Category: Speeches

  • Caroline Spelman – 2011 Speech at the Oxford Farming Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, to the 2011 Oxford Farming Conference.

    I’ve been really looking forward to the Oxford Farming Conference. It’s my first as Secretary of State and allows me to set out my stall as we approach a new year in the agricultural calendar and the start of serious negotiations.

    I’m a lucky lady because years ago as a commodity secretary of the NFU I would look to this event to set the framework for the industry to operate in. And now I’m here helping to set it.

    As the Coalition we now have a credible negotiating mandate and the right to be a positive participant in Europe – a participant that will be looking to get the best deal for farmers, taxpayers, consumers and the environment alike.

    It helps to speak other’s languages of course. But more than the words it’s the fact the UK is a real player at the negotiating table that we are more likely to achieve our aims.

    Aims which include the reform of the Common Agriculture Policy.

    We need to address the tendency to protectionism in other Member States which undercuts producers in developing countries, because this is morally wrong. Favouring protectionism over liberalisation will actually hold back European farmers in the long run.

    To continue as we are threatens to prevent the transition we need towards a market that can sustain EU agriculture in the future. And there has to be change, because the new member states will demand a fairer allocation – with which I have considerable sympathy. There won’t be a deal, frankly, without this.

    We now need to make the new CAP fundamentally different. Its strategic approach must change; as well as its detail.  It must be re-positioned so that we can tackle the new challenges of achieving global food security and tackling and adapting to a changing climate.

    The Commission recently published its plans for CAP reform.  Although they set out the challenges for the sector they did little to create a dynamic strategy that would usefully contribute to President Barroso’s 2020 vision. So, while I welcome their proposals for further moves towards market orientation and international competitiveness I believe we can be more ambitious.

    We can be more positive. More confident. Now is the time to make very significant progress towards reducing our reliance on direct payments – it’s certainly something the farmers I know want to see happen. Rising global demand for food and rising food prices make it possible to reduce subsidies and plan for their abolition.

    Furthermore we should encourage innovation in the industry. Provide help with environmental measures and combating climate change. Our taxpayers have every right to expect other public goods for the subsidies they pay. I’m wary of the proposal to ‘green’ Pillar 1. What is proposed is nothing like as ambitious as British farmers have shown themselves to be. That’s why we want to see Pillar 2 taking a greater share of limited resources.

    We are prepared to work hard to achieve this vision. As a coalition we have a positive relationship with the EU, with fellow Members States and with all EU institutions.  We are forming alliances with those who share our vision of a competitive industry, who share our desire to see it deliver on public goods and who want to see a level playing field in the CAP.  This is the only way we can achieve our goals.

    We can do it. We’ve already seen it work. It may not be what you expected me as a Secretary of State to say, but it’s true. Recent negotiations on whaling, on forestry and at the December Fisheries Council all succeeded because we built partnerships.

    The relationships we build will pay off. At the end of last year – in Nagoya – we saw an international agreement on a new global framework for protecting biodiversity.

    In the year of its Presidency of the G20, France has boldly and wisely proposed a meeting of Agriculture Ministers to improve the functioning of world markets.

    A timely decision as the global demand for food rises.  As international food markets open up and the risk increases of a wrong-headed, protectionism. In some cases this has already happened – we just have to cast our minds back to late summer and the ban on Russian and Ukrainian grain exports.

    I would therefore like to work with France to seek an end to export bans – one of the most restrictive practices found in the world market.

    This challenge is the clear focus of the Foresight Report which will be published at the end of this month.

    Of course our vision for the future and the goals we set ourselves must be tempered by the current fiscal climate.

    There’s a need for a reality check. It’s astonishing that the Commission’s initial views on the CAP barely acknowledge the hard times currently facing Europe.

    It’s hard for us here too.

    We’ve been in office for just over 6 months.  It’s been a challenging time. But, as the PM said, Britain can become one of the international success stories of the new decade. But first we must deal with the economic problems we inherited. Our overriding goal has been to set in motion measures to tackle those problems. This began with an emergency budget swiftly followed by the comprehensive spending review.

    But this hasn’t stopped us spending in excess of £2 billion of taxpayers money in pursuit of our objectives.  Of greening the economy.  Of enhancing the environment and biodiversity.

    Of supporting the British food and farming industry and helping it develop.

    That is a theme that runs right through our business plan. Particularly the role the food sector plays in our economy. And the contribution made by farmers in managing the land.

    Over the coming years we need to increase the competitiveness of the whole UK food chain, to help secure an environmentally sustainable and healthy supply of food.

    Underlying all of this is the power shift from the centre towards local organisations – putting local people back in charge – a classic example of what we mean by Big Society.

    This shift will change the way the department works. We want to see a greater degree of trust and collaboration when developing and delivering policy. This will allow you as an industry to shape your own destiny.

    I think this last point is of paramount importance.  I see my job as helping you to become more profitable, innovative and competitive.  By creating the right conditions for the industry to raise productivity, to be entrepreneurial, to continue to develop strong connections with your markets and customers and establish robust links throughout the food chain. I’m really keen to do my bit but it will require you as an industry to step up and seize these opportunities. Sustainable intensification is an example, where fewer agricultural inputs results in less cost to you and the environment. A win-win situation all round.

    The whole industry must strive to be as good as its best operators and in turn the best need to keep raising the bar.

    This is crucial – as a nation we’ve never been so interested in where food comes from, how it’s produced and animal welfare.  As a result corporate values can easily be damaged by food scare stories.  Public opinion and the media can bring great pressure to bear. Those in the industry who are good at their business understand this and are more responsive to the market’s changing demands as a result.

    We want farming to enjoy a better image. We want more young people to enter the industry. We need to convince them that it offers good prospects.  That’s why the work of the Agri-Skills Forum is so important, putting in place the infrastructure for lifelong learning through continuous professional development.

    We want everyone to see the potential in UK farming. It’s an industry that – with the food sector – enjoys an £85 billion income. It has succeeded in growing even through recession. People are always going to need food. It has the potential to become a dynamic and progressive industry with an image to match. Where professionalism and high skills are ably demonstrated. Where farmers are enterprising business people looking to make the most of their experience, always looking for new business opportunities.

    I was impressed by Lincolnshire farmers innovation during the recent freeze and their efforts to slow the thawing of cauliflowers to avoid the waste of last year.

    For the industry to innovate like this we need to allow it to operate in an environment where there is a greater degree of trust.

    This approach marks a departure from the old way of doing business. The paternal approach of Government telling industry what to do and industry complying.

    We want a system which recognises most people try to do the right thing.

    So what we now need is a greater degree of collaboration. We’ve already seen this at work through the new voluntary food labelling code. The Task Force for Farming Regulation is another example.

    A clear priority for this Government, and one that must underpin the Commission’s approach will be to reduce the unnecessary red tape for farmers. We want to be in the vanguard in Europe in pursuing this further. Our aim is to develop an industry fit for an exciting future. A future which is innovative, competitive and profitable. We will not achieve that by burdening farmers with more regulations.

    Through the Task Force we want to see how and where, we can reduce the cost of compliance. We hope the group will be able to offer advice on how to reduce the regulatory burden and identify examples of gold-plating and overly complex implementation.

    We know they’ve asked for your input and that they are looking at a number of areas of concern. Particularly around arrangements for livestock movement and identification, for cross compliance and nitrate vulnerable zones, as well as inspections – an issue that affects a lot of you. Currently, you might be visited by an official agency inspector, by the local authority and by a private sector assurance auditor, all looking at the same thing for different reasons.  We look forward to the Task Force’s recommendations for a simpler, risk-based way of doing things.

    We’re looking to the Task Force to make clear strategic recommendations on how we use regulations. They’ll report back in April.

    Elsewhere we’re looking at how responsibility for dealing with animal disease can be shared with animal keepers which will demand trust on both sides. We know sharing responsibility makes for better decisions, Bluetongue being a case in point.

    Our overriding goal here is to reduce the universal risk and costs of disease to industry, government and the wider economy, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness of investment in disease prevention and management.

    The recommendations from the independent Advisory Group were released just before Christmas. We’re busy looking at what was said and will respond in due course.

    The issue of trust plays out in initiatives set up by the department. Particularly the Campaign for the Farmed Environment. Here we believe it gives the industry the opportunity to show everyone that the farming community is best placed to deliver the required environmental outcomes from their land.  We know farmers are the stewards of the countryside this is your opportunity to show that. We have put our money where our mouth is by backing both environmental schemes. Increasing the higher level by 80%.

    The key tool we use to enable farmers to deliver on our strategic priorities for natural resource protection.

    While walking the fields on John Plumb’s Warwickshire farm I saw for myself how he sows a mixture of seeds on the headlands to attract pollinators and farmland birds.

    Currently we’re working with Natural England and others to make all strands of Environmental Stewardship more effective and better targeted.  The aim here is to ensure that the scheme is more focused on results.

    All of this will ensure that agri-environment outcomes delivered to date are protected and maintain our commitment to making Environmental Stewardship available to all farmers.

    This work dovetails neatly with the ideals and goals behind the publication of our White Paper on the Natural Environment.

    A document that looks to make the natural environment’s real value count. The first of its kind for twenty years.

    The white paper gives us an unmissable opportunity to make a real difference and ensure the health of our natural environment and our economy go hand in hand.

    The farming community has a role to play here.  You are the custodians of the countryside. You conserve and promote a vibrant natural environment.  We’re now looking to build on this and get the balance right between the public’s demands for affordable and plentiful food while meeting their demands for a healthy natural environment.

    This generation should be the one that reverses the loss of species.  A generation which secures a healthy natural world for the future and one which properly values and protects the benefits that nature gives us.

    I enjoyed a preview of the research on the value and viability of UK Farming prepared for this conference. I hope that what I have said today has demonstrated the collaborative approach it calls for. The importance of farming to the UK economy is recognised by the priority we have given it in Defra’s business plan, providing the kind of leadership you call for.

    This should help to address the concern in the research community that the UK government understands agriculture less well than our competitors. With all four ministers at Defra having agricultural credentials we defended Government research in the spending review.

    The priority we give to farming and the food industry will also help to improve the image and profile of the sector.

    Today I’ve tried to lay out my ambitions, goals and vision for the food and farming community of this country. I believe the whole industry has a lot to contribute to a healthy economy, environment and society. As Secretary of State I fully intend to maintain this dialogue and help create a competitive and sustainable industry that is successful because it gives customers what they want.

