzles about the DTI is this: How is it that after all the privatisations, all the industries freed from state controls, all the competition we brought in, the DTI has gone on growing? After 3 years of a Labour government its running costs have increased by £114 million. This year alone it will take on an extra 500 civil servants.
So as the DTI’s responsibilities get smaller, the department gets bigger.
So don’t tell me that there aren’t savings to be made in public expenditure without hitting front line services like health and education.
Pledge number one: The drive for a smaller state starts here. The DTI will be reorganised to make it leaner, fitter, and smaller.
And instead of policies from New Labour we get gimmicks. Last year Stephen Byers announced that he had discovered ‘Rip off Britain’. The consumer he said was being ‘treated unfairly’. What he didn’t say was that it’s his government that’s doing the ripping off.
Who made our road fuel the most expensive in Europe? A body blow to the haulage industry and every manufacturing company in Britain. The Labour government did that. Petrol is now taxed more heavily than champagne. The champagne socialists are now the ones with a full tank of petrol.
And it’s not over yet. From next April every business in the country, from the smallest corner shop to the biggest multinational, will pay a new energy tax, the so-called Climate Change Levy, on all their gas and electricity bills.
So yes, Britain is being ripped off, by the Treasury with its stealth taxes. And you Stephen Byers have done absolutely nothing to stand up for either the consumer or British business. For that failure, Mr Byers, amongst so many others – it is time you went.
You’ve done nothing for small business either. Look at sub-post offices – small business which are being chopped off by this government and are now closing in record numbers. The only reaction from this government is to talk of setting up some Universal Bank, which is so universal it’s invisible. This destruction of the post office network will not be forgotten at election time.
It’s not just taxes. As any businessman will tell you, there’s the endless regulations, red tape, and government interference. And the inexhaustible stream of European Union directives.
The government deliberately added to this torrent of regulation by giving away, unilaterally, our hard-won opt out from the European Social Chapter. That was an act of political vandalism that’s costing British business an extra £10 billion in this Parliament.
Labour Ministers and MPs have no idea what it’s like to be on the receiving end of hostile taxes and regulations. I do, and I’m going to do something about it.
But let’s admit that we didn’t do enough when we were in government. We checked the regulatory juggernaut but we failed to reverse it. But now we’ve listened to businesses, particularly smaller ones who haven’t the time to serve on consultation committees in London but who end up bearing the costs.
We’ve listened and we’re going to act. We will independently calculate the total cost of regulations issued by each government department. And that total will have to come down year by year. William Hague has made clear that ministerial careers will depend on it. So we’ve all been warned.
The message is, we’re serious. It adds up to pledge number two: I will de-regulate before breakfast, before lunch and before tea. The DTI under us will be a department for deregulation.
One more point before we start our debate.
There are huge opportunities for this country from the electronic revolution, the internet and e-commerce. These technologies are outward looking, tariff-busting, distance-conquering, and they all use the English language. They are not just liberating technologies themselves; they also reinforce Britain’s position and history as a global trader.
Sometimes I’m accused of being a Little Englander because I’m against joining the euro. The truth is the exact opposite.
It’s the Labour party who are the Little Englanders, they are so defeatist about our nation that they will try and lock us into a continental system of high tariffs, high taxes, high regulations, and the euro.
We have a bolder vision: yes to free trade, no to the euro. British industry needs world markets, and a country which is confident, self-governing and free. That is our policy. That is exactly what we will deliver.
Below is the text of the speech made by Francis Maude on 4 October 2000.
Speakers today have all shown that they believe in Britain, they believe our country can be best in world. You all do; so do my team: Richard Spring and Cheryl Gillan in the Commons, who carve up the world between them. Stephen Day, our unsleeping Whip. Patricia Rawlings, who does terrific work in the Lords, and a special welcome, leading our Front Bench team in the Lords, to David Howell. It’s wonderful to have David back in the front line.
I’m a very lucky chap to have such an experienced and talented team. We’re all part of one team. William’s team. We’re ready to govern. And I tell you: we’re raring to go.
Ten years ago I served as one of Margaret Thatcher`s Foreign Office Ministers. Quite a year, that was: the Berlin Wall came down; the Cold War ended, and the shape of the world changed. I don`t want to take all the credit. But in the ten years since then the world has changed out of all recognition.
It’s actually less stable than it was; the Cold War lent a grim predictability to life. Ours is a swirling, tempestuous world; a world bursting with opportunity; a world of lightning information flows. Truly a network world.
People travel more; they know more about the world. Twenty or thirty years ago a trip round Europe was pretty exciting. Today it’s like a trip across town. Today young people in their gap years can span the world – and they do. And they want to make a difference in the world – themselves – they don’t think it’s all down to governments.
If we believe in ourselves, Britain can flourish in this new network world. Just look at the assets we have. The world’s fourth largest economy. The second biggest overseas investor. The greatest international financial centre. English, the language of the internet, and of global exchange. Armed Forces admired throughout the world. Membership of the EU. At the heart of NATO. The transatlantic relationship. At the centre of the Commonwealth – and our new Commonwealth Commission is mapping out a big new role for it in the network world.
In this new world, we aren’t on the edge of anything. Britain can be at the centre of it all. Our foreign policy must be for this new world. We have to look outwards, not inwards. And it shouldn’t be difficult. The British were globalists before the word was invented. We’re committed to global free trade by 2020. That’s the best hope for developing nations. Britain never has sought isolation. It never should. And under the Conservatives it never will.
So yes, Britain can be at the centre of the new network world. We will use that position to serve British interests. We’ll do so honourably and – yes – ethically.
Talking of ethics: did you hear Robin Cook last week, going on about ‘a miserable, shrivelled and shrunken thing’? Up and down the land, people were saying ‘there he goes, talking about himself again. For him, ethics might just as well be a county east of London. There’d be a big change, said Robin Cook. Britain’s foreign policy would have an ethical dimension. Who does this man think he is?
This country, that spread freedom, law and democracy across the globe. That twice last century fought for all Europe against tyranny. That most recently helped liberate millions of our fellow Europeans from the iron hand of Communism. Where was Robin Cook when we were fighting that battle? Posturing in his CND badge. While we never let up, he wanted Britain to slink, weaponless, from the world stage.
Foreign policy is about strength. Strength and honour. We`ll use Britain’s strength in the world. We’ll use it for peace and stability: whether in Kashmir, or Cyprus or the Middle East. We pray today that those caught up in conflagration in Gaza and the West Bank see that peace, not conflict, is the prize. We sincerely hope that the talks in Paris bring this violence to an end.
We’ll use our strength to promote democracy and the rule of law. The verdict of the ballot box must be respected. Mugabe and Milosevic: it’s over. You tried to rig it – and you failed. Give up – and get out.
And – yes – we`ll use British strength to promote the interests of Britain – and Britons.
For we believe in Britain. It isn’t obsolete. In the new network world, nations will matter more, not less. Globalisation means people need to be able to identify with their country more, not less.
Last week I was in the Caucasus. I was meeting people who only regained their nationhood eight years ago. They’re not about to give it up. Go to Kosovo, and talk to people, as I did: nationhood is their dream.
And it makes sense: in this fast-moving world, governments need to be flexible, and responsive. Countries, today more than ever, need the power to govern themselves.
And I just don’t understand why Tony Blair’s given up on it. He claims we either give up more and more powers. Or we condemn Britain to a lonely isolation. What a sad, outdated, defeatist view. Where’s the vision? Where’s the leadership? Where’s the conviction?
All round Europe, there is a really serious debate about its future. We agree with some bits, disagree with others, but it’s a real debate, with real convictions. There’s only one leader with nothing serious to say. Tony Blair. No leadership, no vision.
It’s different behind closed doors. He’d happily take Britain into a European superstate. He’d love to scrap the pound. But he wants to do it by stealth. It’s the Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name. He knows that most people, the mainstream majority, want no truck with it.
The mainstream majority want to be in Europe, not run by Europe. That’s why last year, against all expectations – perhaps even against our own – we won the European elections. The winners, under Edward’s leadership, have been hard at work. We work together – one team. In the last few days they’ve tabled the largest number of amendments to the European budget anyone can remember, aimed at cutting waste and eradicating Euro-propaganda.
There’s still a lot to sort out. The Commission needed a man of sharp intellect, decisive action and few words to put their house in order. They chose Neil Kinnock. Why do I think there’s still some distance to go?
Well. Here’s a pointer. The day I was in Brussels last month, Labour MEPs drove through a directive on…how to climb a ladder. That’s right – there really is an EU way to climb a ladder. It says this: ‘Ladders shall be so positioned as to ensure their stability during use.’ ‘Mobile ladders shall be immobilised before any person steps onto them.’ Well, thank you.
Then they agonised over whether to permit ‘The holding of a ladder by another person as a safety measure.’ And there let us leave them, these Labour MEPs: up their ladders; off their trolleys.
You really couldn’t make it up, could you? Tony Blair says we do make it up. He says it’s all fantasy. ‘No one I know wants some overblown United States of Europe’, he says.
Really? You know the German foreign minister, don’t you, Mr Blair? He wants ‘the transition … to … a European Federation.’ ‘We must put into place the last brick in the building of European integration, namely political integration’, he said.
You know Mr Prodi too, don’t you? Didn’t you appoint him? ‘Step by step … the European Commission … behaves like a growing government’, he says – and he means it, too – he approves of it.
And you must have met the French Prime Minister? He claims he’s met you, anyway. He talks of the EU crossing ‘a milestone towards the creation of a united political Europe’.
We may not like what they’re saying. But at least they’re honest. Why can’t Tony Blair tell the truth? Why can’t he be honest?
So let me be clear. If some others decide to integrate more, we won’t stand in their way. That’s their sovereign right. But a Conservative government will not – not – do the same.
And no, we won’t be ‘left behind’, or ‘isolated’; we’re not missing any boats. Two simple things came out of last Thursday’s Danish pasting. No more one size fits all. And nothing inevitable about scrapping the pound. People want to be in Europe but keep the pound. They know they can. And with a Conservative government, they will.
For the mainstream majority agrees with us. They’re not anti-European – and nor are we. If we weren’t committed to stay in Europe, why bother trying to change it? And the first change is that for Britain, integration has gone far enough. We will oppose any further loss of the British veto over EU laws. We will oppose the job-destroying Charter of Rights. And we will oppose the creation of an EU defence force outside NATO.
It’s so clear now that the public agree with us that I suspect Tony Blair may be getting a bit fussed. So don’t be deceived if he tries to water down the Nice Treaty this December. He hasn’t suddenly seen the light. He knows there’s another treaty in the pipeline. A treaty to create a European constitution for a European superstate. A treaty planned for – yes, after the next election. That’s why the stakes are so high: that’s why we’ve really just got to win.
Today I make two commitments. We will legislate so that further transfers of power can only take place after a referendum. Yes, Mr Blair: the people. Remember them?
And we are all fed up with seeing the European Court extending the EU into areas of national government well beyond those that Parliament intended to transfer. So we will legislate to create ‘reserved powers’. Beyond the powers we intended to transfer, EU law will not override the will of Parliament. Never again will the Treaties be extended by un-elected EU judges.
We’re not going to break our treaty obligations. There is no question of that. We honour Britain’s obligations. But why shouldn’t Britain enjoy the same constitutional protection as France, Germany and Italy already do? If it’s good enough for them, it should be good enough for us.
Next, we’ll insist on a flexibility clause; outside the single market and core areas, let countries be free to accept only those new Euro-laws which meet their needs.
And let’s be blunt: some Brussels policies just aren’t working. The aid programme. The Common Agricultural Policy. The Common Fisheries Policy. They all waste money – they’re failing relics. They don’t need to be run from the centre. More can, and more should, be run by the nation states.
It’s eleven years since that momentous November night when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, and the Iron Curtain was shattered. The EU has a historic duty to embrace the whole family of European nations. It’s taking far too long. If we want enlargement – and we do – we need a flexible Europe, a network Europe. We not going to take lectures from those who were nowhere to be seen while the West won the Cold War and made enlargement possible.
