UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • John Hutton – 2004 Speech on Leadership in the NHS

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton on 15th October 2004.

    Good morning and welcome to this important national conference on how the NHS can become an organisation that practices as well as preaches the benefits of being an equality employer. I want to congratulate the Leadership Centre in taking this particular initiative. And I want to thank all of you for the contribution you are making to help the NHS realise the potential of all its staff – whoever they are and wherever they are from. Because this will not only help to open up new career opportunities and challenges for our employees. It can help to improve patient care and the patient experience as well. This must be our top priority at all times.

    I don’t want to make a long formal speech this morning. I’d prefer instead to listen to what you have to say about how things are going and what more we need to do. But there are a few things I would like to say.

    Our society is still scarred by social and economic disadvantage as well as by health inequalities.  Where a baby boy born in Manchester today will live 7 years less than a baby born in Dorset.  Where those from minority ethnic backgrounds experience more health problems than other sections of society. Where unemployment rates for disabled people are double those of non –disabled people – affecting their health and long term well-being.  The NHS exists to help tackle and overcome some of these fundamental disadvantages. If we are to succeed in overcoming these health inequalities, we have to be serious about tackling race inequality as well because we know there is a connection between the two. We have to do this both in the provision of health care services as well as the way in which we employ people from black and minority ethnic communities.

    In this context it is critically important that the NHS builds equality and diversity into the way it delivers services, supports communities and draws on the talents of the whole population.  I think we are making some progress. Initiatives such as Improving Working Lives and Positively Diverse were designed to bring about real improvements inside the NHS with clear standards, good practice guidance and practical support.

    But there is more we need to do. This work needs sustained focus – on the needs of patients from all communities as our consultation on choice is bringing out and on the way that staff are developed and supported. Alongside this we need strong leadership, clear standards and transparent routine monitoring so that we can chart our progress and benchmark ourselves against the best. And I want the NHS to be the best employer when it comes to equality and diversity issues. I want us to set the standard. I want you to be in the lead. But we have more to do if we want the NHS to be the employer we know it can be.

    Earlier this month I launched Equalities and Diversity in the NHS. This makes the casefor diversity, recognises the progress made, provides many examples of innovative practice, and sets out key challenges and priorities. Every NHS organisation can use it to review its progress in championing greater equality and diversity and to see how it can accelerate this agenda.

    Why is this so important? Let me remind you of the facts.

    The 2001 Census showed that people from black and minority ethnic communities make up 7.9% of the population in England. They make up 8.4% of the total NHS workforce. So far so good. But people from black and minority ethnic communities make up less than 1% of our chief executives and only 3% of our executive directors. Out of over 400 Directors of Nursing only 16 are black. And yet 9.3% of nurses are from black and minority ethnic communities.

    There are some promising signs. We are drawing in talent from a range of backgrounds – 18% of last year’s intake on to the Graduate Management Training Scheme for example came from black and minority ethnic backgrounds as did 12% of NHS non executives. But the bottom line is that too many of our talented people lack opportunities for career progression, feel that their special skills and experiences are undervalued and, critically, experience racism and discrimination. This is unacceptable. This is what we must change.

    Equalities and Diversity in the NHS provides a framework for doing this. At its heart are challenges around leadership and cultural change – the focus of today’s conference.

    We hear a lot about leadership. But leadership can’t just be something we only talk about. It is something we need to do. Good leadership means better services. Better services means meeting the needs of local communities as well as meeting important national standards. We believe that investing now in our leaders of the future will help the NHS meets it challenges on equality and diversity.

    The NHS needs robust and visible leadership and accountability at all levels in respect of equality and diversity. This means creating a working environment that respects and values all staff and fostering an organisational culture to reflect these values in all aspects of work. It calls for changes in attitude and changes in behaviour. It needs real leadership from the most senior levels in organisations.

    The NHS also needs more diversified leadership. There is no quick fix to this. It requires sustained and systematic effort to enable people from diverse backgrounds to take on senior leadership roles, particularly at Board level. This is what the NHS must become committed to.

    A more diverse leadership will be more alert to the talent, skills, experience and enthusiasm of all staff. Experience in other sectors suggests it will encourage new ways of engaging with diverse communities. It should  inspire staff to recognise the importance of affording patients respect and dignity because of their religion and culture when they are at their most vulnerable. A more diverse and representative leadership should encourage people at the start of their careers to consider the NHS as an employer of choice, because it recognises and brings on all talent.