    An industry that embraces risk and manages risk. An industry that wants to deliver public environmental goods. That takes greater responsibility for animal health and welfare standards. And an industry that underpins the quality of rural life.

    All of which further develops the levels of trust needed for us to move forward. What I can do is provide the framework for you to succeed. You are the entrepreneurs. You make it happen.

    Thank you.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2004 Speech to Welsh Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman to the 2004 Welsh Conservative Party Conference on 3rd April 2004.

    Firstly let me take this opportunity to thank you all for coming along to take part in what I am sure you will agree has been an invaluable policy session.

    As I am sure you are aware, this is one of the first functions I have undertaken since becoming Shadow Secretary of State for Local and Devolved Government, and I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor David Curry, who worked tirelessly in this brief and with my colleague Bill Wiggin in respect of Wales particularly.

    Bill is proving to be a tremendous ambassador not only for the Conservative Party in Wales but vitally for Wales within the Conservative Party and Parliament as a whole, and I would like to thank him for the terrific work he is doing.

    I believe passionately in local politics.

    For me, in many ways, local government and local councillors are the very embodiment of Conservative values. Strong local representation goes hand in glove with empowering individuals and limiting state interference in people’s lives. Dynamic and effective local councils are integral to the decentralisation in which Conservatives believe.

    Just as big Government and ‘command and control’ by the state are the hallmarks of Labour, small Government and trusting local people to deliver solutions to local problems must be the hallmark of the Conservatives.

    Councillors voluntarily give up their time, motivated by a sense of civic duty to work to improve their local surroundings.

    These are qualities which are integral to Conservative thinking.

    Local Government is under the spotlight like never before. As Council Taxes have risen so have people’s determination to scrutinise the way in which their local authority uses that money and to what effect.

    We are dealing with an increasingly consumer-orientated electorate who want to know exactly what they are getting for their money and it is our job to show them, rightly, that time and time again they get better value under the Conservatives than they would under Labour or Liberal Democrats.

    The cynicism which has beset people’s attitude to national politics is in danger of spreading to local politics, and this brings me onto another reason why I feel so strongly about the importance of local Government.

    To people who are interested in politics, which I feel I am confident in claiming we all are, the rise of political apathy is extremely worrying and potentially very destructive.

    Local councillors are uniquely placed to combat this apathy head-on. They are better able to stand on the door step, talking face to face with voters about the immediate issues that concern them – taking on board their concerns and developing local solutions.

    In fulfilling that role, our candidates and existing councillors are doing a great service not only to the Conservative Party, but to all of those who recognise the importance of a thriving, responsive democracy.

    One party that clearly fails to recognise the importance of a thriving, responsive democracy is the Liberal Democrats – a definite misnomer if ever there was.

    The Liberal Democrats are political chameleons, changing their policies, attitudes and positions with every doorstep they call at.

    We must expose their inconsistencies and hold them to account – particularly here in Wales where they have bedded down with Labour.

    Let me quote you a very telling excerpt from a leaked memo circulated within the Liberal Democrat party advising association how to select candidates for local elections:

    ‘Be shameless in asking. Paperless candidates need not be members of the party and should not be vetted in any way’.

    It called for ‘friends and flatmates’ of party members to ‘be persuaded to stand “for a laugh” and for the price of a round of drinks’

    ‘Make it clear that they will not win, will not be expected to do anything and can choose a ward on the other side of the council area where no one knows them’

    ‘Get all your paperless candidates together and draw the wards out of a hat in front of them to decide who stands where. Or organise a competition to see who gets the least votes (with a prize)’.

    What more needs to be said?

    The Liberal Democrats do not take standing for local government seriously and their candidates frequently have little in common the neighbourhoods in which they are running.

    This from a party that takes the name ‘Democrats’.

    The forthcoming local elections present a great opportunity for the Conservative Party.

    We should be quite clear that every council seat we win in Wales will not only be hugely significant in itself, it will be one step closer to reinstating the Conservative Party as the Party of Government.

    Winning local elections will not, and should not, come easily though.

    As a party we have to go out and work hard for people’s trust and people’s vote. It is not enough to simply expose the failings of the opposition – we know these failings are plentiful and we know they are undermining the quality of life people have a right to enjoy – but we need to show that we have the resolve and solutions to reverse them.

    I don’t want to stand before you today and offer you a prescription for winning local elections, because it would run entirely counter to what I have just been saying about trusting local people.

    What I can do, is explain the context and narrative of our campaign.

    As you are probably aware, the Party has spent a great deal of time finding out what people think of the Government, what they think of the Conservatives, and what they are looking for when they put their cross on the ballot paper.

    The overriding feeling is one of disillusionment.

    People feel let down by Labour – a party which promised so much and has delivered so little.

    Not only are they feeling let down, they are wary of Labour and wary of the tax rises Labour will inevitably bring. This is magnified by the feeling that Labour is failing to address so many of people’s fundamental concerns.

    They feel Labour has triggered the pensions crisis; they feel Labour has failed to deliver the reform in health they want to see; they feel the education their children need has been neglected by Labour; and interestingly they feel Labour are not doing enough to protect us from the ever-present danger of terrorism.

    These are just a few examples of issues where our research tells us the perception of Labour in office is bad.

    Our strategy must be to highlight and reinforce these perceptions.

    However, we must also convey with clarity and conviction where Conservatives are good:

    Where Tony Blair has let people down, Michael Howard will stand up for them.

    Where Labour have driven up taxes and wasted public money on bureaucracy and red tape, the Conservatives will deliver leaner, more efficient and more responsive government at every level.

    I and the entire local and devolved government team are there as a resource to help you, to provide you with campaigning ideas, and to create a favourable position for the Party.

    However we understand that that nobody knows your local issues and your local voters like you do.

    Conservatives can make a real difference locally and the forthcoming local elections are an ideal opportunity to showcase that.

    Council Tax is an area where here in Wales Conservatives can successfully steal a march on the opposition at a local level.

    Council tax bills have risen by 80% since 1997 – the equivalent to eight times the rate of inflation, with no delivery of real reform in public services.

    Council tax has become the ultimate stealth tax and nowhere is this more acute than here in Wales, the actual rate of increase is even higher in Wales than it is anywhere in England.

    I think it is very telling that the £27 million earmarked by Gordon Brown to help lower council taxes was taken by the National Assembly to tackle bed blocking.

    Not only that – the Welsh assembly has even introduced a new top band of council tax – Band I- as a mechanism for forcing taxes up further.

    The local elections are not only crucial for those people actually putting themselves forward for election, they are crucial for everyone that has an interest in the future of the Conservative Party, and in my view crucial for the future wellbeing of Wales, and the country as a whole.

    As we approach the forthcoming local and European elections we have a lot of work to do.

    Jonathan Evans is a great example of the effectiveness of Welsh Conservatives, and the strength of our European candidates for Wales is a tribute to the calibre of the Conservative Party in Wales.

    I know many of you go way above and beyond the call of duty, please don’t think for a second I and my colleagues in Westminster take that for granted.

    But there are only so many hours in the day, only so much manpower we can put in, particularly when juggling jobs, family and social commitments.

    The Conservative Party in Wales is in a strong position and when the Party in Wales is in a strong position the Party nationally is in a strong position.

    I and the local and devolved government team certainly look forward to working with you so that we can build on that as the countdown to June 10 begins.

  • Caroline Spelman – 2003 Speech to Conservative Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Spelman to the 2003 Conservative Spring Conference on 15th March 2003.

    My job is to focus on the humanitarian consequences of a possible conflict in Iraq. For months now I have been badgering my opposite number Clare Short to produce a detailed humanitarian contingency plan. There has been stark contrast in the way we prepared for the war in Afghanistan where the Prime Minister said humanitarian and military contingency were of equal importance. For Afghanistan we had several statements on humanitarian relief. We debated how to do it better; should there be a pause in the bombing to deliver food aid and so on. This time nothing. I think this is a disgrace. However much Clare Short is respected for her strong views and her deep concern for the plight of the world’s poor, which of course I share, she should not allow her personal views to get in the way of doing her job.

    In November, I got all the aid agencies together who work in Iraq and its neighbouring countries to brainstorm what needed to be done. We sent Clare Short two full sheets of suggestions which were barely acknowledged. In December I asked her what extra funding her Department had earmarked for contingency in Iraq. I got a one word answer, ‘none’. In January, I asked which of the neighbouring countries she had spoken to about the possible flight of refugees. I got the same answer: ‘none’. This is no way to carry on.

    Out of sheer frustration, we devoted one of our precious opposition days to the subject of humanitarian contingency in Iraq. We got her to come to Parliament. But did we get any answers? You guessed: None.

    This is so wrong when so much could be done even now to mitigate the consequences of war for innocent Iraqis. We could preposition food, water, medicines and dare I say it gas masks on Iraq’s borders. We could prepare for the flight of refugees estimated by the UN to put up a million people. Indeed this is beginning to happen. Oxfam has enough supplies for 10,000 refugees in each of Iraq’s neighbouring states. But this is woefully inadequate.

    In a written statement to Parliament on Thursday, Clare Short said her ‘assessment of the overall level of preparedness of the international community to cope with the humanitarian challenges which may lie ahead in Iraq is limited and this involves serious risk’. So, you have to do something about it. She should therefore either put up or shut up, or if she cannot stomach the position of her government she should resign.

    No one can afford to ignore the humanitarian dimension of the crisis in Iraq. We are talking about a country where one in ten children die before their fifth birthday. A country where a third of the children are chronically malnourished. A country where the Government uses chemical and biological weapons against its own people. A country where torture and execution are common place. Because of these awful facts I believe that we are right to support the Prime Minister in liberating the people of Iraq.

    It would have been quite wrong to make party political capital out of the plight of the Iraqi people, but it just is a fact that the Liberal Democrats have tried to face both ways on this issue. Never mind about being serially reckless, they have been serially opportunist. Pro-war and anti-war; pro-UN and anti-UN; pro-second resolution and anti-second resolution. They must make up their minds.

    I feel passionately that just like in the war in Afghanistan we have to demonstrate to ordinary Iraqis that our war is not with them. This means we need a proper strategy for delivering aid to the people of Iraq. If we are to persuade the Iraqi people that this is a war against a cruel repressive dictator, and not a war against them, or a war against Islam, we must genuinely liberate the people of Iraq. Unless we provide aid and assistance to the Iraqi people we may win the war and lose the peace. A successful outcome, one that provides genuine freedom to the Iraqi people, will be another victory for the war on terrorism.

  • John Spellar – 2002 Speech to UK Aviation Club

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Transport Minister, John Spellar, to the UK Aviation Club on 3rd July 2002.