Mr Chairman, Europe’s strength is the diversity of its nation states. It’s their very sense of nationhood. This is the basis for our vision of Europe, a flexible and enlarged European Union. It’s the vision for which Conservatives have long argued, under Margaret Thatcher and John Major and William Hague.
For us believing in Britain isn’t just a phrase. It’s what we’re about. Yes, we believe in this United Kingdom – we believe it really can be the best place in the world. Yes, we believe in Britain, because we believe in the British people. Today people know more; they want to do more – themselves – not just for themselves, or by themselves; but together, and for others.
For others not just here at home, but abroad too. You see, like us they don’t think it’s all down to Governments. They’re sceptical about politicians, even suspicious; they just don’t believe today that the answer is ever higher taxes and an ever bigger state.
They long for leaders who are honest with them, who respect their intelligence. They long for a party that is in tune with their hopes and fears, for themselves and for their country. They long for a Government that earns their respect by speaking the truth.
We are such a party and, under William Hague, we will be such a Government. And if we hold fast to our beliefs and fight for them with every sinew, we will not just win the chance to serve. We will be worthy of it.
Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Portillo, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Conservative Party Conference held on 3 October 2000.
Four years ago Tony Blair promised us a new Britain.
He promised taxes wouldn’t rise. But they have.
He promised shorter waiting lists. But they’re longer.
He promised smaller classes. But they’re larger.
He promised more police. But there are fewer.
He promised his government would be purer than pure. What a joke.
I feel so sorry for the many people who put their hopes in that man. They are so bitterly disappointed.
They were sold a dream and it’s just not there. And there hasn’t been a single word of apology.
Well, he did say the Dome hadn’t been a runaway success.
Not a runaway success? As I recall, that’s what people said to me after my defeat in Enfield Southgate.
It’s four years since I could address a party conference from the platform. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge. We’ve travelled a long distance since then: I have, you have, the party has.
I was devastated by my defeat at the time. It certainly didn’t feel like it at the time, but the British electorate did me a favour. My period out of parliament was a chance to connect with the Britain of today.
Now, as Shadow Chancellor, I cannot forget those experiences. My job is not just about dry economics. The quality of British life cannot be measured in material terms alone.
We are the party that understands how much the world has changed.
Our country would be stronger and its people more willing to take responsibility if we had fewer politicians passing fewer laws, raising fewer taxes and intruding less in our lives.
Young people reject the Labour Party’s bossiness, meddling, banning and regulating.
Britain has changed and the Conservatives have changed with it. For new generations of British people, old prejudices have been swept away.
The Conservative Party is a party for our times.
We are a party for people, not against people. We are for all Britons: black Britons, British Asians, white Britons. Britain is a country of rich diversity. That Britain was on display in Sydney. Athletes of every background united by a pride in Britain, and Britain united by its pride in them. Conservatives don’t look for uniformity, but for the qualities that mark people out as individual and exceptional.
We are for people whatever their sexual orientation. The Conservative Party isn’t merely a party of tolerance: it’s a party willing to accord every one of our citizens respect. Why should people respect us if we withhold respect from them?
We value people for what’s inside them.
We heard last week Labour’s smears against our policy on asylum seekers. That policy will re-establish public confidence in our controls. That frees us to give a warm welcome to those who come to Britain in fear of their lives.
That’s how my father came. Britain’s willingness to take in refugees defines us as a generous and responsible people. It’s a tradition that will be upheld by the Conservative Party.
We want people to aspire, to reach the heights to which their qualities can lift them.
While I was out of parliament I took a television camera into some housing estates. I saw a lot of poverty. But in a way what shocked me was not so much the absolute poverty – for many people had videos and their children wore Reebok trainers. What distressed me most was the poverty of expectation and ambition, the lack of hope for anything better in life to come.
But in a Saturday school organised by the black community in Sandwell, I found that aspiration: parents determined that their children should have a chance to fulfil their dreams. And education would be the ladder by which they’d climb.
Many Labour politicians climbed that ladder. But now they want to kick it away from others. For reasons of pure dogma, they destroy good schools: grant-maintained schools and grammar schools.
But they send their own children to exclusive schools. That’s Labour’s real policy on education. One rule for themselves, another rule for those they govern.
William Hague went to a state school. So did Theresa May. So did I. I had excellent teachers. We weren’t intimidated by public schools like Mr Blair’s. We thought we could do just as well as they did.
No state school should ever feel second class.
Every parent knows that a school is only as good as its head teacher. The Conservative way is to trust the head teachers and give them the money to spend as they choose. We will give them the opportunity to create great schools, to lift the sights of their pupils, and to transform their young lives.
This is our message to parents and teachers: we will set the schools free.
The next generation will want to be more independent in their retirement than pensioners are today. We will give them the chance to put their money into a properly-funded pension. We’ll enable future generations to accrue prosperity and share fully in the growth of our economy.
We won’t fudge welfare reform.
Gordon Brown promised pensioners change. They got it. Loose change. 75 pence. And when pensioners sent it back in disgust, Gordon cashed the cheques.
While I was enjoying my sabbatical, I worked for a few shifts as a hospital porter. I remember once wheeling a patient to the operating theatre on a trolley. He was motionless and I was awfully afraid he might be dead. But without warning, almost like Frankenstein’s monster he sat bolt upright and said, “What on earth are you doing here Mr Portillo?”
I was experiencing the sharp end of the NHS.
Everything was in short supply. There weren’t enough wheel chairs. So porters had to horde them. It reminded me of stories of the war, when there was rationing, but everyone mucked in and tried to be cheerful.
It was impressive. The doctors, nurses – and porters – are heroes. But things shouldn’t have to be like that.
Britain spends too little on health.
There’s a consensus amongst the parties that we should spend much more money on the NHS. But not on how to spend it, nor on how that money can be supplemented.
Labour impose politically motivated targets on our doctors and nurses. No wonder they’re demoralised. We would give doctors responsibility, and trust them to spend the money wisely, treating the sickest patients first.
Where Labour’s horizons end, ours begin.
Our neighbours in Europe know that you cannot rely on taxes alone to finance health. They would think it silly that families in Britain are encouraged to spend money on their home, on their continued education and on their retirement, but are discouraged through dogma from spending their own money on their health. So other countries have schemes, for instance organised by trade unions and employers. We’ll want to encourage that in Britain too.
Well spend much more money on the Health Service. And attract extra money too.
Labour are stuck in ancient ideology. As Ann Widdecombe once said, Labour have built a Berlin Wall between the public and private sectors.
We will tear down that wall.
Liberal Democrats have a policy for health and education too. It’s is to make doctors and teachers pay more tax. It’s not much of a gift for the NHS. But it’s a great gift for every Conservative candidate fighting a Liberal Democrat. Let’s hear a round of applause for my old pal Charles Kennedy, the Tory candidate’s friend.
While I was out of Parliament, I became a small business. The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise sent me a pile of forms and books and tables that thick. I found it daunting and time-wasting. What a pity Gordon Brown doesn’t live in the real world where business people live.
We never forget that governments don’t create prosperity. Businesses do.
Tomorrow David Heathcoat Amory will tell you about our plans to cut red tape. We will make VAT simpler and fairer. Let’s stop punishing the people who create the jobs.
All Labour Chancellors regulate more. All Labour Chancellors tax more. But Gordon Brown is no socialist hero. He hasn’t taxed the rich to give to the poor. He’s cynically chosen soft targets for his stealth taxes: hard-working families, people he thought who would never protest.
Labour think high taxes give them the moral high ground. They talk of social justice. They believe that money that government spends is always more worthwhile than money that people spend for themselves on their families.
But I don’t.
I believe in allowing hardworking families to keep more of the money they have earned. I believe in allowing them to keep more of their dignity and responsibility.
Recently, a man wrote to me, a member of the seamen’s union. The union’s told him Gordon Brown’s taxed the pension fund and he must pay out another £200 a year if he’s not to be worse off in his retirement.
Is that social justice?
Another man told me he’s just retiring. Gordon Brown’s abolished the married couple’s allowance and age allowance. The man will have to pay £500 a year more in tax than his brother who retired last year.
Is that social justice?
In Suffolk last week a mother of four children, a beautician, told me she’s been driven out of business by Gordon Brown. She can’t afford to fill her tank with the most expensive petrol in Europe.
Call that social justice, Mr Brown?
There is no social justice in high taxation.
The Prime Minister devoted a large part of his Brighton speech to smearing the Conservatives. People long ago stopped believing Mr Blair when he spins his own policies let alone when he falsifies ours. People found his speech not only unbelievable but also disillusioning. Wasn’t he meant to bring a new honesty to politics? Why can’t he behave like a Prime Minister?
Before the election Labour claimed it was no longer addicted to high public spending, that the amount we spend is less important than how well we spend it. They committed themselves to stick to Conservative spending plans, because they knew that our prudence was a foundation of economic stability.
But as the events of the last few weeks have shown, this is not a Chancellor whose word is his bond.
Our economy has been growing since 1992. That gives us an opportunity to increase public spending. I plan to spend more on public services in every year than Labour has spent in any year. But I don’t intend to spend money the country hasn’t earned. I will leave room for tax cuts.
Labour taxes more and delivers less, and plans higher taxes year after year. Conservatives will tax less, spend better and deliver more. That will be the choice at the next election.
We will cut taxes on business, so that they can compete and create prosperity and jobs.
We will reform Labour’s taxes on entrepreneurs and on inward investment.
We will encourage savings, to give people security and self-esteem.
We will help pensioners and hard-working families.
We will restore a married couple’s allowance.
We will cut the duty on fuel.
That gives you a flavour of my budgets!
We will keep an independent Bank of England. We will make it more independent of government and more accountable to Parliament.
We will establish a National Accounts Commission to show the world that under the Conservatives there will be no fiddled figures.
And we will have an independent committee of economists to give public advice to me on the proper level of surplus or deficit.
These measures will ensure honesty, transparency and prudence.
They will ensure stable economic policies. They will protect the value of the pound in your pocket.
And when I say the pound I mean the pound. For our economic policy will be based on Britain having its own currency and setting its own interest rates.
Gordon Brown wants to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer and he can’t tell you whether he wants to control his own currency or not.
Labour like to call us little Englanders. Is it likely a little Englander would be called Portillo? I am half Spanish, and proud of it. I am a true European, someone with a love of Europe’s different cultures.
As the Spanish proverb goes: Antes de que te cases, mira lo que haces. Before you get yourself hitched, watch what you’re doing. Look before you leap.
The euro plan fails to respect Europe’s differences. It shoe horns all the economies of Europe, with their different qualities and cycles and stages of development, into just one currency, and just one interest rate.
It threatens to take Europe back to boom and bust. The Irish now have high inflation. But there’s nothing they can do about it. When Ireland joined the euro it gave up the right to set its own interest rates.
In Germany the economy seems to be faltering. For Germany the single European interest rate is too high.
Not surprisingly, one interest rate for all of Europe is wrong for most places most of the time.
And here’s the rub. Supposing the people of Ireland want to vote against the policies that are driving up their prices? They can’t do it. Their elected government doesn’t make the policy. The critical political decisions about growth and jobs in Ireland are being taken by the European Central Bank.
And who votes for the European Central Bank? No one. It’s wholly unaccountable.
The most precious thing in Europe is democracy. Mr Blair hoped to bamboozle Britain into joining the euro. He hoped to scare us like children with tales of how frightening it would be to be left out. Denmark has shown that people cannot be fooled or bullied by arrogant politicians.
Mr Blair please take note.
At the election we will oppose the euro. British public opinion is suspicious of the euro as an unproven piece of political dogma. That is our view. That is the view of the moderate majority. We want to keep the pound.
And remember this. The euro is a bright idea recommended by the people who brought us the Dome!
Labour is leading Britain in the wrong direction. Compared with the United States we are under-performing. Labour is weighing us down with regulations and taxes. It’s making us uncompetitive. It’ll throw away our national goal of full employment.