    To support their progress into senior leadership roles, it is vital that BME staff have access to high-quality and credible development opportunities. I am therefore pleased today to mark the launch of the first national leadership development programme for black and minority ethnic staff.

    Developed by the NHS Leadership Centre, the programme will provide leadership and personal development opportunities for BME staff wishing to move into senior positions. It builds on the findings of Getting on Against the Odds – research published by the Centre in 2002 into the barriers experienced by nursing staff from black and minority ethnic communities in progressing into management and leadership roles.

    It is specifically designed for people in middle or senior management positions who want to take on more responsibility as a senior leaders in the NHS.  It is for people who understand leadership issues, and who have the motivation and commitment to engage in a challenging development programme. It looks at the role of senior leaders in delivering service improvement within the context of experiences of black and minority ethnic staff in the NHS.

    The Programme will offer a range of development opportunities for BME and non-BME staff, at different stages in their career. 80 people will be given the opportunity to participate in the programme between January and March next year, rising to 240 people in the following 12 months. We are allocating £1.5 millions to this programme in 2004-2005, with plans to continue funding for a further two years.

    The programme has been developed in collaboration with BME staff across the NHS. At a conference earlier this year, BME staff told the Leadership Centre why this sort of programme is so important to them. You said that when managers were nominating people for training programmes, your names were not put forward. You said that when jobs were advertised, you were not encouraged to apply. You said that when interesting job opportunities arose, they were not offered to you. You said you wanted a high-quality programme that would give you the skills to take on the most senior roles. That would help you manage difficulties you experienced at work as BME staff. That would give you a clear and practical help in progressing in your career.

    You also wanted the chance to learn and develop with non-BME staff. As you felt you did not have access to mainstream programmes, you wanted non-BME staff to come and learn with you. Therefore the Breaking Through programme will offer the option of mixed modules, as well as modules only for BME staff. This has many benefits. This programme will be seen as a mainstream programme by employers and colleagues. It gives non-BME staff the chance to see their organisation and their services from a different perspective. To take new ways of working back into the workplace. To engage with experiences of racism and discrimination and be part of a culture to change those experiences in the future.

    This programme is based on the feedback and input the Leadership Centre has received from BME staff over the last 9 months. As well as influencing the design, BME staff have been involved in selecting the organisations who will provide the programme, and will continue to be involved in developing and shaping the programme over time.

    To support this national programme, the Leadership Centre will also work closely with Strategic Health Authorities and NHS trusts wishing to run their own local development programmes.

    But this programme on its own is not enough. The Leadership Centre will also ensure that all its other programmes address equality and diversity and encourage applications from minority groups. Through NHS Leaders – the first systematic career development and succession planning scheme in the NHS launched earlier this year – we will be able to track talent from diverse backgrounds and help people to reach the most senior positions in the service.

    All NHS organisations should be seeking out and spotting talent amongst their black and minority ethnic staff. All should be developing a culture where staff are supported and developed whatever their background. The Leadership Centre will be working with NHS organisations to ensure that BME staff are put forward for mainstream programmes, that they are offered development opportunities. That their potential and talent is noticed.

    Over the next few years time I hope to see many of you in the audience in the most senior roles, leading our NHS organisations into the future.

    It is fitting that this conference is taking place in Black History month – a time to celebrate the part that black and minority ethnic communities have played in making Britain what it is today. The contributions of staff from black and minority ethnic communities to the NHS is immense. They have played a crucial role in the care and treatment of patients over the years. Without this contribution the NHS would not have achieved what it has and would not be the organisation it is today.

    But your contribution is not just historical. It is on-going. People from Black and minority communities contribute every day to the well-being of our society and to the success of the NHS in particular. I would like to express my respect and admiration to all the staff from black and minority ethnic communities who have put so much into the NHS since its inception in 1948. Often in the face of racism and abuse.

    But we should now look to the future. I hope we can do this with in the knowledge that what must count in the NHS is not who you are or where you are from. But what you can do. What you can offer. How you can help us make the NHS the service we all want it to be. Successful. Growing. Better able to meet the needs of today’s society and all those who live in this country. This is our ambition for the NHS. Help us realise it.

  • Douglas Hurd – 1990 Speech on the Gulf War

    Below is the text of the statement made by the then Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, on the Gulf War on 11th December 1990.

    Mr. Hurd : It is right that the House should debate the Gulf crisis from time to time and that it should require the Government to keep it fully informed, and I have tried to respond to Opposition suggestions on the timing of statements as the situation has developed.