    Thank you for inviting me here today. It’s a delight to be able join this auspicious occasion, which brings together so many of the leading lights in the aviation industry.

    And with that in mind, I’d like to begin today by making an announcement about the launch of our consultation proposals on airport capacity . . . but unfortunately, I’m going to have to disappoint you.

    In the meantime, please be assured the air transport White Paper remains very much a top priority. And to that end we want to issue our consultation documents covering all the UK regions as soon as we can.

    And whatever you might have read in the papers let me stress here and now, we’ve not made up our minds in advance about what or where.

    It’s vitally important that we have an informed public debate on these matters – and one that is genuinely open and frank.

    With that in mind, the consultative process will be what it says – the documents will inform key stakeholders and the public on the issues, as fully and as fairly as we can.

    And once those documents have been finalised and dispatched, your comments and that of others on the different options will be genuinely welcomed. The industry needs to realise the importance of engaging actively.

    At the end of this process, we’re going to be setting the pattern for aviation in the UK…not just for today and tomorrow…but for the next 30 years.

    Currently, Britain is a major player in the aviation industry. You probably know the facts and figures better than I do. But let’s remind ourselves:

    A quarter of all international air journeys in the world are to or from the UK.

    In turn, the UK accounts for over 40% of all air travel between Europe and the USA.

    We have an annual £13 billion of inward tourism – 1½ per cent of GDP.

    Industry and commerce, increasingly relies on the efficient and rapid transport of goods by air.

    And in total, the aviation industry, directly employs over 180,000 people in the UK, and indirectly supports up to 3 times as many jobs on top of that.

    I make no apology for repeating those facts. Our current prominence in this transport sector is what makes the issue of future capacity so crucial. Not just to the businesses and individuals in the industry and all they serve – but also to the economy as well.

    As we all know, in an age of increasing globalisation, where products can be designed and developed in one country, assembled in another and then distributed around the world – for many people, international business travel by air is a way of life.

    However, let’s not forget that by value, one fifth of all UK trade now goes by air – much of it in high-value pharmaceutical and IT goods.

    And whilst the great majority of air freight continues to be carried in the bellyhold of passenger aircraft, and from airports in the South East – dedicated freighter traffic has been growing steadily by around 27% a year, in the regions.

    And nearly half of all dedicated freighter traffic – by value and tonnage – is concentrated on East Midlands airport. The presence there of several dedicated express freight operations has served to create strong growth in this market sector.

    And this growing success story reminds us of course, that airports are not only central to our trade and competitiveness as a country. They are also significant employment generators in their own right.

    The most obvious example is of course, Heathrow. The UK’s premier airport for half a century, it handles 20 million more international passengers per annum than any other airport in the world. As such, it contributes very significantly to London’s position as a world city.

    But the airport is also the largest employer in the locality. Half of its 68,000 workforce live in the London Borough of Hillingdon and its immediate neighbours.

    In turn, it’s not just the dominant employer. BAA’s education programme helps many thousands of young people in those areas every year prepare for the world of work, through ‘work experience’ placements, workshops and other training initiatives.

    What’s more, the airport promotes business with local firms. Much of this is done via an annual trade event designed to foster links with local businesses in the area. In the year before last, contracts worth a substantial £10 million were generated between major airport companies and local businesses following this event.

    And in total, BAA Heathrow procurement to the Region is estimated to be worth over £180 million. So the impact the airport has on the surrounding community and its economy is very substantial indeed.

    Neither can we forget that many large and international companies chose to have corporate headquarters within a stone’s throw of Heathrow – each of which brings additional employment, prosperity and prestige to those localities.

    And although the East and South East of England clearly predominate, aviation also accounts for significant direct employment in other regions too, especially the north of England. I mentioned growth at East Midlands airport, in Manchester too, many new jobs have been created as a result of the airport’s expansion. At least 12,000 extra jobs are predicted by 2005 as a result of the airport’s expansion.

    In addition, just as in the case of Heathrow, regional airports generate significant amounts of indirect employment – either in terms of attracting inward investment, or clusters of businesses needing easy access to air services.

    However, we all know that our obvious success in the international aviation market and the associated economic benefits cannot be sustained unless we review and make decisions about future capacity. And if we fail to accurately respond to capacity needs, Britain will lose out.

    For example, if the right capacity isn’t there, as in any market, shortage of supply will push up prices. Our studies show, for instance, that flights from the main airports in the South East could typically cost £100 more, in real terms, by 2030 if no additional runway capacity were provided over that period.

    In contrast, our studies clearly indicate that the provision of additional airport capacity in the South East of England would generate large economic benefits.

    Needless to say, benefits would mainly be to air passengers, but by default additional direct and indirect benefits would inevitably accrue to UK airlines and the UK economy through increased productivity and inward investment.

    But our studies are not about ‘predict and provide’. As I say, our minds are not made up.

    However, Government does recognise that there are distinct benefits in having a major hub airport, capable of serving the widest range of destinations. There are also difficulties. However, it’s the only viable means for airlines to operate wide route networks, with more frequencies on the thicker routes that are in turn supported by good domestic and regional connections.

    This is something our main European competitors already understand only too well, and have sought to provide for at Amsterdam Schipol for example, as well as at Frankfurt and, notably Paris Charles de Gaulle.

    Indeed. Charles de Gaulle was conceived in the 1970s as a hub, and who would have thought 30 years ago that the subsequent expansion in air traffic would have been sufficient to merit its considerable expansion and growth. Yet it has and with that in mind, the French Government wisely located the airport in an area that could easily cope with high levels of growth.

    Other countries have also recognised, and sought to exploit, the benefits of a large airport with a good network of services. You only have to look at the growing success of Copenhagen airport.

    It’s not dissimilar in size to Manchester airport, with two runways. But with its network of routes, Copenhagen has been able to develop into a hub for Scandinavia as a whole, feeding traffic to Sweden, Norway and Finland.

    This arguably gives it a prominence well above what natural geography might suggest and is impacting on the business of other airport outside of Scandinavia. And by attracting international traffic, Copenhagen is reaping the benefits, rapidly boosting its regional and economic status.

    But while it’s true to say that size matters – the larger the airport, the bigger the potential problems, too. We know from previous public consultations that the key concerns of the public about airports (not surprisingly) revolve around noise, air quality and local road congestion.

    If the consumer benefits of further development in the South East are potentially large, so too are the potential environmental concerns. As such, the willingness of the aviation sector to tackle these environmental factors vigorously and effectively will be crucial to any decision to expand.

    As a part of the consultative process, we shall be specifically inviting views on what sorts of steps will be needed to deal acceptably with these issues, particularly in those cases where expansion of existing airports may be an option.

    On noise, for example, it’s true to say that the number of people affected by noise at Heathrow has dramatically reduced over the last 20 years. And our policy is to do everything practicable to continue improve the noise climate at Heathrow over time. That’s why strict conditions have been imposed in the planning approval for Terminal Five.

    But maintaining the progress on noise will require the industry to commit itself to further improvements. So is the industry prepared to invest in engine and airframe technology, and produce quietest available aircraft in return for further capacity?

    On air quality, the UK will be obliged to comply with mandatory EU limit values in relation to various air pollutants – nitrogen dioxide (NO2) for example being one of them and of which aircraft are a major source of emissions.

    The third big issue we have to deal with in terms of extra capacity is land access, particularly road congestion.

    We are very committed to seeing public transport access to airports improved to help reduce both congestion and pollution on nearby roads. Our consultation documents will address that, including how improvements to rail access might be made, and paid for.

    There are undoubtedly large benefits to be reaped from further growth. But we must also have a clear programme for tackling the impacts which come from growth. The public deserves nothing less. And nothing less will satisfy our commitment to the sustainable long-term development of aviation in the UK.

    Before I conclude, let me say a brief word on security. Not surprisingly, it is an issue that has been particularly prominent in people’s minds since the tragic events of 11 September last year.

    Having learned our lessons the hard way, following the equally tragic attack on flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988, the UK already had one of the most demanding aviation security regimes in the world. That meant we were in a far better position than most countries to respond to the attacks in New York and Washington. Earlier in the year I was involved in a visit by a US congressional committee, who were looking to draw on our hard-won expertise in aviation security.

    But we are not complacent. Aviation security in the UK remains at an enhanced level, in recognition of the continuing threat – which remains higher in the UK than in most other European countries.

    We took new powers in last year’s emergency anti-terrorism legislation, and we’re in the process of using those powers to introduce a system for approving providers of contract security services.

    In turn, we are engaging with the industry to consider how day to day implementation of security measures can be improved – my Department’s Director of Transport Security recently hosted a seminar with a hundred industry representatives to discuss how standards could be raised.

    And we’re also busy on the international front to ensure appropriate enhancements in international security standards. This is in recognition both of the need for a “level playing field”, and the fact that the threat could come from incoming aircraft as well as from those departing the UK.

    To sum up, I think you’ll agree that there are some tough decisions ahead with regard to future capacity. To succeed, we must face up to and be prepared to address the longer-term realities.

    When it comes to taking decisions on capacity, the Government needs to know what the industry, for its part, can – and will – deliver.

    The challenge is as much for you – as it is for Government – to convince the country that the potential benefits can be obtained at an acceptable cost and with minimal impact on individuals and society at large.

    So now I look to you to take that lead. The continuing commitment and energy of all those who work within UK aviation will be a vital part of the process, to help us forge a responsible and sustainable future for the industry.

  • John Spellar – 2002 Speech on Air Transport

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Transport Minister, John Spellar, on 11th November 2002.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words at the start of your conference today.

    I note that your conference papers describe the current exercise as “the biggest consultation ever undertaken on air transport”. I have to say, we did not consciously set out to break records in that particular respect. But I am happy to take the credit!

    The issues are necessarily complex and far-reaching; and we have indeed tried our level best to do justice to them – and to give parties adequate time to comment.

    Clearly, an enormous amount of work went into preparing the suite of consultation documents issued in the summer. But they are only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath are several years’ worth of technical detail and analysis, open to public scrutiny. No-one can accuse us of being superficial.

    All told, we have issued nearly a quarter of a million summary and main consultation documents and there have been some 600,000 downloads on the Department’s special website.

    Many of you will perhaps have attended one of the public exhibitions around the country. These have tried to give people a further opportunity to understand and explore the issues. Those in the South East attracted over 11,000 people.

    So here we are, with just under a month still to go before the end of the consultation period. And you may be thinking there is nothing more that can be said.