Last week Tony Blair talked about Britain in his usual cool Britannia terms. In reality Labour lack confidence in Britain and seem ashamed of it. They are defeatist, thinking there’s no future for us unless we are more and more absorbed into Europe, less and less able to make choices for ourselves.
It’s amazing that the government of the world’s fourth largest economy should have given up the game.
Conservatives recognise the need for Britain to be globally competitive and produce global companies. If we commit ourselves to maintain control of our own currency and taxes, to be agile and open to change, to cut regulation and make our taxes competitive with the world, we can make Britain the outstanding enterprise centre in Europe.
We have a vision that fits our times.
William Hague has led this party out of dark days. I have never seen anyone face difficulty with such composure. He has real courage. The courage Britain needs in its next Prime Minister.
The quality of British life cannot be measured in material terms alone. I will not forget the experiences I had while out of parliament.
We will be the party of tax cuts, and welfare reform. Of social justice and full employment.
We will use the months ahead to be ready for government, to win the trust of the people that Labour has betrayed.
We are a party that believes in Britain, a party for all our people, a party that offers them aspiration and hope.
Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 16 March 2000.
Today’s seminar could not be better timed. Next week, a special European Council will be addressing the crucial need for the European Union to take up the challenge presented by the knowledge economy. The European Parliament is just starting its second reading of the Electronic Commerce Directive, which will provide the platform for barrier free electronic trading across the EU. This morning, I will give an overview of E-commerce development in Europe, and the challenges now facing policymakers. I will also tell you about the Conservative approach to boosting E-Commerce activity at a European level, complementing the actions of our Westminster team. The Conservatives are playing a leading policy making role within our Centre Right Group (EPP/ED) in the Parliament, in making sure that our Open Market agenda is delivered successfully.
E-commerce going to be of great importance to Europe’s global competitiveness. Big progress has been made towards a true Internal Market – in market opening, in uniform product standards, in eliminating trading barriers. We have an excellent climate in which to encourage cross border e-commerce activities. E-commerce offers a huge opportunity to finally complete the internal market, by allowing market forces to operate in levelling market barriers, exposing high tax, high cost economies and making protectionist practises (such as unnecessary advertising restrictions) completely transparent.
Given its importance, it is a concern that Europe lags significantly behind the U.S.A. in the development of electronic commerce. Within the EU there are very significant variations in E-Commerce activity – with the Nordic countries, and Benelux being the leaders in PC use per household. In translating this into Internet activity, the Nordic countries lead is even more pronounced. Recent studies suggest that Spain and Ireland are among the leaders in their economic and business climate for e-commerce. There appears to be no in-built factor within Europe stopping the growth of e-commerce – which suggests that, as in the U.S.A, we should not flirt with market intervention, but allow market forces to work.
Companies operating in e-commerce would like the security of a legal framework within their activities can develop. Since 1997, the Commission has been moving ahead with framework directives in crucial areas such as electronic signatures and copyright. The Commission has followed the right approach – ensuring market openness by preventing member states from blocking cross border transactions. At the same time, business participation will be encouraged – especially smaller companies. Consumer protection will generate trust and confidence. There will be special provisions for internet service providers. The legislation is ‘technology neutral’ – thus being flexible enough to encompass future developments in a fast moving market place. It also requires member states to encourage self-regulation for consumer protection and redress – the right approach given the immense change ahead in retailing and consumer services.
The e-commerce Directive, which embraces all these provisions, has now been agreed by the Member States and is just starting its Second reading in the European Parliament. We intend to push forward quickly, with minimum changes, to secure approval by mid 2000. This will send out a strong signal that the Conservatives wish to encourage e-commerce and are prepared to move quickly to help end uncertainty for consumers and investors.
But there is much more to be done if Europe is really going to take advantage of the knowledge economy. Europe needs the economic infrastructure to encourage entrepreneurs to exploit the power of e-commerce. It needs the communications infrastructure to deliver widespread, low cost access to the Internet for businesses and private consumers. It needs a new approach by public authorities to the use of electronic information. It needs the right training and skills base on which new industries can be developed.
The Commission has produced an e-Europe strategy that claims to address these issues, but this document is a rather unfocussed collection of undeveloped promises. In reality, the major area that the European Governments must address is the tax and business climate to stimulate new, internet based businesses. We are promised yet another new ‘initiative’ for the Lisbon summit. A very welcome impact of e-commerce is that it is forcing Governments to address the well-known problems of the European labour market and the reasons why its job creation has been so poor:-
· High social costs of employment
· Inflexibility imposed by excessive employment regulation
· High cost of company start ups and high penalties for failure
· Excessive taxes on capital gains, particularly stock options, discouraging new entrepreneurs from taking risks
We shall push strongly for these issues to be properly addressed, and will press our own ideas for encouraging e-business start-ups. For example, we should encourage e-businesses to register their companies, and take on employees, in any EU country that offers the most advantageous conditions. A market driven approach would soon have governments competing with each other in encouraging e-business. This could be stimulated by a start-up scoreboard giving fledgling entrepreneurs all the facts needed to make their decision.
The new companies will need access to capital. There appears to be no proven need for market intervention at this stage, as there appears to be more capital available than good ideas on offer. The development of the Single European Market for financial services will bring about more dynamism and competition in the capital market. Unlike the Commission, which is toying with the idea of publicly backed funding, we see only a limited role for central intervention.
We would also like to develop a tax incentive framework that would encourage large companies to spin off e-commerce start ups, using their existing human and financial resources. There are many middle managers who would leap at the chance of developing a new business idea, and becoming their own boss. Spin off companies, with the risks being underwritten by the strength of their parent, would have the chance to grow quickly. They would also encourage the development of entrepreneurial skills and practical knowledge within their feeder company and help its competitiveness in the new information driven economy.
Governments also have a key role in market development as purchasers of e-commerce services. They should be encouraging ‘best practice’ and ensuring that their procurement systems are open to smaller, innovative companies.
Although open markets will be the prime enabler of e-commerce, the existing European grant instruments – regional and social funds – can be targeted to help e-commerce ventures. In both rural and urban communities, e-commerce will provide powerful tools to tackle unemployment – by encouraging new business ideas, by giving fast and cheap access to market information, by developing networks of entrepreneurs and job seekers. In many cases, e-commerce will help to reinvent old business models and transform large, slow moving industries. People with existing skills can be encouraged to develop niche products for targeted customers and market them globally.
The other key element to address is infrastructure. Low cost, widely available, broad band electronic communications will be an essential foundation for a powerful e-economy. The European Commission has published a bold plan for a single, open, electronic communications market, integrating fixed-line services, cable, digital television, and mobile. This structure, to be in place by mid 2000, would offer service providers open licensing and market entry opportunities across the EU. A key aspect of the proposals would be access to the local loop in every market, opening competition for services to every connected household.
The EU is already significantly ahead of the US in mobile telephones. 3rd generation mobile technology will bring internet access to consumers at a much lower capital cost than a fixed computer based (or TV based) system.
EU governments must encourage fast mobile internet growth by facilitating common standards and rules. They should be re-investing license fees or auction proceeds in repositioning public service operations in the radio spectrum and encouraging fast infrastructure investment and wide spectrum availability. Competition rules must allow global players to develop across one, barrier free, European market. The speedy growth of internet mobiles will also encourage new providers of simple, fast, useful data for phone users – based on travel, news, business and general information services, integrated with other services such as geographical data. These are areas where new European companies can gain a global lead.
In thinking about the developing market, we must also be considering the implications for society as a whole of the widespread availability of information technology. Education must increasingly equip young people to be active on-line consumers and to develop the skills to work in the new information companies. Retraining and reskilling will be needed in existing organizations in public and private sectors. The information society offers big benefits for the less fortunate and the less mobile – disabled people, and the elderly, for example. There will be very significant security and privacy issues to be addressed. The European Commission, and member governments, are now working on many ideas to help the spread of information society benefits – and some of them would be worthy candidates for reinvestment of licence fees, as they would further stimulate adoption of e-services. But the priority, at this stage, must be to drive forward market adoption of the new technology.
I have summarised the key aspects of the European scene for electronic commerce. The Conservative team in the European Parliament has taken a special interest in this area, and has raised the political profile of the issue across the Parliament. There is a big policy agenda to work through. Following the Electronic Signatures and E-commerce directives, there will be the Copyright Directive, the Distance Selling Directive and the Directive setting up a Single Financial Services Market, including Internet selling. We will be heavily involved in Electronic Communications liberalisation, both in the strategy and detailed legislation. The stimulus to Business start-ups will also be a focus of attention. Industry practitioners are invited to keep closely in touch with us to ensure that we have your views.
You have seen today a united Conservative approach, in Europe and Westminster, focused on meeting and mastering a key challenge for all of us. We firmly believe that a market-based, light-touch approach will be the way forward. E-Commerce represents a huge opportunity to enhance the power of markets to provide real benefits for customers across, to stimulate business activity and economic growth. The Conservative team will work together quickly and effectively to make sure that this opportunity is fully realised.
Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 16 March 2000.
I am delighted to welcome you here today for the Conservative Party’s e-business conference. Many thanks to freecom.net for sponsoring this event; and to all of today’s speakers for giving their time to discuss the knowledge economy with all of us here today.
It is the measure of how important e-business has become as an issue, that a political party is holding this kind of event – and, that so many of you are here to take part in it.
Electronic commerce and its value to business has become one of the most important parts of the economic equation. You have been aware of this for some time, but it is now dawning on governments, the media and consumers that here is something that is changing the rules.
It has the power to transform the way we live and it will become ever more central to our future success as a country. If we take the sensible route, the route that I will map out today, then e-commerce can do for this country in this century, what the railways did in the nineteenth century and the automobile in the twentieth century.
It is vital therefore, that Government provides the right environment to nurture and support the talented business people who can lead us in this new economy and help to make Britain a leading player.
When we left office three years ago the Conservative Government had already delivered the foundations for the E-revolution, and you in your businesses had already started to build on those foundations. There was draft legislation in place to enable e-commerce to flourish, bring our laws up to date and to further deregulate the communications industry. But that was three years ago – and the world of the internet, like the world of politics, has changed a great deal since then.
Building on the knowledge economy that is springing up at such a fantastic rate will have huge implications for you in business – and for us in Government. I intend to touch on both of these areas this morning.
Success in e-business will of course rely on many of the policies that we have long championed.
So today I want to outline to you why low taxes are essential if Britain is to become a leader in the new economy.
I want to talk to you about our Tax Guarantee and a war on over-regulation that will widen our competitive advantage in the age of e-business and trade without frontiers.
I want to talk to you about the importance of nations competing with each other to be an attractive place for e-business, rather than driving that business away with higher taxes, more regulation and ever more centralised political systems.
I believe there are two very clear choices before us.
The first is to act in the belief that in a big jungle only big beasts survive; that as markets grow, so must the size of government. We can see this belief driving the way a number of Western European Governments behave, including our own.
They are interfering more and more in the labour market, imposing statutory working hours, levy new taxes and enforcing new regulations in a mistaken belief that this will protect small citizens from the chill winds of the new economy. I say such an approach does not protect citizens. It puts them on the dole. Higher taxes and more regulations only serve to make it that much harder for any business, dot.com or more traditional, to be successful in the global market. Which is why my Party is particularly concerned that business in Britain is having to find £10 billion a year to meet the costs of new regulations and £30 billion of extra business taxes over the lifetime of this Parliament.
I take a different approach, and I suspect many of you do as well.
I believe Governments must recognise that this is the age of the small unit, the individual on the internet, the small business and large business alike using e-commerce, and that in this age it is the low tax, low regulation nation state is best placed to succeed.
For in the dimension-less, go-anywhere world of the new economy, no country can take industry for granted – for industry can go to any country. The common sense approach would be to build on Britain’s existing advantages of the English language, our excellent software skills, and our entrepreneurial spirit by keeping government interference to a minimum.
That is the way to command the electronic frontier. That is what the Conservative approach will be.