    Well, I’d actually like to take this opportunity to address some of the issues you will want to take into account in framing your response. And I will do so by hopefully answering some of the questions that may still be uppermost in your minds.

    Demand forecasts

    Firstly, the demand forecasts. Questions have been raised regarding the Government’s assessment of future demand.

    Our forecasts envisage a three-fold increase in passenger numbers over the next 30 years, if demand is unconstrained and we think that’s realistic for three reasons.

    Firstly, the forecast recognises the increasing maturity of the aviation market. So future growth should be less rapid than historic growth.

    In fact, the forecasts assume a future rate of growth for the next 30 years at only half the rate that we have seen in the past 30 years.

    Second, we have worked on the basis of a central forecast, pitched in the middle of a range which could see passenger numbers increase to anything between 400 and 600 million passengers a year over the period.

    Of course, forecasting up to 30 years ahead cannot be precise. Aviation is a dynamic industry, and is constantly changing – witness the continuing burgeoning of the “no frills” sector for example.

    In the space of 5 years to the Year 2000, “no frills” carriers in Europe achieved the same rate of growth as the total UK air travel market achieved over the last 30 years.

    But the point is this. Our past record on air traffic forecasts is generally good. If anything, events have shown it to be a touch conservative.

    And third, the lesson of history is that aviation enjoys strong trend growth. A little over a year ago, the doom-mongers were saying that September 11 would change everything.

    Those tragic events have certainly had a profound effect on many aspects of the aviation industry. But traffic is returning, albeit more slowly in some areas than others. In short, the trauma of last year does not look set to overturn the long-run growth trends.

    So, on the forecasts, we are confident that the underlying basis for the options appraisal is robust.

    However, we’ve been accused of “predict and provide”. But in fact, there are likely to be major economic benefits from meeting at least most of this forecast demand. Much of this would accrue to air passengers. But there would be additional benefits to airlines and the UK economy.

    Airports can help to attract inward investment. But they also help to keep UK business competitive: 30% of our visible exports, by value, go by air – worth some £60 billion a year.

    And the ability of the small businessman to fly from his local airport can be just as important as it is for the giant corporation.

    But there are also likely to be major environmental disbenefits from meeting the forecast demand in full. This is why the first question in the consultation is: How much airport capacity should be provided?

    Alternative modes?

    The benefits of air travel are all very well, but its arguable that a better alternative would be for some of this air traffic to go by rail.

    The answer to this point is that we need to be realistic. Many passengers on domestic flights are interlining with international flights out of the UK – in the case of Manchester to London, about 50% of all passengers.

    Others, for example, are doing business near to the airport rather than wanting to access central London, where the major rail terminals are. Rail travel, even where it is reasonably time-competitive with air, will not be a particularly attractive alternative for such people.

    In some cases, we can expect to see some rail/air substitution, particularly where rail service improvements offer the prospect of markedly shorter journey times and good airport connections. We acknowledge that in the consultation documents, and have taken it into account in our analyses.

    And, for all the regions which currently enjoy air services to London, we ask in our consultation documents about the scope for switching from air to rail links.

    We will expect the SRA, in considering rail proposals, to continue to take account of the potential for abstraction from air. But it does not get us off the hook in terms of having to confront the issue of airport capacity.

    The Regional Question

    Make no mistake, regional airports are a crucial part of the transport mix. Again, we say this quite clearly in the consultation documents. They help to ensure that economic benefits are enjoyed as widely as possible across the UK.

    Indeed, regional airports have a role to play, not just in maintaining links to other parts of the UK, but also in linking the regions to key continental hubs connecting with European and long haul destinations.

    We want to strengthen the contribution that our regional airports can make to the country’s overall economic prosperity, and the prosperity of their own region, and support those getting up to critical mass and mini-hub status.

    But we cannot escape the fact that it is the South East of England which accounts for the lion’s share – 60% – of UK air travel, and where demand is strongest.

    On population grounds alone, London is a major generator of travel. Since 1989, the capital has seen its population grow by nearly 600,000 – equivalent to absorbing a city the size of Sheffield.

    And in the next 15 years the population is set to increase by another 700,000 – equivalent to adding a city the size of Leeds.

    Access to high quality air services has been cited as one of the main reasons why London ranks as a world city, and the best city in Europe for business; and why London is the chosen headquarters location for one quarter of Europe’s largest companies.

    The South East is important, not just because there is a higher ‘propensity to fly’ – with 60% of the population of the region making at least one trip a year, compared with a national average of 50%. In itself the figure of 50% represents a remarkable change for this country.

    Heathrow in particular handles a significant number of passengers from overseas who are en route to destinations beyond the UK. That simply reflects the advantages of a major airport which is capable of serving a wide range of destinations around the world. It then tends to act as a hub, generating yet more connecting services.

    We recognise there are real benefits to be gained from having an airport, or perhaps more than one, which can act in that way. But the consultation seeks views on that, and accepts that such a hub need not be limited in future to Heathrow, or indeed to the South East. And we specifically seek views on whether Manchester Airport could, and should, seek to become a major hub airport.

    Environmental costs

    So far I have covered demand forecasts, rail substitution and the regional issues. I now want to move on to environmental issues.

    Some people will argue that aviation is of itself ‘unsustainable’. We have never sought to deny that, unless properly managed, aviation has substantial environmental disbenefits, both local and global. And we expect aviation to cover its external costs, including the environmental costs it imposes.

    That is why, from the outset, we have made clear our commitment to sustainability. There will need to be a proper balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. And if there is to be further capacity, steps will need to be taken to address the environmental impacts.

    In most cases, this will mean local solutions to local problems

    – first, through appropriate environmental controls;

    – second, through mitigation of effects such as noise

    – and third, through arrangements to ensure that those most affected receive due compensation.

    Responses to our Future of Aviation consultation showed that this is what the public expects.

    Research further suggests that noise and air quality top the list of people’s concerns. Public feeling on these matters often runs high – borne out, as you would expect, at the public exhibitions.

    First, noise. Aircraft noise has got progressively less over recent years, due to quieter engines. Nearly a quarter of a million fewer people are affected by noise at the four biggest airports in the UK, compared with the position 20 years ago.

    At Heathrow, it remains our policy to do everything practicable to continue to improve the noise climate over time. As you will be aware, conditions have been imposed in the planning permission for Terminal 5 both to cap air traffic movements and to limit the noise contour.

    And we’ve suggested in the consultation documents that future growth in air traffic may call for the imposition of similar noise contour caps elsewhere.

    Night noise is another sensitive issue. I appreciate the genuine concerns, but it is not directly related to the question of airport capacity. Night flights at major South East airports continue to be regulated, and we will be consulting specifically on the future regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted later this year. Meanwhile, we are doing further work on public attitudes to night noise.

    A key part of sustainability is also that the aviation industry bears the costs of mitigating effects on communities living near airports. And if capacity enhancements are to be provided, a quid pro quo may be for aircraft and engine manufacturers to accelerate the delivery of reductions in noise.

    Air quality is a second major concern. Further action may well be needed in some cases to tackle local problems, for instance from ground-based emissions.

    At Heathrow, where the problems are exacerbated by high levels of road traffic emissions, concerted action will be needed to tackle the problems. We have made it abundantly clear that any airport expansion could only be approved if air quality standards can be met.

    But by far the biggest element in the environment debate is climate change – the effects of CO2 emissions from aircraft. We have allowed for this in our demand forecasts, on the basis that the aviation industry will be expected to bear the costs of the damage which aviation causes through its contribution to global warming.

    Precisely how this is achieved is a matter of continuing debate. Climate change issues are best pursued internationally, through the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

    We’re actively seeking to encourage work on possible measures such as an open emissions trading system for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, assuming this was widely supported among the international community.

    Our conclusions on these matters will be set out in next year’s White Paper.

    Next steps

    As you know, the consultation period on airports runs until November. We will then carefully assess the responses and use them to inform our decisions on what additional capacity we think is deliverable and sustainable, and where we think it should be located.

    Any future infrastructure developments will of course continue to be governed by the planning system. Reforms have already been announced, with a view to speeding up the arrangements for projects of national importance, such as airports.

    As for timing and funding, these will be commercial decisions stemming from the private sector. But with the White Paper in place, setting out a clear and long-term strategy, the industry should be in a position to plan with confidence.

    In the White Paper, we will also be setting out our policies across a range of other air transport matters, from airline policy to air traffic management and consumer protection, on which we consulted previously.

    In many of these areas, we operate within European and international frameworks and must work in conjunction with our partners – and in some cases, competitors – to realise our objectives.

    To sum up, the air transport industry is undoubtedly one of the UK’s great business success stories. In turn, it contributes much to the success of our economy. We want to ensure that it continues to flourish in an increasingly competitive world. But it needs to do so in a way that respects the environment and the needs of the communities it serves and affects.

    The challenge in the coming months will be to strike the right balance to secure a sustainable future for aviation. And your responses to that debate will help us get it right.

  • Jack Straw – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jackstraw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Straw at Labour Party conference on 28th September 2010.

    Conference, after thirty years as an adornment on the Labour front bench I’m moving up to that most honourable of places, the back benches.

    So, this will be my last conference speech from the platform and I have been promised that no one will be removed, arrested, or even offered a place on the NEC for heckling me.

    It has been a huge privilege to serve the party and the British people in the posts I have occupied. Thank you.

    My earliest experiences as a Labour front bencher coincided with the initial impact of Margaret Thatcher’s brutal economic policy.

    Unemployment was rising fast, interest rates hit 15%, and inflation was on its way t o 22%. Never had the country needed a strong and united opposition more.

    But while the people in this country were desperately looking to us for a constructive alternative, we were busily engaged in endless bouts of self defeating internal strife.

    All people saw of Labour then, was division and disunity. A divided party is one which detaches itself from the concerns of the British people. It loses their trust and allows its political opponents free rein to scorch the earth across our social landscape.

    We allowed the Thatcher-Major governments to last eighteen years. We cannot permit the Cameron-Clegg Government more than five.

    So I’m very happy that despite the scale of our defeat in May we have begun our fight back in such a united manner.

    For that we should thank, above all, Harriet Harman, for her fantastic leadership since the election. And we should also thank the five leadership candidates who fought their corners in a way which I believe has strengthened the party.

    Now that Ed has become our leader we should all back him in the difficult task of developing our response to the Government’s cuts agenda and the social and economic damage which they will cause.

    But beware that as the cuts begin to bite, and distress and anger about them rises, so too will the tendency of some people on the left to divide.

    We mould our own future. If we are to stay relevant and electable in 2015 we have to learn the lessons of our past.

    It took years of work by Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, to undo the damage of the 1980s and reconnect us with all the people for whom this party works, recognising a fundamental truth: that we can only help the poorest and most insecure if we are in Government.

    And we can only achieve Government by building our support not only amongst the weakest in society but crucially among, as Ed has said, the squeezed middle and amongst those who feel more secure about their incomes and their place.

    Equality is the most important idea which separates us from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. We know that the countries which are healthiest, happiest and most secure are also those which offer the most equal societies.

    Equality is not uniformity. It’s not about making everything and everyone the same. It is certainly not about levelling down. It’s about recognising and celebrating that every individual is different, and entitled to an equality of rights, of dignity, of the opportunity to realise their dreams to the greatest extent.

    And equality too is about opposing private extravagance and public squalor.

    It’s because of our values of equality that Labour in Government worked tirelessly to tackle poverty, by promoting economic growth alongside a national minimum wage, tax credits and the transformation of the public’s services.

    We have to challenge the myths of Labour in power now being pedalled by the Conservatives and Mr Clegg.

    We did build more schools and hospitals; we did recruit more teachers, nurses, doctors and police officers.

    And the results were improved educational outcomes for everybody. School standards in my area alone, Blackburn with Darwen, more than doubled in a decade.

    We literally improved people’s life chances through better health care and safer streets and homes as we drove down crime. And we guaranteed individual rights regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or disability.

    One of my proudest achievements was the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which came into force ten years ago this Saturday.

    It is one of the greatest steps for equality and rights – for the individual against the state – that this nation has seen in over three centuries. And we, the Labour movement, did it.

    We introduced the strongest laws against racial discrimination and for racial equality anywhere in western Europe.

    We banned religious discrimination – opposed by the Liberal Democrats. We repealed the disgraceful section 28 – introduced by the Tories. By this, and much else, we made Britain a more tolerant and a fairer place. Never forget that.

    And keep telling your friends, your work colleagues, your neighbours, because if we don’t honour and celebrate our achievements our opponents certainly won’t do it for us.

    If you think about it, crime too is an issue of equality. Indeed an issue of class.

    The less well off you are, the more likely you are to be a victim of crime.

    There’s no liberty, no opportunity, if you feel trapped in your own home or in fear on the stree ts. And that’s why we were so committed to make people safer from crime.

    During those eighteen years of Conservative Government crime doubled. The rise in crime was disproportionately concentrated in poorer areas against poorer people; out of sight and so out of mind for the Conservatives.

    And nothing changes – now they say they’re considering the abolition of ASBOs which have made such a difference to tackling anti social behaviour.

    Conference, we were the first – the only – Government since the war not just to get crime down, but by a significant amount.

    The British people welcomed the fact that crime fell. But Conservatives and Liberal Democrats don’t. They are in denial about the figures.

    They’re now talking about changing the way crime is recorded and abolishing the most reliable series of data – the British Crime Survey. They are again tempted down the Norman Tebbitt path. Norman Tebbitt, who when faced with the relentless truth of ever r ising unemployment, changed the way it was counted not once, not twice, but 18 times.

    But they’ll find it more difficult to fiddle the figures this time, because there’s something else we did – we put the Office of National Statistics on an entirely independent footing.

    Conference, our great legacy on equal rights and public safety is at risk.

    The Liberal Democrats have conspired to put the Human Rights Act under review. The Conservatives, meanwhile, are going to cut the use of DNA technology and CCTV, and restricting the ability of the police and local communities to fight the scourge of anti-social behaviour.

    And who will benefit from this madness? There’ll be greater freedom for the criminal, less liberty for the law abiding. It’s crazy.

    The Coalition Agreement represents the worst of both parties. You’ve got Conservative ministers implementing the most dangerous of the Liberals’ policies on crime, while Liberal ministers are complicit in rushing to implement savage Conservative cuts.

    Nick Clegg has said he’s released the “inner Liberal” in many Conservatives. But Mr Cameron has undoubtedly set free the “inner Tory” in Nick Clegg.

    Nowhere is that more evident than in Mr Clegg’s willingness to go along with Conservative proposals to gerrymander the boundaries. Even senior Tories have publicly admitted that they are doing this for narrow party advantage.

    Nick Clegg boasts about his party’s commitment to localism. Guess what? His Bill bans the Boundary Commission, by law, from daring to set up any local public inquiry into boundary proposals. We’ve had the best, most bi-partisan system for settling boundaries in the western world. So good, that David Cameron used it in 2003 to defend his own West Oxfordshire boundaries and vocally to challenge those who claimed that the numbers of MPs should be cut.

    But if Nick Clegg and David Cameron don’t want to listen to the public anymore, we must not ma ke the same mistake. As Ed Miliband has said, the crucial thing is that we listen and stay connected to maintain the confidence of the vast majority of the British people.

    This is not about selling out, or any of that nonsense.

    It’s about listening, listening carefully – and putting our timeless values into ways which protect and benefit people as their lives – and their circumstances – change.

    That’s what we’ve always tried to do in my great constituency of Blackburn – you know the one, with the world’s greatest football team, one of only four ever to win the Premiership.

    We’ve now got a terrific Blackburn Labour website.

    But new forms of internet communication like this can only ever be a supplement to face-to-face engagement.

    In my constituency, we hold residents’ meetings where month in, month out, the halls are full. And soap box sessions in the Town Centre. Don’t dismiss them as “old-fashioned”. They cost next to nothing.

    Above all, they work, because there is an equality of arms, of mutual respect, amongst everyone present.

    And they work in another way. In Blackburn, Labour won against all odds in 1983.

    My majority stayed up in 2005; and this year there was a swing in Labour’s favour.

    And there are plenty of other constituencies which defied the national trend, always for the same reason – because we connected with people’s aspirations and their fears.

    We didn’t talk over them or at them – we talked with them.

    I know that our new leader, Ed Miliband has the same view.

    I also know this…with the unity this conference is demonstrating, the effectiveness we’ve seen of our party in Parliament and in the country, and with the development of new policies for new times, we do have the strength and the energy to work relentlessly over the next four and a half years for that imperative for our nation – a Labour victory in 2015.

  • Jack Straw – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jackstraw

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Secretary of State for Justice and the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, to the 2009 Labour Party conference.

    Conference.

    I’m hard wired into our party. My mum joined Labour when Clem Attlee was leader.

    I delivered my first leaflet in Loughton, Essex in 1955, the month that Winston Churchill resigned.

    I’ve been a Labour student. A Labour councillor. A Labour MP for 30 years. 12 years in the Cabinet.

    I’m still delivering leaflets – and I’ve even started blogging.

    The other day Gordon brought along to Cabinet the man who invented the internet – a Brit – Sir Tim Berners-Lee. With that great gravitas in my voice which befits an alleged elder statesman, I told the Cabinet that being introduced to Sir Tim was like meeting the inventor of the wheel.

    Quick as a flash, young Ed Miliband pipes up:

    “And what was that like Jack?!”

    Brilliant.

    And Ed’s right. I’ve been around a bit.  And there’s one thing my experience tells me: You never write off Labour.

    We’ve faced tougher times before and come through.

    We don’t shirk the challenge. And we deliver.

    Go back to 1997. If I’d told people in Blackburn then that if they got a Labour government they’d see a £120m hospital, hundreds of old homes replaced by new and affordable housing, and more than twice as many youngsters getting good GCSEs, they’d have thought I’d lost the plot.

    But we’ve delivered that and much more.

    The first government since the war to oversee a fall in crime. The Conservatives doubled it. Never forget that.

    A government which has delivered what has been called a “quiet” constitutional revolution – the Human Rights Act, FoI, devolution, independent national statistics. More open government, more power where it belongs: with the people.

    Take Lords reform as well. We removed most hereditary peers in 1999.

    Now we’ve got a bill before Parliament to end the hereditary principle once and for all.

    Soon we’ll be publishing detailed legislative proposals on a new second chamber to replace the Lords. A chamber elected by the people for the people.

    Then there’s the laws to protect the rights of the weak, the powerless, of minorities. We’ve now got the best legislation in Europe on race, religion and women, and it will be better still with Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill.

    And it’s only Labour who’s ever acted in this way. Nothing from the Tories – except for just one piece of legislation. On discrimination against gay people. You know what the Tories did? They passed a law to make that discrimination worse – it was called Section 28 and it was disgusting. We repealed it.

    Our work is not done but huge progress has been made.

    Just look at what we’ve achieved this last year in my department

    Stronger protections against forced marriage.

    Tougher enforcement of employment tribunal awards.

    Opening up family courts.

    Measures to prevent house repossessions.

    Giving local communities much more say in the criminal justice system.

    For example, last December I brought in high visibility jackets for offenders on unpaid work – Community Payback.

    Since then more than two million hours have been worked on almost 7000 such schemes and increasingly it’s the local community deciding what the offenders will do.

    Conference, we have dramatically improved services available for victims.

    We have trebled the money for that great voluntary organisation Victim Support. We’ve provided victims and witnesses with much better services in court.

    We’ve appointed an independent Victims Champion, in Sara Payne. Soon there’ll be the first Victims Commissioner.

    Now we want to go further, better to bring services for victims together.

    So I can announce today that later this year we’ll be unveiling detailed proposals to create the first ever National Victims Service. In a parallel to the way in which the Probation Service is there for the end-to-end management of offenders, the new Victims Service will be there to provide one-to-one care and support for victims of crime.

    This service will take some years before it is fully operational but we are going to make a start now. I’ve had to make lots of economies in my department but I have found the money to get this going. £2m for this year, £8.5m for next.

    Working with Victim Support, we will start with those bereaved victims whose lives have been torn apart by the murder or manslaughter of a loved one.

    Over time the service will be available to everyone who has been a victim of crime – if they want more support we will be there for them.

    This is a pioneering idea. It’s what Labour is about. Supporting those who need and most deserve our help.

    I didn’t come into politics to cut services. But for sure the taxpayer should get value for money. And sometimes that means making difficult decisions.

    We are not going to shirk from them. But we’ll act with care. Treasure the things which matter the most.

    Like our key public services. In contrast, for the Tories, public service is almost a term of abuse.

    So I say this to anyone thinking of voting Tory:

    Be careful of what you wish for. Don’t take the risk.

    We’ll make savings when we have to. The Conservatives will cut because they want to.

    Entrusting the Conservative Party to reduce the public sector deficit is like asking Sweeney Todd for a quick trim.