We know this works. Take the example of Florida, which I visited a few weeks ago. There Governor Jeb Bush is attracting high technology companies to the state by creating what he calls Silicon Beach. He is doing it by building a low tax, low regulation, high skill economy.
Already Florida has seen a wide array of companies begin to cluster in Miami. These are companies offering services such as chat-rooms and search engines – email and e-commerce opportunities – as well as sites in Spanish and Portuguese specifically designed for Latin American and U.S. Hispanic audiences.
Britain is competing against places like Silicon Beach – and we cannot even offer the sunshine.
So the danger is that as all this develops, we fall behind. We already lag behind the US and much of mainland Europe in terms of Internet access; and American sites today dominate the competitive landscape – just three of the top ten most visited sites in Britain are UK based.
We also face higher costs and slower access to high speed services in Britain. As wireless and fixed communications are increasingly overlapping, it is absurd to have a regulatory structure that does not keep up with this technology.
Educationally too, there is work to do. We need flexible learners who can cope with constant change, always hungry for new knowledge and ready to lead in the knowledge economy.
A shift in skills is required right across the UK economy. Just look at recent employment headlines:
‘Tesco on-line business to create a further 7,000 jobs’ and;
‘Abbey National Internet Bank to create 500 new jobs’ are just two examples, while companies, such as Barclays Bank, cutting jobs in low skilled areas and creating them in what they term ‘knowledge areas’.
While access to Information Technology in our schools and universities grows there is still too little evidence that IT is being used to enhance the learning process rather than IT just being an “add on”.
We must also be sure that we don’t miss an important opportunity. The global reach of the Internet will drive students to look abroad for higher education qualifications. The UK is in a strong position to capitalise on this as UK qualifications are internationally well regarded. We must do so.
If these problems are not tackled we lose out. We do not have the luxury of time. The scale and speed of the new global economy is staggering.
Our sponsors today, freecom.net, state that the forecast for growth in the worldwide e-Commerce market has gone from £61 billion in 1999 to £0.7 trillion by 2003 – a phenomenal growth of 1,119% in four years.
What then should be involved in a light touch approach? What can we do to build on the knowledge economy?
You, of course, are in the driving seat. The new economy will create some big winners in business, and perhaps some big losers too in the years ahead. Like all of you, I watched with some amazement as new high-flying technology stocks ousted some of the ‘old economy’ giants from the FTSE 100 index.
Shares in the hi-tech and dot com companies are soaring, mostly based on future profits – such is the expectation for the future of e-business.
The challenge for professional investors is immense. We have to welcome the willingness of investors to bring their capital to help the growth of these companies, but they now have to develop their businesses in a way to deliver profits.
But the knowledge economy is not just about new dot-coms. It is about all businesses, old as well as new.
The Internet is reorganising the whole distribution process and taking out costs from the supply chain. It is lowering the cost of procurement, shortening delivery cycles and improving productivity.
Businesses that belong to the ‘old economy’ can use the new one to breathe new life into their operations, providing they do not make the mistake of assuming the Internet nothing more than an on-line version of a company or organisation.
Everything that I have said about the potential of e-commerce assumes of course, one thing – actually being connected to the Internet.
Whether it is business-to-business, or business-to-consumer, e-business is no business unless we’re connected. For the past few weeks the television news has been full of ‘the great Internet race’.
However it is important not to ignore the fact that the essence of e-commerce is that telecoms and service providers are interconnected. At one level you have the providers of the net, which is the backbone of the Internet, carrying the traffic. At the next level down, there are providers – the ISPs.
Currently, the Government and the media are talking about reducing the costs of access between the ISPs and the consumers. This is very welcome but it s is only one level.
There seems to be much less debate about the telecom providers, and the control that they wield over the Internet backbone. We must encourage openness and competition at every level of the Internet; over excessive dominance or control at any level would be detrimental to the system as a whole.
At present 70% of all Internet access travels via the USA and is re-routed back to Europe. Too much control at the backbone, or ISP level could only serve to push this figure up further.
If the providers of the Net take ‘ownership’ of the Internet, there is the potential of increased Internet costs, regardless of what the ISPs want to do. As one, or a few big, companies in effect start to own large parts of the Internet; the omens for healthy competition are not good.
Nor does it help that for each method of delivery of internet by telephone wire, satellite, radio-waves, cable, digital broadcasting and analogue broadcasting there is a different set of regulators trying to enforce different sets of regulations. Which is why, as I say, if we are to have regulation, then it must keep pace with technological change.
The internet revolution poses challenges for all your businesses. It also poses challenges for politicians too.
It is not enough for us to stand up at these events and proclaim the obvious about how e-commerce is ‘dissolving physical barriers, and levelling the business playing field’. Politicians of all parties must avoid the temptation to take credit for what is already happening.
I start from the position of someone who is profoundly sceptical about the extent to which the new global economy should be, or indeed can effectively be, regulated or taxed. This new economy has arisen in an astonishingly democratic fashion. And it has done so through the actions and ingenuity of countless individuals in what has probably been the most open and least regulated market in history.
Therefore, the right policy is for Government to stay out of the way and let it flourish. I have to say that this is not the approach currently being adopted by this Government
Take tax. Next Tuesday is Budget Day – a day on which some people think I earn half my salary since I have to give an immediate and detailed response to the Chancellor’s speech with no forewarning of what he is going to say.
But this year I know one thing for certain. Whatever Gordon Brown says, taxes, including taxes on business, will be higher when the Chancellor sits down than on the day he walked into the Treasury.
Even Downing Street now conceded that Britain’s tax burden has risen under this Government. Nearly £500 million of it will come in the form of the IR 35 stealth tax. Its name shows just how stealthy it is – it was sneaked out in Inland Revenue Press Release number 35 on Budget Day last year.
IR35 is a tax on contractors. Small IT companies are deeply worried about this new tax regime, which is forcing them to consider setting up shop away from the United Kingdom. The outgoing Chairman of the Professional Contractors’ Group said that he fears IR35 will deal a massive blow to Britain’s enterprise culture. “American multinationals will be laughing all the way to the bank as the British Government destroys their home-grown competition”, was how he put it. IR35 could cause a brain drain not seen here since the 1970s. It is exactly the wrong approach to the new economy.
This Government’s stealth tax increases also threaten the share option schemes that many high-tech companies need to attract highly skilled workers. Changes introduced by this Government which impose national insurance charges on employers offering share options badly undermines one of the best ways for dot.com companies to retain and motivate their workforce.
Far from driving away the very people whose enterprise and innovation can build and drive the knowledge economy, we should be doing everything in our power to make them want to stay.
Central to the our Common Sense Revolution is the promise that at the end of the next Conservative Government the state will take a smaller share of the nation’s income than at the beginning. In other words, we will cut the overall burden of tax on individuals and businesses.
For while our tax burden as a proportion of GDP is now 8 per cent lower than the Italians and 13 per cent lower than the French, it is also 5 per cent higher than the Japanese, 9 per cent higher than the Americans and a full 14 per cent higher than the Koreans. If we are to prosper in the new economy, that must change.
There is scope for tax reform too. For instance we must simplify our Capital Gains Tax. It is absurd that the reforms of the past few years have resulted in a more complicated, more distorting CGT system. Capital Gains Tax is now more difficult to collect than ever before. The British Venture Capital Association are right to favour a much simpler system and we are looking closely at how that might be achieved.
Alongside lower, simpler tax we should ensure the minimum of government interference and regulation imposed by Acts of Parliament.
Of course, some legislation in this area is needed. The Electronic Communications Bill will put into law the use of electronic signatures for the benefit of e-commerce, and we welcome that. But we had deep concerns about proposals included in that Bill, which could have imposed draconian new law enforcement powers and introduced the dreaded key escrow by the back door.
A great deal of hard work by our first-rate Shadow DTI team, some of whom you will hear from today, saw this removed from the e-commerce Bill – to the relief of business and the IT professionals.
The threat however, has only temporarily receded. Similar measures have re-surfaced in the Home Office Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, which is now before Parliament.
We support the Bill in its aim of updating existing interception law and allowing law enforcement agencies to do their job in the information age, but we will once again seek to ensure it only reaches the statute book as a help and not as a hindrance to e-business.
All businesses, new and old, are affected by the general increase in regulation and red tape. The British Chamber of Commerce has highlighted 17 major expensive new regulations that have hit firms since 1997 – including the Working Time Directive, trade union recognition and the European Social Chapter.
In our Common Sense Revolution, our Party set out some initial proposals for driving down the cost of regulation on business. We will introduce regulatory budgets for government departments by costing the regulations they currently impose on business – and then force them to cut that budget year on year. We are also considering a legislative framework under which we could exempt small businesses altogether from whole classes of regulation. We are currently consulting business about the precise categories of legislation and sizes of business to which this principle could be extended.
Some of you are no doubt a bit fed up with Politicians who tell you to reform but then do not themselves reform the way government does it’s business.
Government has a very poor record in delivering IT. Angela Browning, our Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary will talk about this in greater detail later today. Let me just say that we believe Whitehall can use the Internet to deliver faster, better and cheaper government.
Today I have touched on many of the challenges that lie ahead for all of us in this exciting new age.
Although I believe passionately the role for the state is and must remain as small as possible, the responsibility on the shoulders of politicians is great. We did not create the new economy, but get it wrong and we could certainly destroy it.
So we must get it right. We must act swiftly and decisively to let enterprise and innovation flourish. We must act swiftly to create the kind of environment in this country that really will make the UK the best place in the world to do e-business.
We must create the low tax burden and low regulation base that gives all businesses, new and old the best possible chance to succeed in the new global.
So the responsibility for politicians is great. Yet for you, for business, it is far greater still. The prosperity of our country depends on your imagination, your courage, your creativity, your skill. I know you will not let us down.
Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 26 April 2000.
The Tony Martin case lit a touch-paper that has led to an explosion of anger and resentment among millions of law-abiding British people who no longer feel the state is on their side.
The specifics of the particular case are best left to the criminal courts. But politicians aren’t doing their job if they don’t listen and respond to the unprecedented public outcry which has greeted the murder conviction for this Norfolk farmer who was defending his home against burglars.
I understand the outcry and I share it. It is time we asked ourselves some blunt questions:
What is the point of having a police service and prisons when three criminals, with 114 convictions between them, are allowed to wander about free to terrorise rural communities?
What has happened to our courts system when career burglars and muggers get a few dozen hours community service, or a couple of months in prison if they’re unlucky, while people defending their homes against the very same criminals risk long prison sentences?
Why is the Government cutting police numbers, and why has it hamstrung the job of those policemen and policewomen who remain, at the very moment when crime is starting to rise again?
Politicians need to provide answers to these questions if public confidence in the criminal justice system is not to collapse altogether. If the Labour Government cannot or will not, then it is the duty of the Conservative Opposition to do so.
These are the broad principles of our response to the anger expressed by the British people in recent days and months. I will expand on them further when I speak to the Police Federation Conference next month.
First, we are going to restore confidence in our courts and prison service.
The three men who broke into Tony Martin’s farm had each been convicted of dozens of criminal offences, ranging from burglary and theft to wounding and assault of a police officer. Most of the time they were fined paltry sums or given community service. Occasionally they got short prison sentences, and even then were released early after just a few months behind bars.
Their histories of repeated crime and repeatedly lenient sentences is sadly familiar in today’s courts. No wonder the public despair and the police ask what the point is of catching criminals when they just get released back on to the street. Part of the blame lies with a liberal legal establishment that too often appears to put concerns for the rights of criminals before the rights of the millions of vulnerable people who live in fear of crime.
The next Conservative Government will take a different approach.
We will introduce honesty in sentencing, which means that criminals serve the sentences handed down in court. Automatic early release on licence will be ended. We will extend the ‘two strikes and you’re out regime’ to other crimes, such as selling drugs to children. We will greatly expand the number of Secure Training Centres so that young thugs are actually taken off our streets and locked up. And we will make prisoners work in prison, rather than sit about learning from each other about how to commit more crimes.