    George Osborne is already displaying a ghoulish enthusiasm for wielding the knife.

    He can’t wait. He can’t resist. It’s in the Tories’ DNA.

    It’s why they’ve made the wrong calls on all the big decisions throughout the recession.

    And conference, believe me people are starting to wake up to the Tory danger.

    My mum, I’m pleased to say, is still going strong, aged 88. She can’t knock on doors these days, but she’s still making the case for Labour.

    The other day a friend of hers – a lifelong Conservative – called her to say that at the age of 79 she’s made a big decision. She’s not taking the risk of voting Conservative next time.

    She’s voting for Gordon Brown because she says she believes in him.

    And if we show self belief we will win next year year.

    We all believe in this party.

    What it stands for, what it’s done, what only it can do. We have the values, the record, the policies for the future. Now we’ve got to go out and fight for them in a mother and father of a battle – and win.

  • Jack Straw – 2008 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jackstraw

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, at Labour Party conference on 21st September 2008.

    Conference, at the 1997 election, we promised that a Labour government would convict more criminals, fast-track the punishment of persistent young offenders; crackdown on neighbourhood disorder.

    We’ve not just met these promises but done much more besides.

    We never promised in 1997 to be the first government since the war to cut crime, and to do so by a third, to increase police numbers by 14,000, to reduce household burglary by 50% and car crime by almost 60%.

    But we’ve done them all – and more.

    And this record of delivery has been no accident, no lucky fluke.

    We’ve delivered because our values are the ones most likely to create safer communities.

    Fair rules, firm punishments. Rights, but also responsibilities. Deterrent, and reform.

    Tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime.

    Our approach works.

    Crime denies the most fundamental of  rights. The right to feel safe; the very right to life.

    When there are high levels of crime it’s those with the least who suffer the most.

    And never forget that when someone is the victim of a crime, they are 100% victim – and no blizzard of statistics from people like me will take that away.

    Yesterday we saw the determination of those affected by knife crime as they marched through London. We stand firm with all those who know too well the devastating impact these crimes have and as Jacqui will be spelling out  later, all of us pledge that we will relentlessly keep up our efforts to tackle it.

    Labour will always put victims and their families first.

    That’s why we are transforming criminal justice from a bureaucratic system to the public’s service.

    It’s about a change of culture, of attitude, about lifting the veil which sometimes keeps justice from view: explaining more, hiding less.

    So I’ve abolished the fees which newspapers had to pay for court lists.

    And I’m going to open up the justice system through the power of the internet, with online court records so anyone can see for themselves what happened when someone appears in the dock.

    In the very sensitive area of the family courts, I think we can shed more light whilst preserving the imperative of the welfare of the child.

    And when people receive community punishments, the public must literally be able to see them working – so we are introducing high visibility jackets for all those on such sentences.

    Prisons are obviously part of this service. Since 1997, we have increased prison places by 23,000 – a third, twice the rate of the Tories, and there’ll be another 13,000 places by 2014.

    Conference, I am passionate about getting the correct balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim.

    That’s why I said last year that we would change the law so that those who are brave enough to have-a-go against burglars or street robbers do not find themselves unfairly in the dock.

    Some were sceptical that it would happen, but we’ve done it.

    In 1997 we began a quiet revolution to transform services for victims and witnesses. In the autumn we’ll continue that with a new bill before parliament.

    Legal aid is one of Labour’s many great post war social reforms and it’s grown dramatically.

    Legal aid spending per head in England and Wales is the highest in the world. It’s as much as we spend on prisons.

    There are now three times as many lawyers in private practice but paid for by the taxpayer as there were three decades ago; the budget has grown faster than the health and education services.

    The challenge now is how better to spend these huge sums in the interests of the public and justice; something I want to do with the legal profession and local government.

    Conference, I am concerned about another element of legal services – “No win, no fee” arrangements.

    It’s claimed they have provided greater access to justice, but the behaviour of some lawyers in ramping up their fees in these cases is nothing short of scandalous.

    So I am going to address this and consider whether to cap more tightly the level of success fees that lawyers can charge.

    Conference, this autumn, building on the Human Rights Act, we will be publishing proposals for a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

    This is a further step in our programme of constitutional reform which includes giving Parliament control over war powers and treaties. And it is also achieving something that few thought possible – broad agreement across the political divide on turning the House of Lords into an elected second chamber: at long last.

    These changes are not as important as a family’s shopping bill or a community ravaged by crime.

    But they are needed. Globalisation can greatly diminish an individual’s sense of their own power to affect their and their family’s own future.

    So ensuring that citizens are better able to exercise their rights is critical to the creation of more fairness and equality.

    Fairness: it is at the heart of the Labour approach.

    I can understand why the Tories try to appropriate our language, to sugar- coat their wafer-thin agenda with the fallacy that they care about social justice.

    But we must not let them get away with it.

    What happened – or didn’t happen – between 1979 and 1997 exposes the hollowness of the protestations of today’s Tories to be the party of fairness.

    When these same people had the chance to act, to show their commitment to those things they profess today to care about, they allowed crime to double.

    They could have acted on racial hatred, they could have set up an inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence.

    They didn’t. We did.

    They could have introduced new laws to deal with anti-social behaviour.

    They didn’t. We did.

    Now, contrary to all the evidence, the Tories accuse us of creating a “broken Britain”. It shows how little they’ve changed.

    Running the country down when they were in power.

    And still trying to run it down now just to gain power.

    That’s the last thing we need at a time of global uncertainty.

    Conference, since ’97 Labour’s approach, Gordon’s approach, helped the country stride forward when conditions across the world were more placid.

    But what about now, when we face more turmoil internationally than for decades, more worry domestically than for many years?

    Does Britain need these values, our values now?

    Solidarity and support. Opportunity for all. Protection for those who are weakest.

    Conference, Britain needs these values, our values, more than ever before.

    And we will deliver.

  • Jack Straw – 2008 Speech at George Washington University

    jackstraw

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jack Straw, the then Secretary of State for Justice, at George Washington University on 15th February 2008.

    Good morning, I am honoured to be here at the magnificent George Washington University.

    This morning I want to set out some observations about the enduring and unique relationship between our two countries, and in particular to look at how our very conceptions of government and the constitution, whilst on the face of it very different, are borne out of the same root, and have to face up to the same challenge of remaining relevant in a twenty-first century democracy.

    This challenge of remaining relevant has beset every government of every age.

    It calls to mind the old adage of the man who walked into a bookshop in the French Third Republic asking for a copy of the Constitution. ‘We don’t deal in periodical literature’, the bookseller replied.

    So, in this speech, I discuss three things:

    First, our common constitutional heritage – how the US and the UK both have modernised the Magna Carta, and constantly adapted our constitutional arrangements to meet changing circumstances.

    Second, to look at some of the steps we have taken in the United Kingdom to bring our constitution into line with modern expectations: the ‘quiet revolution’ over the last decade of the Labour administrations of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

    And third, the lessons we can learn from the United States as to how we in the UK can shape the next chapter in the story of British liberty: towards a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

    Part 1: Magna Carta

    I would like to begin, where so much of our legal, governmental and social systems begin – with the Magna Carta.

    In December of last year Sotheby’s in New York sold a 1297 copy of the Magna Carta for more than million – the world’s first million bill. It is both symbolic and fitting that it has been placed on display beside the Declaration of Independence just down the road at Washington’s National Archives. These two represent perhaps the most defining constitutional documents in the Western world. Their influence on the development of democracy in the United Kingdom, the United States as around the world cannot be overstated. Along with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution they are what James Madison called the ‘political scriptures’.

    In the late eighteenth century, the Founding Fathers searched for an historical precedent for asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English Parliament. They found it in a parley which took place more than 500 years before that, between a collection of barons, and the then impoverished and despotic King John, at Runneymede in 1215. On that unremarkable field they did a remarkable thing. They demanded of the king that their traditional rights be recognised, written down, confirmed with the royal seal and sent to every county to be read aloud to all freemen.

    Let us, however, prick the illusion, that the Magna Carta was precipitated by the equivalent of thirteenth century civil rights campaigners. The Magna Carta was a feudal document – designed to protect the interests, rights and properties of powerful landowners with the temerity to stand up to the monarch. Given its provenance, it is a paradox that a document which was founded on the basis of class and self interest has over centuries become one of the basic documents for our two constitutions, and one of the icons of the universal protection of liberty.

    This is a measure of how constitutions evolve, grow, develop with changing circumstances; in this sense they can be very much like scripture. This is the process by which a document just shy of its eight-hundredth birthday still has a resonance and a relevance today. In more than 100 decisions, the United States Supreme Court has traced dependence on the Magna Carta for understanding of due process of law, trial by one’s peers, the importance of a fair trial, and protection against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. These are principles which similarly have long formed the bedrock of our system of common law in the United Kingdom – as admired as it is emulated in democracies around the world.

    I dwell on this historical point to demonstrate that in spite of the very different systems of governance in the UK and the US, there is an enduring bond between our two democracies, a shared legal culture, a common thread which can be followed back to the Magna Carta.

    At the heart of each, of both, is a powerful and everlasting idea of liberty and of rights. I often think that the commonality between us and our ideas is best reflected in the person of one man, that great Anglo-American, Thomas Paine. Paine was born and raised in a small town in the east of England called Thetford in Norfolk, but was to go on profoundly to influence the revolutions in America and France. Indeed, the name ‘the United States of America’ itself is attributed to his creation. That Paine is commonly considered among the Founding Fathers, and later was elected to the French National Convention are measures of his remarkable contribution to the dialectics of liberty.

    But though Thomas Paine’s seeds were the same wherever he sowed them, they grew. And their progeny then evolved in ground that was different, differences today reflected in very different systems of governance.

    From independence, the United States self-consciously chose to develop a system of constitutional sovereignty, to prevent the new-born nation from ever being subject to the yoke of a despotic ruler.

    As Washington himself implored: ‘that it is provided with more checks and barriers against the introduction of tyranny, and those of a nature less liable to be surmounted, than any government hitherto instituted among mortals hath possessed’.

    As with many nations which later have had to define themselves as a product of great social trauma – civil war, revolution, independence, or more recently breaking free of the shackles of apartheid – you put your belief in and structured your system of government around a set of overarching principles around which their nation could unite – a constitutional form of government.

    In the United Kingdom we have remained faithful to principle of Parliamentary sovereignty – whereby no power is pre-eminent to Parliament, where any law can be made and unmade. The Swiss constitutionalist, and contemporary of Tom Paine, Jean-Louis de Lolme described this in practice: ‘Parliament can do anything but change men into women and women into men’ he quipped.

    In an aphorism I remember from when I was studying for the equivalent of my high school exams, Ivor Jennings, a later British constitutional historian, went on to correct him: ‘like many of the remarks de Lolme made, it is wrong. For if Parliament enacted that all men should be women then they would be women so far as the law was concerned’. Such are the vagaries of the English constitution!

    Of course we have significant constitutional documents, of which the Magna Carta is only one. These include the 1689 Bill of Rights, the great Reform Acts of the 19th Century, the Parliament Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998. But in no one document can be found what is called the ‘British Constitution’. The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law.

    This divergence between the American notion of constitutional supremacy and the British doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, has, according to a predecessor of mine as Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg:

    ‘long been viewed as symbolising a fundamental difference of outlook between the United States and Britain on constitutional matters generally, and more specifically on the status of civil rights in our respective legal systems’.

    The lesson of history is that declarations of rights – what Madison described as ‘paper barriers’ – are not in themselves enough. Look at Weimar Germany or Soviet Russia. For rights to be afforded their true significance they need to have legal expression and enforcement as well as symbolic value. Judges, lawyers, politicians and philosophers from both sides of the Atlantic have been grappling with how best to provide a practical legal mechanism to access rights and an ethical framework for decision-making.

    The American constitutional system puts the individual rights of man very obviously and explicitly at its heart. The continuing challenge is therefore how to interpret the aspirational features of your constitution in such a way as to continue to provide legal protections to its citizens while remaining true to the historic purpose of its framers. The jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court (primarily) helps to constantly refresh and renew the interpretation of the Constitution. Through constant consideration and iteration, the Supreme Court has had the effect of continually breathing life into the constitution. It is not neglected but actively considered and – where necessary – renewed.

    Part 2: The ‘quiet revolution’

    The same cannot be said in the UK. The nature of our system of governance in Britain is such that constitutional amendment requires an Act of Parliament (but by no special procedure or majority). Our courts cannot change our constitution. The 1998 Human Rights Act was very careful on that point. So while the mechanism is different to the US, it remains underpinned by the same principle: constitutions must modernise to reflect the world in which they are operating.

    The gradual development of our constitution was described by the Victorian lecturer AV Dicey as ‘historic’. Bagehot, another of the British greats, described it as ‘organic’, and the ‘product of evolution rather than design’. But that does not mean it is always easily understood, nor that it is always capable of changing appropriately to meet the needs of society

    To put the constitution on a modern footing and to ensure that it is in a position to cope with the pressures facing it today necessitates regular and active constitutional maintenance. Without it, a logjam of constitutional adjustment builds up. Since 1997, when Tony Blair became Prime Minister, we have been clearing away the logjam which had accumulated. Aside, perhaps, from the years immediately prior to the First World War which saw the Parliament Act of 1911, historians have already suggested that the period since 1997 in which Labour came to power is unparalleled in the past one hundred years of our constitutional arrangements. We have staged, in the words of constitutional expert Vernon Bogdanor, a ‘quiet revolution’.

    Change in role of Lord Chancellor

    The great Victorian Prime Minister Gladstone suggested ‘that the British constitution presumes more boldly than any other the good faith of those who work it’. But good faith, for so long the ‘British way’, is no basis on which to construct a modern constitution. Changes had to be made if we were to have a system of governance in which the British public could have confidence.

    The ‘good faith’ described by Gladstone is the absence in our constitutional arrangements of a (formal) doctrine of separation of powers, one of the key areas identified by Paine and others as being a vital bulwark against tyranny. Ironically, nowhere was this constitutional anomaly more clearly seen than in the role of the office I now hold, Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor traditionally sat as part of the legislative, of the executive, and of the judiciary. He was Speaker of the House of Lords, a senior member of the Cabinet, and could, and did, sit as an appeal judge: a holy trinity of roles which contained a constitutional anachronism which had persisted for centuries, and which could not continue in any form of modern democracy.

    Montesquieu argued that ‘there is no liberty if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and the executive’. Quite what he made of the role of the Lord Chancellor, history does not record.

    But from my own perspective as the first commoner – that is an elected Member of Parliament – since Sir Christopher Hatton in the reign of Elizabeth I to be appointed Lord Chancellor I would like to add this. The separation of powers should not mean that the each ‘limb’ of state becomes dislocated. But as we move as a democracy to a model in which we enjoy a clearer separation of powers it is important that where there are connections these areas must be transparent.

    First sentencing. It is an important principle that in any fair and just society, where the rule of law is predominant, that an impartial and independent judiciary is allowed to go about its business without impediment. Judges must be given the room to make their individual decisions based on the individual merits of the cases before them – without political interference. And this interference can also take the passive form in which sentencers and politicians each try to second-guess the other. To avoid this, I believe that we need to look very closely at a system such as, with different features, successfully operates in several states here, of a sentencing commission. Officials from my department have visited Minnesota and I myself look forward to heading to Virginia tomorrow to see how their commission works. In the UK we are looking very closely at whether a longer term mechanism better to control the supply of and demand for prison places is needed. In particular, we are looking from your experience at a model in which Parliament sets the overall framework for sentences, leaving judges free to concentrate on their individual decisions, within a clear set of parameters, and with capacity of the prison system taken into account in setting the framework, but not so that it interferes, in individual cases, with the sentence handed down.

    The second specific area I would like to touch upon is the importance of maintaining accountability to Parliament via the Lord Chancellor. In a modern liberal democracy the judiciary are expected to act as a check and balance against the power of the legislature or the executive. But so too in a liberal democracy is that judiciary expected to be accountable to the public in ways which do not impinge on the fundamental principle of their independence. Accordingly such accountability is not expected to be direct – we have no interest in pursuing a route which would lead to the election of our judges – nor in a way which challenges their independence, but via the person of the Lord Chancellor, to Parliament.

    The reforms enacted through the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 combine the best of the historical role of the Lord Chancellor, a strong figure within the executive who can defend the rule of law and the independence of the judges, with changes to our constitution which reflect modern conceptions of democracy: a final court of appeal – a Supreme Court -visible to the public as a court, and not as a committee of the upper house of our legislature; a judiciary with its head – the Lord Chief Justice – appointed from within the ranks of the professional judiciary and not a politician; a transparent, non-political means of appointing judges; and a Speaker in the legislature chosen by the legislative body and not by the head of the executive.

    These reforms have provided the active maintenance that had been so needed if our constitution was to move with the times. The relationship they establish between the judges and the Lord Chancellor reflects our age. Judges should not be led by a politician. They need their own voice, and independent leadership. And it is clear that as part of this, judicial appointments must be made, and be seen to be made transparently, impartially and solely on the principle of merit.

    The Supreme Court

    Those familiar with our legal system will know that currently the final court of appeal for the UK court system is a committee of the upper legislative house, the House of Lords – the ‘Law Lords’. To be appointed a member of that court is to be appointed a member of the legislature. In an age where accessibility is paramount, the court is virtually invisible, save that it can hand its judgement down before the television cameras of the Chamber of the Lords. It works. No-one challenges its integrity or expertise. Yet it’s an odd set-up – in principle as odd as having your Supreme Court sit in the Chamber of your Senate. The Law Lords have no separate identity apart from the House of Lords. Whilst the public are entitled to attend the hearings, they are very difficult to find, and there is little thought given to the public’s attendance. The highest court in the land for far too long has been beyond the reach or understanding of a great number of the British public. As Bagehot argued as long ago as 1867 that a supreme court ‘ought not to be hidden beneath the robes of a legislative assembly’.

    As befits the constitutional trend towards the greater separation of powers, a United Kingdom Supreme Court has taken over a century before finally becoming a reality.

    There is much that we admire about the US Supreme Court and that we hope to see replicated in our own. It is a highly visible symbol of judicial authority and it is accessible to the public, appealing to the public, and important to the public. When you visit the US Supreme Court you are struck, not only by the quality of its proceedings and the authority it clearly has in the eyes of the American people, but by the huge interest in it and its deliberations from the public: lines of people outside waiting to get in to hear its deliberations, the body of the court filled to the brim with members of the public, as well as lawyers, who had managed to get in.

    The place where the court sits is important – a symbolic institution which is not visible or accessible would be pointless. Our new Supreme Court will stand proudly in one corner of Parliament Square, surrounded by, and in sight of, the other distinctive pillars of our constitution – the Houses of Parliament opposite, the Treasury on one side, and Westminster Abbey, where every King and Queen of England has been crowned since 1066, on the other side. It is a setting that is befitting a court of such significance and importance. I believe that the UK Supreme Court, at the apex of our justice system will establish itself as a court of similar world renown to that here in Washington.

     

    But there will remain differences in how the how the two courts will operate. Our constitutional arrangements will remain distinct. I make no comment here about your system, but the strength of our legal system in the UK, in part, depends on our judges being beyond politics. In seeking new constitutional arrangements we do not ignore our heritage. We have I think been able to find a solution by which the judiciary can play a visible and effective role in holding the executive to account – but to do so in a way which does not embroil them in partisan politics nor undermine the sovereignty of Parliament.

     

    Part 3: British Bill of Rights

     

    It is a few years ago now, but I remember being struck in 2002 by the results in the US of a Public Agenda national opinion poll, in which 67% interviewed said that it is was ‘absolutely essential’ for ordinary Americans to have a detailed knowledge of their constitutional rights and freedoms. And 90% of respondents agreed that since the 9/11 attacks ‘it is more important than ever to know what our constitution stands for’. The report concluded that whilst the actual text of the constitution might be very imperfectly captured in people’s heads, ‘its principles and values are alive and well in their hearts’.

     

    I would be fascinated to see what the equivalent scores would be back in Britain. I would suggest that there is a wide understanding that English constitutional documents such as the Magna Carta are profoundly important to the way we have developed as a society. And I have said before that I think that the British people have developed an innate understanding of rights which has come from a centuries-old tradition – it is in our cultural DNA. But I think that most people might struggle to put their finger on what those rights are or in which texts they are located. .

     

    The next stage in the United Kingdom’s constitutional development is to look at whether we need better to articulate those rights which are scattered across a whole host of different places, and indeed the responsibilities that go with being British.

    We can learn a great deal from the United States example, and particularly with regard to the enviable notion of civic duty that seems to flow so strongly through American veins. It is made much easier to fulfil your civic duty when you have a clear sense of to what you belong, and what it is expected from you.