These common sense policies are tough. Criminals won’t like them; nor will some left-wing pressure groups. That is because they restore the proper balance between justice and a safe society, and because they are true to the instincts of a British people fed up with the failure of the courts and prisons to deal with persistent criminals.
Second, we are going to give the police the support and backing they deserve.
One of the greatest deceits of this Government has been to promise to be tough on crime while at the same time cutting the number of police who fight crime.
By the end of this Parliament, there will be 2,500 fewer police than there were at the beginning. What sort of message does that send to career criminals about our determination to catch them? What does it say to rural communities miles from the nearest police station, or families terrorised on sink estates, or elderly people and young women afraid to walk down our streets at night?
This Government’s cut in police numbers is a total disgrace. Tony Blair and Jack Straw are failing in their most basic duty, that of protecting the public.
The next Conservative Government will reverse Labour’s cut in the number of police. We will also give the police the support and backing they need. At the moment many policemen and policewomen spend just 20 per cent of their time actually fighting crime. We will make sure the police spend less time filling in forms and hanging around in court waiting rooms, and more time on the streets catching criminals.
Third, we are going to re-balance the justice system to protect people who defend their families, their homes and their property against criminals.
Vigilantes have no place in a civilised society. But there is all the difference in the world between the career criminal who sets out deliberately to burgle a house and the terrified home-owner who acts to protect himself and his home. Unless our laws reflect natural justice, then they fall into disrepute.
The next Conservative Government will overhaul the law with a strong presumption that, in future, the state will be on the side of people who protect their homes and their families against criminals.
Restoring confidence in our courts, supporting our police and tipping the balance of justice in favour of those who defend their homes and their families: these are three key principles which will guide any Government I lead.
Conservatives believe in the first and foremost responsibility of the state is to protect its law-abiding citizens. This Government is failing in that responsibility, which is why the outcry over the Martin case has reverberated far beyond a small village in Norfolk.
The Conservative Party has heard the outcry and is responding.
Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 12 May 2000.
It is a great pleasure to be here today to open the Aske Hall Stable Block. I am particularly grateful to Lord Ronaldshay for issuing the original invitation for me to do this and to all of you for being here to give your support.
And I am sure you will all agree what a truly excellent job has been done in converting an historic, but disused, Stable Block into premium, state of the art commercial offices. Thanks to this project we now have some of the most prestigious offices in the North-East of England. I can think of no more attractive environment, here in the Aske estate, in which a company could wish to locate. They are ideally situated for access not just to the major commercial centres in the North-East such as Darlington, Middlesborough and Newcastle, but also to Leeds, Bradford and York. London is only 2 ½ hours away from Darlington station, while Teeside airport is only half an hour away. And of course Richmond itself is only a mile away.
All of us hope that in addition to securing the long-term future of this magnificent listed building, and providing these modern offices, the Aske Hall conversion will help to bring much needed jobs back into the rural economy. As Roger Tempest pointed out, this entire scheme has been devised and completed by his company, Rural Solutions – a Yorkshire company I am pleased to say – that specialises in the regeneration of rural buildings and land. Rural Solutions are providing a model of rural regeneration and diversification not just here in Yorkshire but across the entire country.
I strongly welcome that, because far too often we hear politicians glibly talking about the need for diversification in the rural economy not just as the answer to everything, but also in the mistaken belief that it can suddenly be achieved overnight – as if just talking about it will somehow make it happen. Such attitudes reveal a profound ignorance of the countryside and agriculture. As you and I know the reality is far different.
For many farmers, already struggling to make any sort of living in current conditions, diversification is not something they can suddenly achieve on a whim, or on their own. Diversification can raise highly complex issues in which farmers are not necessarily experts. They require help with things like access to new capital, marketing advice, help with planning applications, somebody to carry out construction work. That is why I believe that the private sector has such an important role to play. The work of Rural Solutions in the Aske Stable Block conversion demonstrates that role clearly, and with such impressive results.
But there are things that the Government could be doing too. Many farmers find that when they try to diversify they face many costly and bureaucratic obstacles. That is why my party is looking at new policies that would help to ease many of the burdens that are currently associated with diversification. We would like to hear direct from farmers which of those obstacles they would most like to see removed.
Issues like diversification have never been higher on the agenda for Britain’s farmers. And for one good reason – because farming, the countryside and our entire rural way of life is under threat as never before. Put bluntly, the countryside faces an uncertain and bleak future.
Take agriculture. I hardly need to spell out the basic facts. Farm incomes are down a massive 75 per cent since 1997; the average incomes of hill farmers are down by another third this year; 25,000 jobs linked with the pig industry have been lost. And behind those statistics are stories of misery, bankruptcy and hardship not seen in rural Britain for generations.
Nobody pretends that every problem in British agriculture began on 1 May 1997, but nobody can ignore the fact that since then the problems have become much worse. In response we have had platitudes, re-announcements and endless phoney initiatives and summits none of which have begun to tackle the chronic crisis that we face.
Even the extra £200 million that Tony Blair promised in emergency aid after his Downing Street “Farm Summit” has turned out to be fraudulent. Just like last year’s much trumpeted farm-aid package that was condemned by the all-Party House of Commons Agriculture Committee as “misleading”. This year the Government has pulled off the same accounting tricks. For instance they portray the maintenance of the existing levels of support for hill farmers as new money, and seek the credit for waiving regulatory charges that they themselves had introduced.
The fact is that even if we could believe the Government’s own figures, the money amounts to little more than sticking plaster for an industry in danger of bleeding to death. There is still no sign that the Government has any long-term solutions.
I can’t pretend that there are any quick fixes or easy solutions. The problems facing farmers are in many cases too deep-seated for that. But I can set out what a Conservative Government would be doing differently or not at all.
One of the solutions that I would not be putting forward is that farmers would be in a better position if Britain joined the euro. Of course I understand the problems of that the high pound causes as farmers try to maintain their competitive position. But I do not accept the case that this would be helped by the euro. In fact signing up to the euro now be disastrous for our farmers as we simply maintain the disadvantage caused by the current exchange rate in perpetuity. No – the only answer to the high pound is a different economic policy that contains spending, keeps inflation firmly under wraps and helps to bring down interest rates.
But if there are no quick fixes, there are things that the Conservative Party in government would be doing to ensure a fair deal for Britain’s farmers and a secure, long-term future for the countryside.
For a start we can stop the import of food into Britain that falls short of the hygiene and animal welfare standards that we impose here. It defies common sense to expect our farmers to survive when they are faced with regulations that do not apply elsewhere.
We can also make sure that there is honesty in food labelling. It is crazy that food can be packaged and produced as if it were British without it containing any ingredients grown in this country. So we shall ensure that all consumers know the country of origin and the method of production of the food we are eating.
We can stop farmers being crushed under the weight of pointless, ill thought out and ill conceived regulations which mean that many farmers spending as much time filling in forms as working on their farms. So we would bring common sense to farming regulations and force Ministers to cut the burden of red tape on farming year on year.
We can stop the Government stealth taxes on farming – like the energy tax that will still cost farmers millions despite the temporary concessions made in the Budget.
We can encourage our young people to go into farming and introduce retirement schemes so that family farms can be passed on to future generations.
We can stop the bulldozing of our best agricultural land and the current policy of allowing housing development to go ahead on previously protected land. The Government should not be building on our best farmland.
And we could ensure that British farmers at least have a Government that will actually stand up for and defend their interests in Europe. Regrettably, under the current Government it has all too often been a story of repeated failure. Failure to have the lifting of the beef export ban actually lifted; failure to gain adequate help for our pig farmers; failure to secure extra milk quota; and failure to achieve proper reform of the CAP
The Government should go to Brussels with the determination to fight Britain’s corner as our European partners fight for theirs and to ensure that Britain’s farmers can compete on a level playing field.
So there are real and practical measures that the Government should be taking to help ease the crisis in British agriculture and help to promote a flourishing rural economy.
But agriculture is only one part of a much wider crisis that is afflicting the whole of rural Britain that has been caused by an urban culture at the very heart of Government.
It is an urban culture that has no instinct or sympathy for the countryside and our rural way of life. It is an urban culture that cares even less about the people who live there. It is an urban culture that arrogantly dismisses and discounts the views of those who live in rural Britain, those who know the countryside best, while at the same time trying to impose the values of Islington wine bars on them.
All too often the impression is given that this urban elite sees the countryside as some kind of theme park – a kind of rural version of the Dome – rather than a place in which real people work and live. The results have been disastrous.
It has produced swingeing increases in petrol duties so that we now have the most expensive petrol in Europe and people in rural areas – where the car is essential – are priced off the road.
It has produced cuts in the numbers of police that has left rural communities feeling isolated, exposed and vulnerable, in the face of rising crime, as was so tragically illustrated in the Martin case
It has produced the remorseless bulldozing and concreting of the countryside to build homes for commuters to satisfy John Prescott’s arbitrary housing targets.
It has produced plans that threaten the closure of rural post offices, for so long a cornerstone of village life in rural areas.
It has produced the statutory right to roam without a thought for farmers or of the real needs of conservation.
It has produced vindictive, ignorant and opportunistic attempts to ban country sports despite the facts that it would destroy centuries of tradition, strike at traditional bonds of community and endanger thousands of jobs.
So it is little wonder that the Countryside Agency’s ‘State of the Countryside’ report, published last month, described a rural economy which contrasts sharply with the Government’s own claims that ‘in broad terms the countryside is prosperous, contented and reasonably well served’ or the Prime Minister’s comments in the west country in February that despite the headlines the countryside had no real problems. Instead it revealed deep-seated economic, social and environmental problems many of which have are the direct result of Government policy.
I believe that rural Britain deserves better. Rural Britain deserves being listened to rather than being lectured. It deserves to be understood rather than ignored. It deserves to be protected rather than plundered. It is crying out for policies that help it rather than continue to harm it. Rural Britain is crying out for a Government that believes in the countryside, that values the countryside and will work for the countryside.
Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 24 May 2000.
A few weeks ago the Evening Standard published a story under the headline ‘Trendy oldies join Cool Britannia’. It read: ‘Ministers want to “rebrand” pensioners with a trendy name that will appeal to younger people. Some of Whitehall’s finest minds are working on the problem, while the Government is also seeking outside help to try to come up with the new title … Ministers believe words like “pensioners” or “elderly” carry a grey image with deters young people from thinking ahead’ (29th March 2000).
That story sums up this Government’s attitude towards Britain’s pensioners.
It sums up the attitude of Tony Blair when he talks about Britain becoming a ‘young country’ and has no time for those forces of conservatism who don’t fit in it.
It sums up the attitude of Peter Mandelson, the man in charge of Labour’s election plans, who says there is ‘no mileage’ in targeting elderly voters because they are not ‘aspirational’ (Sunday Times, 16 April 2000).
It sums up the attitude of the Chairman of the Labour Parliamentary Party, who recently came out with the breathtaking insult that pensioners are often ‘racist’. Of course he also said they were ‘predominantly Conservative’ (Sunday Times, 16 April 2000) and we intend to prove him right at least about that.
It sums up the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has patronised older people by trying to buy them off with a series of badly targeted, bureaucratic gimmicks and then was only able to offer them a 75 pence increase in the basic state pension.
Britain’s eleven million pensioners know that they are the unwanted, unwelcome, uncool guests at New Labour’s banquet. And they know that they have paid the price through their pockets.
For three years pensioners have been at the sharp end of the Chancellor’s policies.
At the sharp end of £150 average rises in Council Tax for Band D properties as Labour Councils and a Labour Government worked together to waste their money. The Government talks of a £150 winter fuel payment. Many pensioners have found that by the time they’ve paid their increased Council Tax the money has all gone.
At the sharp end of increases in petrol prices. Pensioners who depend on their cars to preserve their independence have seen prices driven close to the £4 a gallon mark.
At the sharp end too, when this Chancellor scrapped dividend tax credits, leaving 300,000 pensioners whose income is below the income tax threshold, having to pay an average of £75 a year more to the exchequer.
In the same £5bn a year raid on pension funds, Gordon Brown set a timebomb for future pensioners by forcing working people to put up to £200 a year extra into their pension funds. Last year he abolished the Married Couples Allowance for all future pensioners too.
He has also scrapped the Widows Bereavement Allowance without compensating all widowed pensioners properly, scrapped tax relief on medical insurance for the over 65s and abolished retirement relief for older people selling off their small businesses.
Pensioners remembered all these blows when they reacted so angrily to the 75p basic rate rise.
Gordon Brown hoped no one would notice. He hoped the anger of pensioners wouldn’t matter. How wrong he was.
As anyone who campaigned in this year’s local elections, who knocked on doors and listened to hard pressed pensioners, knows: boy, did they notice, and boy, are they angry.
Angry at a Labour Government that promised to be the pensioners’ friend and has comprehensively betrayed them.
Angry at a Labour Government that used every low-down trick to win pensioners’ votes at the general election and then forgot all about them the day after.
Angry at a Labour Government that has produced one gimmick after another, but doesn’t trust pensioners with a decent weekly income they can spend as they see fit.
I have listened to their anger and their feelings of betrayal first-hand in hundreds of meetings around Britain.
I listened to the elderly man in Bolton who told me ‘Labour’s priorities are all wrong – look at Europe, the Dome, these asylum seekers – more should be done on health and for the pensioners’.
I listened to the lifelong Labour supporter in Plymouth who summed up what she thought of Tony Blair and his policies: ‘He thinks people like me are old has-beens, who aren’t important or glamorous, people who they think can simply go to the back of the queue’.
I listened to the pensioner in Leeds who could barely contain his anger when he said to me ’75p was a joke, an insult … We don’t want all these gestures and gimmicks – we just want a decent basic pension’.
And I listened also to another pensioner here in London who had a message for Conservatives. ‘I voted Labour because they promised so much. I’m terribly disappointed but I wonder if there is any alternative’.
We’ve been busy listening to people while this Government has been busy forgetting them.
Now we are offering an alternative. Our Party has listened to all these people, and in all sorts of areas we are now offering an alternative to the failed polices and broken promises of this Government.
We offer a law and order policy that will back up the police, punish the criminal, and protect those, such as the elderly, who are particularly vulnerable to crime.
We offer a health policy that will build a stronger NHS that puts patients before politicians, and which doesn’t treat older people as second class patients.
We offer a long term care policy that protects the assets of responsible people who save for their retirement.
Today, I want to build on those policies by tackling the central concern of millions of pensioners: the level of their weekly income and the basic state pension.
What pensioners say over and over again is that they would rather have a reliable weekly income which is theirs by right to spend as they think best, than a series of handouts and gimmicks.
Today we are setting out a carefully costed package based on a Conservative pension uprating in April 2001. It shows what we would do for pensioners in hard figures and in hard cash. We are calling it Common Sense for Pensioners.
We would start by putting the money used on the winter fuel payment and the free TV licence into the basic pension instead. This also brings a bureaucracy bonus as we can save £40 million currently being wasted on administering, often very incompetently, these new schemes. Many pensioners received their winter fuel payments as winter drew to a close. We’re going to take that £40 million out of the budgets of bureaucrats and put it directly into the pockets of pensioners.
We have also identified extra social security savings. We would abolish the New Deal for Lone Parents which is a £90 million a year flop. On the Government’s own figures, it is having zero impact on the employment prospects of lone parents. We have already announced separately our far more effective approach to lone parents. We would also recoup some money from the Social Fund, which has recently been increased substantially by the Government.
Taken together, these measures yield almost exactly £2 billion. We would then put all this money into helping pensioners in the most straight-forward, honest, and effective way – increases in the basic contributory state pension. We would add it to the expected increase in next year’s pension uprating which, if awarded on the basis of current inflation forecasts, would be £2 to a single pensioner and £3 for a married couple.
On this basis, if the normal uprating followed inflation, the Conservative uprating in April 2001would be:
· £5.50 extra (£73 a week) for a single pensioner aged under 75.
· £7 extra (114.90 a week) for a pensioner couple aged under 75.
· £7.50 (£75.25 a week) for a single pensioner aged 75 or over.
· £10 (£118.15 a week) for a pensioner couple aged 75 or over.
We would also adjust tax allowances for older people to compensate pensioners for any extra that they might otherwise pay. And we would adjust means tested benefits to ensure that the poorest pensioners gain at least as much as other pensioners. I heard the Social Security Secretary on the radio this morning claiming that the poorest pensioners would lose out from our proposals. So let me make it absolutely clear that these increases will go to all pensioners, including those on means tested benefits. All pensioners will be entitled to these increases.
These, then, are big increases in the basic state pension.
In the main, we achieve these increases by consolidating all of the gimmicks into something which pensioners would far prefer – reliable increases in their weekly income. In other words, no more gimmicks means more on the basic pension.
But on top of that we are also adding the £40 million bureaucracy bonus, as well as adding money found elsewhere in the social security budget. In total, this amounts to £320 million of new money for pensioners. Our increase in basic state pension will leave all pensioners better off with the Conservatives than under Labour.
And to make sure pensioners can rely on it and that they will know that this is a promise that will be delivered, these increases in the basic state pension would be financed out of National Insurance. It would be a return on all those contributions pensioners have made through their working lives.
This reform means dignity and choice and respect for pensioners. It means a larger state pension as an entitlement rather than making pensioners depend on occasional handouts from Government.
By turning the handouts into entitlements, into a proper return on national insurance contributions, and by adding in the extra savings, all pensioners will be better off with the Conservatives. In other words, Common Sense for Pensioners means we are offering a real improvement in the income of all pensioners.
Unlike the Labour Party, I am not going to make exaggerated promises that unrealistically raise people’s expectations only to shatter them later. I know that many pensioners find it difficult to make ends meet. I don’t pretend that an extra £10 a week will solve all the problems of pensioners.
Let me tell you what I do promise.
First, Common Sense for Pensioners means dignity and respect for pensioners.
It rightly angers pensioners, who have paid national insurance contributions their entire lives, to have the government announce payments on budget day as if they were the charitable act of a merciful Chancellor. The basic state pension is not charity, it is a return on years of payments. Understanding this and reflecting this in pension policy is a matter of respect for pensioners. My Party is determined to show that respect.
Quite apart from the fact that the Chancellor’s measures restrict pensioner choice and personal independence they are also patronising. They assume the Government knows better than pensioners how to budget for periods of greater expense and shouldn’t give pensioners money until the Government thinks they should spend it. This patronising attitude, too, shows little respect and is accordingly resented.
Second, our policy simplifies a key part of the benefits system. This is true to another Tory principle that deplores government waste and inefficiency. Gordon Brown has deliberately made both our tax and benefits system more complicated. He prefers to act by stealth. In this way he is undermining confidence in politics and Government. With our reform pensioners will know exactly what they are getting and how much it is worth. That really is common sense.
But let me deal here in advance with some of the slurs and attacks which I expect from our political opponents.
Labour will claim that their policies are targeted on poorer pensioners, whereas we offer across the board increases. That is rubbish. Many of their schemes have been indiscriminate. The winter fuel payment goes to the 220,000 more affluent pensioners in residential accommodation or nursing homes who do not claim Income Support; but the payment is not available for the 280,000 in such accommodation who do claim Income Support. In other words better off pensioners get it and worse off ones don’t.
What we are proposing is better targeted than Labour’s measures. We guarantee that this increase in the basic pension will reach all pensioners including those on means-tested benefits, so that poorer pensioners getting at least as much from the package as others. Moreover, we know that poorer pensioners tend to be older and we have therefore put extra money particularly towards pensioners aged over 75.
Labour will also try to scare pensioners by claiming that the Tories are simply abolishing the winter fuel payment and the free TV licence.
To save them the effort, let me remind the Millbank spindoctors now of what their own former Minister, Peter Kilfoyle, says: ‘pensioners believe that winter fuel payments and concessionary television licences are a diversionary measure … What pensioners want is an increase, week on week, in the basic pension. This is not just a matter of economics: it is a question too of pensioners’ dignity’ (Hansard, 27th March 2000).
The dignity of pensioners is what our package is all about. The key fact, that no amount of Labour lies can obscure, is that all pensioners, regardless of which gimmicks they currently receive, will be better off.
There will be others who say that our policy is no substitute for far-reaching welfare reform. I completely agree. This is not our last word on pensions policy. It is the beginning of presenting our vision for the future, one in which more and more pensioners enjoy rising living standards as a result of the savings and the funded pensions they have built up during their working lives.
We want to ensure that pensioners participate in the rising living standards of the country as a whole. We will be setting out further proposals to spread funded pensions still more widely to the next generation of pensioners.
But that is a policy for people of working age who have yet to become pensioners. It is too late for current pensioners. Many of the pensioners who are managing on such modest incomes retired without any entitlement to a funded pension. However strongly we push forward better funded pensions for the next generation, we still have a debt to the current generation of pensioners. That is what today’s package is all about.
It gives pensioners a real choice, a choice which gets to the heart of the difference between our two parties.
They can choose New Labour’s way. The way that treats pensioners as unfortunate misfits in their dreams of Cool Britannia. The way that patronises pensioners with handouts and treats them almost like charity cases.
Or they can vote for a genuine Conservative alternative, from a Party which has been listening – a reliable guaranteed increase in the contributory basic state pension.
It is quite simply a choice between being treated with contempt or being treated with respect.
Today’s pensioners have contributed so much to building Britain into the great nation it is today. They have served in our armed forces and fought to keep our nation free; they have worked in our country’s businesses and built up its economy; and have they raised our generation and bequeathed us a Britain that begins this new century free and proud and prosperous.
Yet despite all they’ve done their contribution isn’t in the past. They are part of our nation’s future too. For they are among our most active citizens. Among the most important contributors to voluntary organizations. Among the most important supports for family life. They support much which this country depends on.
Today’s pensioners do not want sops or charity. They want to feel that they are getting benefits to which they have all their lives contributing to. They want the independence and respect that they have every right to deserve.
This year, the Conservative Party has been speaking for the great mainstream majority of the British people on crime, on asylum seekers, on tax and on Europe. That is why we won the local elections so convincingly.
Now we are moving on to new areas – areas which Labour have for too long regarded as their own. Today we are speaking for the great mainstream majority of pensioners who feel betrayed and neglected by this Government; today we offer substantial increases in the basic pension instead of gimmicks; today we offer a bold, common sense policy for pensioners.
Below is the text of the speech made by Francis Maude, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, on 8 June 2000.
1. INTRODUCTION
Anniversaries are a time for taking stock. The fiftieth anniversary of the Schuman Declaration is no exception.
On any audit of achievement, the European Union has much to be proud of. Working together through trade and co-operation, behind the NATO shield that made it possible, has helped to make war between member states unthinkable. The prosperity of Europe`s citizens has improved greatly, with the biggest single market in the world and with free trade in a continent previously more prone to protectionism and national insularity. The opportunities open to millions have expanded, with travelling, working or studying across Europe now easier than ever before.
We should relish these benefits. So in this spirit, let me reaffirm: membership of the European Union is of real value to Britain.
It contributes to our prosperity and, as one of a number of networks to which Britain belongs, it contributes to our influence in the world. So for those who may be anxiously analysing the nuance of every phrase to detect a shift in the Conservative Party’s European policies, this will be fruitless. Lurches – in either direction – are emphatically out.
A year ago this week, the Conservative Party won the European election in Britain. We did so comprehensively. And we did so because we campaigned on a view of Europe – that Britain should be in Europe, not run by Europe – which is shared by the mainstream majority of the British people. We have always wanted to see a stable, prosperous, outward looking, free market and democratic Europe.
We have always wanted to see such a dream realised – and spent a good many lives in maintaining that vision. We have no intention of moving from this ground, in either direction; rather we are building on it. So there is nothing new, no change of direction, in upholding that dream. We want to see an open Europe of free, democratic and independent kingdoms and republics, stretching from the Brest on the Atlantic coast, to the Brest on the border of Belarus, co-operating closely but flexibly.