    In the United Kingdom many duties and responsibilities already exist in statute, common practice or are woven into our social and moral fabric. But elevating them to a new status in a constitutional document would reflect their importance in the healthy functioning of our democracy.

    But why now? It is not because we are a society in turmoil but because we are a society in flux. We live in a modern, individualistic, consumerist age, in which old social classes have eroded. Much of this is welcome. But the consumer society has shifted attitudes in ways that also present us with some challenges. As the political scientist Meg Russell has said:

    ‘It is difficult to find anything more antithetical to the culture of politics than the contemporary culture of consumerism. While politics is about balancing diverse needs to benefit the public interest, consumerism is about meeting the immediate desires of the individual. While politics requires us to compromise and collaborate as citizens, consumerism emphasises unrestrained individual freedom of choice.’

    In the civic sphere, it has arguably given rise to the commoditisation of rights, which have become perceived as yet more goods to be ‘claimed’. This is demonstrated in how some people seek to exercise their rights in a selfish way without regard to others – which injures the philosophical basis of inalienable, fundamental human rights. Alongside that, some people resent the rights that are afforded to fellow humankind – we see this is in the media uproar around human rights being a ‘terrorist’s charter’ or there for the benefit of unpopular minorities alone.

    In this individualistic age, we would do well to remind ourselves of first principles: that rights come with duties.

    This is hardly a new concept. Thomas Paine declared that:

    ‘A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a Declaration of Duties also. Whatever is my right as a man, is also the right of another, and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.’

    I fully understand that there is not, and cannot be an exact symmetry between rights and responsibilities. In a democracy, rights tend to be ‘vertical’ – guaranteed to the individual by the state to constrain the otherwise overweening power of the state. Responsibilities, on the other hand, are more ‘horizontal’ – they are the duties we owe to each other, to our ‘neighbour’ in the New Testament sense. But they have a degree of verticality about them too, because we owe duties to the community as a whole.

    In seeking to bringing greater clarity and status to the relationship between the citizen, the state and the community, we in the UK have to be constantly mindful of the scope and extent of their justiciability. I entirely agree with the words of former Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham (now the Senior Law Lord) when he said that the importance of predicatability in law must preclude ‘excessive innovation and adventurism by the judges’. That was echoed by Justice Heydon of the High Court of Australia who suggested that judicial activism, taken to extremes, could spell the death of the rule of law.

    If, for instance, economic and social rights were part of our new Bill, but did not become further justiciable, this would not in any way make the exercise worthless. This city is a living testament to the power of symbols. As the jurist Philip Alston described, Bills of Rights are ‘a combination of law, symbolism and aspiration’. What he makes clear is that the formulation of such a Bill is not a simple binary choice between a fully justiciable text on the one hand, or a purely symbolic text on the other. There is a continuum. And it is entirely consistent that some broad declarative principles can be underpinned by statute. Where we end up on this continuum needs to be the subject of the widest debate.

    A Bill of Rights and Responsibilities could give people a clearer idea of what we can expect from the state and from each other, and provide an ethical framework for giving practical effect to our common values.

    Conclusion

    In an enabling state, in a democratic society, it is far more than the law which binds us together. But the law has a powerful role to play. In Britain, we are alone with Israel and New Zealand, among all of the developed countries in the world, in not having a codified constitution – by this I mean a single overarching source of law. And much of what we regard as our unwritten constitution is contained in ordinary laws which can be changed by ordinary legislative process and in conventions (Gladstone’s ‘good-faith’). The introduction of the Human Rights Act was a landmark in the development of rights in the UK, setting the liberties we enjoy on a constitutional footing. But the question which we are now putting to the British people is – whether this goes far this enough? The ‘quiet revolution’ has brought about greater clarity in our constitutional arrangements, but we need now to think very carefully about whether a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities should be a step towards a fully written constitution, which would bring us in line with most progressive democracies around the world. But that is a debate for another time.

    In Britain, we have not had to struggle for self-determination or nationhood; nor for three and half centuries have we been torn apart by social strife. We do not wear our freedom on our sleeves in the same way as here in the United States, or Canada, or South Africa.

    But, do we in Britain value these rights less as a result? I don’t think so.

    I think an innate understanding of rights is a part of our national psyche, it is the amniotic fluid in which we have grown, so too is an inchoate appreciation, at least, of the obligations we have to each other. But we could make them better understood.

    If a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities which clarifies this relationship is to be more than a legal document and become a ‘mechanism for unifying the population’, it is vital that it is owned by the British people and not just the lawyers. For it to have real traction with the British people they must have an emotional stake in, and connection with it. We have to make a reality of constitutional expert Professor Francesca Klug’s assertion that the true meaning of human rights is about providing ‘a framework of ethical values driven not just by the ideals of liberty, autonomy and justice, but also by normative values like dignity, equality and community’.

    There is a careful balance to maintain; between preserving the UK’s constitutional heritage on the one hand, and running the risk of our public institutions becoming antiquated on the other. And in this there is much we can learn from you.

    That here in the United States a single framework of government can and has endured the changes necessary in taking the United States from an isolationist, agrarian nation of 3.5 million people in 1789 to an industrialised, international hyper-power with a population nearly 70 times larger today testifies to its adaptability and durability. In this sense, longevity means success. What better judge than Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

    ‘[The US] Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why [the US] constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced.’

    Thank you.

  • Jack Straw – 2007 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    jackstraw

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, to the 2007 Labour Party conference.

    Conference, justice is the starting point of everything we stand for; central to our aims and values.

    So I am very proud to be leading the new Ministry of Justice.

    Delivering my programme depends on an excellent ministerial team: Michael Wills, David Hanson, Maria Eagle, Bridget Prentice and Philip Hunt.

    On working with the law officers, Patricia Scotland and Vera Baird; with Ed Balls and Bev Hughes on youth justice; and above all with Jacqui Smith, Labour’s first, indeed, the very first, woman home secretary.

    I’d like here to pay tribute to the assured and thoughtful way Jacqui has taken on one of the most difficult jobs in government.

    If the post of home secretary is a venerable one, mine as lord chancellor is positively ancient.

    The office dates back to the Dark Ages. Some say it’s still stuck there.

    Well, you can tell how modern it is from the dress I’ll have to wear on state occasions – embroidered gown, frock coat, breeches, buckled shoes, silk tights.

    But comrades, you should know that in a key step on the forward march to socialism, I’m dispensing with the wig.

    Conference, the first duty of the state is to protect the public and to deliver a just society, and the first duty of the citizen in a democracy is to respect their neighbour and obey the law.

    At the heart of our rule of law are our courts.

    The British judiciary are among the very best in the world, unrivalled for their integrity, their professionalism, and their readiness to embrace change.

    Britain is fast becoming the legal centre of the world not by accident, but by merit.

    Last year the legal services sector generated 2% of our GDP.

    For criminal justice, there have been major reforms over the last 10 years – better to balance the system towards victims, witnesses, and law-abiding citizens, to face the criminal with the fact that there’s only one person responsible for their criminal behaviour – themselves.

    Crime is down by a third since 1997 after doubling under the Conservatives.

    The chance of being a victim of crime is lower than 25 years ago.

    But that is cold comfort for those who have suffered from crime.

    Too often in the past, the voice of the victim, especially of the bereaved, was not properly heard in court.

    But following the recent piloting of the Victims’ Advocate Scheme, from Monday, crown prosecutors across England and Wales will be speaking up for the victims in homicide and death-by-driving cases, and we will be looking to extend this.

    And so that local communities can be more involved in their courts, my department is preparing to publish regular performance information on the courts.

    When people are convicted we have to ensure they are properly punished.

    We have provided an additional 20,000 prison places – twice the rate of the Conservatives – and plans are in hand for a further 9,500.

    We are working doubly hard to stop prisoners re-offending, to get them off drugs and into skills and a job – to stay out of trouble.

    I pay tribute to our prison officers and probation officers who have this task.

    Conference, enforcing the law, securing justice, is not just a matter for “them” – courts, prisons, probation service, police; but for all of us.

    How each of us reacts if we encounter a burglar or a street robber has to be a matter of individual discretion – and there’s a critical line between responsibility and recklessness.

    I know from personal experience that you have all of a millisecond to make the judgement about whether to intervene.

    In such a situation, the law on self-defence works much better than most people think, but not as well as it could or should.

    The justice system must not only stand up, but be seen to be standing up for people if they do the right thing as good citizens.

    So I intend urgently to review the balance of the law to ensure that those who seek to protect themselves, their loved ones, their homes and other citizens, know that the law really is on their side – that we back those who do their duty.

    It is from our mutual obligations that the rights we have must flow.

    That was well understood by those who inspired and drafted the European Convention on Human Rights. They were British lawyers -senior Conservatives, as it happens.

    That was also well understood by the first MPs who called for the European Convention to be brought into British law. Again, they were senior Conservatives.

    The Convention, the Human Rights Act, set out values which are British above all.

    Their language echoes down the corridors of our history, as far back as the Magna Carta – the right to life, the right to a fair trial, the right to marry, the right to free speech.

    Only today’s Conservatives, in their political confusion and intellectual meltdown, would contemplate abandoning these rights. We will not do so.

    Instead, we are developing and consulting on a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, which will build on the Human Rights Act and which would bring out more clearly the responsibilities we owe to each other – above all to observe the law and to respect the rights of others.

    This British bill and the consultation with it is part of the major programme of constitutional change which Gordon Brown announced in his first key statement to Parliament as prime minister.

    This programme is about what it means to be British.

    Most other countries have, through the traumas of revolution, occupation, colonisation have had to argue what it means to be a citizen.

    We have escaped these traumas, but we’ve escaped the argument too, so that we have only an instinct but not an articulation of what it means to be British.

    So as part of this work we will be launching a great public debate on a British Statement of Values. There’s one other thing which we are determined to do.

    To end the “royal prerogative” as the main source of government powers – that ghostly, rattling presence from the divine rights of kings, which should have no place in a modern democracy.

    So power over the civil service, power over treaties, and power over war and peace will be based not on Henry VIII’s or Charles I’s idea of power, but on Parliament’s and the people’s.

    Conference, this programme of constitutional change is not an abstract, academic exercise – it’s got a direct practical purpose, of value to everyone in this land.

    As Jacqui will be spelling out, we are determined to take immediate action to fight crime and disorder, to make our communities safe.

    But we also know that the communities with the lowest crime are most likely to be the ones with the most active citizens.

    Citizens who are inspired by a sense of belonging, shared values, and duty to others; by a sense of justice.

    And it is justice, great and small, that I am determined to deliver.