For as I will show, it is becoming increasingly apparent – to many who have a very different perspective from mine – that the EU model of endless uniform supranational integration has got to change.
For, on this fiftieth anniversary, by far the EU’s greatest challenge is not to look back but to look forward. So today I will set out a positive vision for the EU. For a relentless process of ever closer political union should no longer be seen as the only, or indeed the best, way to bind peoples together.
In the network age a rigid and centralised model of European power will not just be inappropriate – it will be a recipe for division and fracture. We now have the duty to be every bit as imaginative and every bit as forward-looking as was Robert Schuman, and every bit as attuned to the needs of our age as he was to his.
2. THE FORK IN THE ROAD
Enlargement
For the world is changing. The EU has not begun to catch up with that change.
With its enlargement to cover the post-Communist states, as well as Cyprus, Malta and eventually Turkey, the Union will begin to reach out to the whole continent. This is a solemn obligation, not a choice.
Enlargement is a cause at least as noble as that which prompted the founding of the Union fifty years ago. We who have benefited from the security and prosperity that have accompanied European construction have an obligation to extend it to our European neighbours. Nations once bound up – against the will of their peoples – in the shackles of Soviet control see EU membership as the end point of their journey to freedom and free enterprise. We should be welcoming them with open arms. Hungary. The Czech Republic. Poland. Estonia. These countries are an integral part of Europe.
Taking full part in the family of European nations is their birthright. Yet, eleven years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the haggling over membership continues. With the sole exception of the former East Germany, each of the former communist states is still waiting in line.
And why this shameful delay? It is that the EU hides, ostrich-like, from the implications of enlargement.
Implications of Enlargement
For enlargement points up stark choices; choices we would face before long anyway. Our fast-changing world would see to that. Enlargement means decision-time has now arrived.
Don’t just take my word for this.
“The simple but fundamental question is how the Union is to operate effectively when it has 20, 25 or even 30 members”.
So states the European Commission in its submission to this year’s inter-governmental conference. It continues:
“Decision-making in a Union of 28 members is clearly not the same thing as decision-making in a Union of 15. The Union will inevitably become less homogenous; the economic, cultural and political differences between the Member States will be more pronounced than ever before in the history of European integration”.
In his seminal speech to this University last month, the German Foreign Minister raised some pertinent – and fundamental – questions.
“Just what”, he asked, “would a European Council with thirty heads of state and government be like? How long will Council meetings actually last? Days, maybe even weeks? How, with the system of institutions that exists today, are thirty states supposed to balance interests, take decisions and then actually act? How can one prevent the EU from becoming utterly intransparent, compromises from becoming stranger and more incomprehensible, and the citizens’ acceptance of the EU from eventually hitting rock bottom?”
I believe these are the right questions. But, of course, the real issue is getting the right answers. The most dangerous course of all would be to pretend these issues don’t need answers; to pretend that the EU can go on as it has up to now. Yet this is precisely the approach taken by the British Government.
For domestic political reasons, it refuses to participate in the debate raging in Germany and across Europe, or even to acknowledge its existence. That is not the act of a good European. That’s why the Inter-Governmental Conference is so badly needed.
This IGC is no unnecessary distraction. For the EU now faces an historic choice. Its response will set its course over the next fifty years just as surely as Robert Schuman and his colleagues determined its course over the last fifty.
The Fork in the Road
The EU today has reached a fork in the road. It must choose one of two routes.
Only if we have the right vision will we make the right choice.
One route at this fork leads to an open, flexible, free-enterprise Europe; a Europe which celebrates diversity. This can be a “network Europe”, a Europe of nation states co-operating together.
But there is another route at the fork. The route of uniformity and uniform integration.
An EU where the national veto is all but abolished. An EU with eyes bigger than its stomach – starting tasks but not completing them; with a tangle of subsidies and protective practices still in place; an unreformed budget; and agricultural and fisheries policies that belong to a bygone era.
An EU with its own government, its own taxes, its own foreign policy, its own criminal justice system, its own constitution and its own citizenship, as well as its own currency.
This would be “bloc Europe”, a single European superstate.
Both these routes could overcome the danger of gridlock in an enlarged Europe. But bloc Europe, superstate Europe, would imperil exactly the security, prosperity and unity that Schuman dreamed of.
The Changing World
Why do I believe so fervently that the first – the network – route is right? The first reason is the one given by the Commission, in the extract I read earlier about enlargement:
“The economic, cultural and political differences between the Member States will be more pronounced than ever before in the history of European integration”.
The wide diversity, in culture, ethnic background, language, history, outlook and perspective, is one of Europe`s major strengths, not a threat to be submerged.
The British philosopher JS Mill identified the dangers of uniformity in his essay “On Liberty” a full century before the EU was conceived:
“What has made the European family of nations an improving instead of a stationary portion of mankind? Not any superior excellence in them, which, when it exists, exists as the effect, not as the cause; but their remarkable diversity of character and culture. Individuals, classes, nations, have been extremely unlike one another: they have struck out a great variety of paths, each leading to something valuable…Europe is, in my judgement, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development”.
An EU of six might have got by with the bloc model of rigid uniformity. It barely works for one of fifteen.
Low turnout in European elections; falling support in opinion polls. Bloc Europe is failing the public, and the public knows it. To expect it to work with almost 30 is optimistic in the extreme. Especially in today’s globalising world.
Replacing the world of blocs and hierarchies is a world of nations and networks; networks between people, commercial networks, networks between nations. Trade and competitiveness is more global and less local. The EU’s tariff wall is absurd and obsolete.
In this new world, nations and groups of nations can choose whether succeed or fail. The EU can choose whether to join the fast world or slow. Whether to be future or past.
Of course some believe we can simply rest on our laurels. Europe can sit back and admire its history as it watches the world go by. But I don’t believe that is its destiny. We must lift our sights higher than that. If we want to succeed, we need agility, adaptability, flexibility, a light touch from the state. Europe has no opt-outs from these universal laws.
A democratic Europe needs flexibility and diversity. Its nations need freedom and choice. With this IGC, there is a tremendous opportunity to start to fashion just such an EU. We must not let it pass.
3. THE FEDERALIST ROUTE AND THE IGC
The Wrong Route
Tragically, we are in danger of doing just that. Too many of the statements from Europe’s institutions and Europe’s leaders still seem wedded to the old dogmas of the bloc era, and to the false safety of the old introspective, integrationist, regulatory orthodoxies. And as the EU heads in the wrong direction, Tony Blair timidly tags on behind.
“The concept of Europe as a superstate”, says Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, “is one that is deeply unfashionable”.
He still claims that “Maastricht was a high water mark of integrationism”. But events disprove him every day.
Meanwhile the French Prime Minister says the EU must harmonise more of our taxes and reduce the national veto, the German Foreign Minister calls for a European Parliament and a European government to exercise real legislative and executive power within a Federation, and the Commission President says the Commission behaves like a growing government, “step by step”.
The tide of federalism on the continent of Europe is still inexorably rising.
The Treaty of Nice
So what actually is going on in the IGC?
We hear nothing of substance from British Ministers; the agenda is “minimalist”, they say; it is just a matter of mopping up the leftovers from Amsterdam, it insists; all in all, the Treaty will be of little consequence to the future of the nation state. The reality is rather different.
Qualified Majority Voting
For one thing is certain: the IGC looks set to agree, extending qualified majority voting, to scrap the legislative veto in yet more areas. The British Government conceded this principle before the discussions had even begun. It will be considered case by case, it says. Case by case, stage by stage, step by step. That is how the one-way process of integrationism proceeds.
We are all too familiar with the pattern by now – under governments of both colours. First the veto is conceded in a seemingly innocuous area of policy. Ministers claim that there is no legislation planned and that the concession is therefore cost-free. Then when harmful legislation does appear, it’s too late.
Then the cycle repeats itself at the next IGC. Case by case. Step by step. Stage by stage. This process of uniform one-way integrationism has got to stop. Any further loss of the legislative veto would be highly damaging. Of course, it would make it easier to decide things. But it would do so by overriding national interests.
There should be no further extension of QMV on European legislation at all.
Charter of Fundamental Rights
But that’s not the only step towards the superstate likely to be taken at Nice. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is now taking on a life on its own.
Of course it is important that countries co-operate together to protect citizens from the unnecessary diminution of their rights by the European institutions. But that is not what this Charter is achieving. Instead, it is emerging as a route for further interference in national life. It will not be binding, we’re told. It’ll just be in an Annex to the Treaty. We know that is tantamount to being fully incorporated. It mustn’t happen. Otherwise step by step, stage by stage, fewer decisions get taken by nation states and more taken by European institutions.
The risk is that this charter would lock Britain into the steel handcuffs of the old continental social model, at the very time when countries like Germany are seeking to escape it.
Defence Identity
The third part of the integrationist package likely to emerge from Nice is the Common European Security and Defence Policy. We strongly support greater European defence co-operation, and a stronger European commitment to NATO. Indeed, it was a Conservative Government which started the process, with the Petersberg tasks. There is a crying need for the European nations to step up their capability, to share more of the burden.
But this doesn’t do that. Indeed, nearly all EU countries are cutting their defence budgets. All this does is to construct new institutional architectures, autonomous from NATO and within the EU, which threaten to encase European defence in committees, bureaucracy and the creeping embrace of the EU institutions.
There is absolutely no military case for giving the EU a role in Europe’s defence. The case is purely political – a challenge to supposed American dominance of NATO, the establishment of a rival power bloc, the move towards what Romano Prodi habitually calls a European army.
It is designed by people who are concerned first with endowing the EU with another of the trappings of statehood. In a speech last month M. Jospin talks of a “single European defence structure”, of the “pooling” of Europe`s armies. If this were done the EU would have “crossed a milestone towards the creation of a united political Europe”.
Not about creating a superstate?
It would be folly to lock Europe’s defence forces into a single structure when it is inconceivable that Europe will have a single foreign policy. NATO already provides the ideal flexible structure for different combinations of European nations to move together on a particular mission. At its worst ESDP is a visible expression of a chilling, and growing, anti-Americanism in some parts of Europe.
This mindset is worse than simply being unrealistic and vain. It is actively harmful. If it encourages America to turn its eyes further westward to the powerful allure of Asia, we will have inflicted a devastating blow at the basis of our security, the Atlantic Alliance. We must not allow the cancer of anti-Americanism, now growing in some parts, to get hold.
Summary
We have no doubt, then, that the integrationist agenda for the Nice IGC is damaging and wrong:
More qualified majority voting on EU legislation.
A Charter of Fundamental Rights eventually incorporated in the Treaties.
An EU defence identity, autonomous from NATO.
Three integrationist solutions – each one of them giving the wrong answer to some important questions.
Yes, the EU needs to adjust to enlargement. But it should do so through greater flexibility, not through a further loss of the national veto.
Yes, Europe needs to reassure the public. But it should do so by ensuring that more decisions are taken at national level, not through a binding Charter that threatens yet more interference.
And yes, of course Europe’s nations should co-operate more closely on defence. But they should do so through NATO and through greater co-operation between the nations of Europe, not by setting up new competing bureaucracies.
Ratification
So the Conservative Party will campaign strongly against an integrationist Treaty containing such measures. Such a Treaty should not be ratified by the British Parliament without the people first having their say, either in the general election or in a referendum.
And I make it clear: a Treaty which had won the support of the public neither in a referendum nor in an election could not be left unchanged. After the election we would insist on revisiting its provisions.
4. THE CONSERVATIVE VISION FOR EUROPE
Support for Europe
Our view of the future shape of Europe is drawn strongly from our long history of dogged support for British membership of the EU for 40 years. Unlike Labour, we have never wavered in our support. We have perhaps been boringly consistent.
And it is precisely because Britain’s place is within the European Union, that we want it to be a success.
Vision for the Future
Just as Conservatives believed that British entry into the EU was right in the 1970s; just as we helped to press for the internal market in the 1980s and 1990s; so today, we must set out our vision of how the EU must adapt to the new century.
For, if enough vision and imagination is shown, this year can be just as clear a milestone in Europe’s development as was 1950. It can have just as profound an impact on preparing our continent for the half-century ahead, this time fashioning a flexible network of nation states. This doesn’t need a dramatic big bang “fundamental renegotiation”.
The new Europe will be a Europe of constant adjustment, continuous change.
Closer Co-operation
Some change may be towards closer co-operation.
Single Market
We have long called, for example, for the completion of the single market, and the full implementation of the four freedoms: free movement of people, goods, services and capital.
We have long sought a strengthening of public procurement rules, so that taxpayers can be assured of value for money and businesses can compete on even terms.
Environment
In the field of the environment, air and water pollution are no respecters of national sovereignty. We would look favourably on moves to co-operate more closely on these issues.
It does not require a loss of the national veto for such co-operation to occur.
For example, the Commission could ensure that every state has its own environmental inspectorate. It could be chasing up those states which do not meet their Kyoto commitments on reducing CO2 emissions. It could enforce existing directives, such as the Urban Waste Water Directive.
Defence
Nor does it require integrationist solutions to co-operate in the area I have already mentioned: defence. The EU is certainly the wrong vehicle; but there is still something serious to be done.
Looser Arrangements
Equally, in a constantly changing Europe, there are areas where the next steps forward would sensibly be to loosen arrangements – with more decisions taken at a national level.
The need for such reform is becoming more and more apparent. Last year’s fraud crisis showed how the EU’s institutions have been biting off far more than they can chew. Some £3 billion from the European Union’s annual budget is unaccounted for.
It is because the EU’s ambitions over-stretch themselves; its reach exceeds its grasp.
Part of the answer is that it should do what it does better. But the main part is that it should do less.
Tony Blair’s challenge at this IGC is to start to work for this better EU. Here’s where he could start.
Common Agriculture Policy
An IGC intended to clear the way for enlargement cannot leave unchanged the biggest impediment to enlargement that there is – the CAP. Born out of honourable motives, with the aims of ensuring support for farming and eliminating the threat of food shortages, the world has moved on since then. As my colleague Tim Yeo has argued, these aims can better be achieved today by giving greater flexibility to Europe’s nation states.
CAP reform will provide an opportunity to examine whether some decisions currently taken at EU level would be better taken by the Governments of individual member states.
Today’s CAP is indefensible socially, economically, ecologically, environmentally and morally. It needs drastic change.
No-one seriously believes that a centrally controlled policy for agriculture makes sense today. If it doesn’t make sense for fifteen members, how much less will it for twenty or twenty-five?
In Britain, moving to greater national responsibility would allow us to guarantee farmers the same level of support as at present, while still providing a dividend for taxpayers and consumers.
So here’s Mr Blair’s first challenge: to press for a fundamental modernisation and loosening of the CAP.
Common Fisheries Policy
If the CAP is today indefensible, then the Common Fisheries Policy is more so. A policy designed to conserve fish stocks that results in hundreds of tons of dead fish being thrown back into the sea each year doesn’t have too many friends. Tony Blair should be pressing for national or local control to be established over our own waters, through zonal management, coastal management or in some other way.
The Common Fisheries Policy currently applies in neither the Baltic nor Mediterranean Seas. It is not obvious why our waters should be different.
International Development
In few areas has EU policy failed so badly as in the area of international development. Listen to this.
“Anyone who knows anything about development knows that the EU is the worst agency in the world, the most inefficient, the least poverty-focused, the slowest, flinging money around for political gestures rather than promoting real development”.
Strong words – perhaps stronger than I might use myself. So said Britain’s International Development Secretary.
No-one disputes that there’s a problem. Commissioner Patten has announced welcome reforms. But the core problems may be political, not administrative.
In almost every case bilateral aid provides better value for money than EU aid programmes. There is a clear case for looking again at this issue.
The EU should have one year to sort out its aid budget. If it fails, a large part of its development budget should be left with member states for them to disburse bilaterally.
So Tony Blair should seek changes at the IGC that would give ministers the freedom to do this.
Flexibility
So these are three specific policy areas – the CAP, the CFP, the aid budget – where Tony Blair should be pressing for specific reforms at the IGC.
Building a diverse EU
But there is today a more fundamental choice to be made about the future shape of the EU. As the Economist said recently:
“the EU’s main modus operandi – that all should move together, or not at all – looks unworkable. Different countries have different aims, and for perfectly good reasons, not the least of which is that their electorates feel differently about the whole process of European integration…. A multi-system Europe, in which groups of countries proceeded to integrate and co-operate in different ways according to their different choices, would offer a more stable and viable way to run a large, liberal community of 30 or more countries”.
I agree with that analysis. Others are heading in the same direction. Herr Fischer said in his recent speech:
“Precisely in an enlarged and thus necessarily more heterogeneous Union, further differentiation will be inevitable”.
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and Helmut Schmidt, in their recent article in the Herald Tribune, came to the same conclusion:
“It is obvious that full integration is not a realistic goal for thirty countries that are very different in their political traditions, culture and economic development. To attempt integration with that many countries can only lead to complete failure.”
I think it is time that in Britain we accepted that among much of the political class on the continent the federalist drive towards full political union is alive and well. For years we have tried to persuade ourselves that “Europe is coming our way”; that federalism has reached its “high water mark”.
I profoundly wish it were so. But it isn’t. Nor should we take any satisfaction in endlessly railing against those who seek it. There is nothing dishonourable or evil in such a desire. It is simply a desire that very few in Britain share.
A modern European Union must accommodate those who wish to retain their nationhood, while accepting that others may wish to abandon their own. I could not support the Commission’s proposal for “reinforced co-operation” to be created by QMV. That would allow smaller groups of member states, as few as a third, to proceed with schemes of closer co-operation on their own, using the EU’s institutions.
It would be rash to give up the veto on such schemes of new integration. But I will say this: that I would expect the presumption to be against Britain exercising its veto, save where necessary to protect our national interests.
A readiness to allow others to proceed in this way would of course provide the opportunity for those countries concerned to retain a robust national independence to develop such a relationship within this more heterogeneous Union. Joschka Fischer’s view is that such an arrangement would allow a hard core, built around France and Germany, to forge ahead alone. I believe this is unlikely.
The notions of inner circle and outer tier, of concentric rings, of first and second class members; these belong to yesterday. Far more likely an outcome is the gradual development of a Europe of interlocking and overlapping groupings, of nations, as the Economist predicts, combining in different combinations for different purposes and to different extents. Europe has already edged in this direction, with the Maastricht opt-outs, Schengen and the single currency. John Major’s speech at Leiden in 1994 foreshadowed such a Europe.
But if such a hard core did emerge, perhaps based around the Euro 11, however much we might regret it, it is not obvious that people who believe in the sovereign right of nation states to decide their own destiny should be seeking to prevent other nation states from dissolving themselves. Some may fear that accepting condemns Britain to being forever on the edge, excluded from the heart of Europe. This misses the point.
A network Europe in a network world would not have a centre for anyone to be “at the heart” of. Equally there may be some in Britain who reject such an idea simply because it is supported by prominent pro-Europeans on the Continent; who see in it some dark plot. This is old-think.
There are some who might oppose it on the grounds that there is always a tendency for countries to give up their opt-outs. But we must point out that no country has ever been compelled to give up an opt-out; when Britain signed the Social Chapter, it was a democratically elected Government that exercised a free choice to do so.
There is nothing inevitable about an opt-out being subsequently surrendered, as the continued robust health of the single currency opt-out in Britain and Denmark amply attests. So greater flexibility would reduce the constant tension between those countries which feel the process of integration is going too slowly and that others are holding them back, and those which feel they are being dragged against their will into a superstate.
In short, a diverse and flexible Europe would be a Europe able at last to be at ease with itself.
Accession arrangements
If this flexibility is to be the shape of the future Europe, then we should start today to shape enlargement appropriately.
Labour should press at the IGC for the accession states to be given the opportunity, if they choose to take it, to have exemptions from some Community law – the “acquis communautaire” – outside the areas of the single market and core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive EU.
The candidate countries may not be pressing for this publicly. They have been made to feel that any request for derogations will be treated as an admission that they are not “ready” for membership. Accepting the full acquis is seen as some kind of test of a country’s machismo; query it and you’re derided as seeking only to be a “second class member””. But it simply doesn’t make sense for countries that have only recently escaped from the yoke of supranational domination to be required to accept burdensome centrally imposed obligations that have nothing to so with fair trading and everything to do with outdated collectivism.
Future legislation
In addition, outside the areas of the single market and core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive EU, the Government should also press for a new Treaty provision which would allow countries not to participate in new legislative actions at a European level which they wish to handle at a national level.
There is growing hostility to the way in which extra burdens can be imposed by a majority of states on a dissenter. This inevitably creates strains and tensions. They need to be allayed.
We regard such a clause as being an essential component of an acceptable Nice Treaty. A more flexible EU would be good for jobs and prosperity, allowing countries to reject new regulations which eroded our ability to compete in the new world economy. And it would reinforce the link between government and the taxpayer by supporting democracy, with governments accountable to their electorates for their decisions.
5. REASSURANCES IN BRITAIN
Reserve powers
Changes along these lines would start to create new Europe fit for a fast-changing world. And just as we accept that the European Union is the appropriate level at which to take certain decisions, so there are some matters where the supremacy of our national Parliament ought to be recognised.
There is a great deal of concern in the United Kingdom that the institutions of the EU – and in particular the European Court of Justice – have sometimes extended their competence beyond what was set out in the Treaties. In order to prevent such “Treaty creep”, the next Conservative Government will amend our domestic legislation in order to guarantee the supremacy of Parliament over certain areas of policy. This is not to say that Britain would then be precluded from joining common European initiatives in these areas.
But such participation would come about only after a deliberate decision by Parliament, and not as the result of some imaginative re-reading of the law by the Luxembourg court. By creating reserve powers, we should in effect be bringing ourselves into line with other member states, where such powers are enshrined in written constitutions.
This would prevent EU law from overriding the will of Parliament in those areas which are currently excluded from the Treaties – for example defence matters and the armed forces, education, health and direct taxation. It could also prevent EU law override where the Treaty specifically required unanimity, but where treaty creep has permitted a proposal to be passed under majority voting.
For example, under this provision it would simply not be possible for a measure such as the Working Time Directive, which was of a type explicitly reserved for unanimity in the Single European Act, to override the will of the domestic Parliament having been passed n the Council of Ministers by qualified majority voting.
Such a change would reassure our voters that their parliament remains accountable to them. By giving them the same reassurance that other Europeans have, we would Britain a more confident, and thus an easier, partner in Europe.
Scrutiny
The second change to be brought about by the next Conservative Government will be to provide for better scrutiny at Westminster of European legislation and its implementation.
It has been too easy for the implementation of EU directives to become a cloak for the imposition of domestic regulation going well beyond what is required. This gold-plating should stop. Both Houses of Parliament need much greater power to scrutinise such measures. There needs also to be better scrutiny of decisions in the Council of Ministers as well.
6. CONCLUSION
All these measures will help to safeguard the EU and Britain’s place within it.
They have the aim of finding a way of allowing the EU to develop much more diverse and flexible structures in the future, while safeguarding some extraordinary benefits that the European Union has delivered. We must shed at last the illusion that the EU can only change in an integrationist direction.
Such a trend is neither ‘inevitable’, as some defeatists argue, nor is it the badge of good Europeanism, as others suggest. The EU should not feel like a one-way street taking us deeper and deeper into a superstate of full political union.
That old one-size-fits-all dogma belongs to yesterday. Down that road lies discord and disharmony, as national interests are overridden, as diverse nation states are forced into rigid uniformity.
There is a better way, a flexible Europe, where nations have greater freedom to match policy to their own requirements, in a diverse and fast-moving world. Then and only then will we have a Europe open to all, and an EU in which all its members feel at ease.