    Today is an occasion to step back from immediate events, to look at the crisis as a whole and to consider what is at stake. One immediate event is wholly welcome, and that is the release of hostages which is now under way. The total British community in Iraq and Kuwait was just over 1,100 at the time of President Saddam Hussein’s last announcement. Aircraft have been chartered from Iraqi Airways to bring our people home and we have taken space on charters organised by others. The community were informed of arrangements by our embassies and announcements over the BBC World Service.

    Ninety-three people arrived early yesterday morning, picked up in Frankfurt by the British Airways aircraft that had been waiting in Amman. A further 11 arrived later in the morning by way of Rome. More than 380 arrived at Gatwick yesterday evening by Iraqi Airways and a further 380 are expected this evening. They will be mainly members of the community from Kuwait who were being taken to Baghdad in two planes this morning by Iraqi Airways. Her Majesty’s Government are bearing the full cost of chartering the Iraqi Airways aircraft. British Airways generously contributed the operating costs of its flight yesterday, leaving the Government to pay for fuel and war risk insurance. Other people are making their own way, using scheduled flights via Amman. The Government will meet the costs if travellers do not have recourse to funds and we shall organise further charters if necessary. We are strongly urging everyone to leave.

    Our embassy in Baghdad will try to establish the exact whereabouts of all who remain. I believe that reception arrangements here have worked well and that co-operation between Government Departments, voluntary organisations and airport authorities has been good.

    In two days from now, Her Majesty’s ambassador in Kuwait will be the last remaining ambassador carrying on his duties in that country. Mr. Weston and his colleague Mr. Banks have been keen to stay at their posts, so long as by doing so they could give somehelp to our community in Kuwait. If, as I hope, that community—or all but a small minority who wish to stay—is able to return—is able to return to Britain by way of Baghdad in the coming days, we shall work out with those two brave men how long they should stay. I thank them again for what they have done.

    I will comment on the advice that we are giving to British communities in the Gulf region outside Iraq and Kuwait. We are talking of some 50,000 people, more than the community from any other country. At the beginning of the crisis we encouraged some thinning out, but many people have since, for understandable reasons, gone back. At the end of last month, we recommended that school children should not travel out to Bahrain, Qatar or the eastern province of Saudi Arabia for Christmas and that families should get together for the holiday in this country. We also advised that those dependants leaving the Gulf for Christmas should not return until the situation became clearer. We look carefully and constantly at that advice. It is our duty to give the communities the best possible advice, a responsibility which weighs heavily on us. We do not want to cause alarm, disrupt people’s lives or separate families unnecessarily. But many British people live in countries which, in the event of conflict, would be at direct risk from Iraqi military action. We keep a close eye on the advice and, because of hon. Members’ interest in their constituents, I shall keep the House fully informed of any changes in our advice.

    President Saddam Hussein is now complying with one of the three main requirements of the Security Council. Attention can now focus on the other two requirements —the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate Government. Ten days ago I was in New York to join in the last Security Council debate on the subject. It was a notable and dramatic occasion. The council adopted, with just two votes against, resolution 678, which empowers the international community to use “all necessary means” to secure compliance with its earlier resolutions if Iraq does not leave Kuwait on or before 15 January next year.

    Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) rose——

    Mr. Hurd : May I just proceed a little further, and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before I leave the subject of the use of force? The phrase “all necessary means” includes the use of force. Resolution 678 is not a call to arms or a timetable for military action. The resolution provides for what it calls a pause of goodwill. That was an idea of the Soviet Government. It gives Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to leave peacefully. We hope he takes it.

    We support the United States initiative to make sure that Iraq’s leaders hear the message loudly and clearly. We agree that, in the effort to avoid war, it is worth going that extra mile. I discussed how that might be done with Secretary Baker and the Foreign Ministers of the other permanent members of the Security Council while I was in New York on 29 November, just after the adoption of resolution 678. President Bush and Secretary Baker will not be bargaining. Their purpose is to speak plainly so that Iraq’s leaders understand exactly what is required of them, not by America or Britain, but by the international community, and the consequences if they continue to defy those requirements.

    There will be no concessions on the requirements of the Security Council, no partial solution or linkage to other issues. In the European Community last week we decided that the same message would be delivered to the Foreign Minister of Iraq after his visit to Washington by the Presidency of the European Community, probably in Rome.

    Mr. Dalyell : Does it bother the Foreign Secretary that one of the two countries that voted against the resolution was one which is nearest and stands to lose most—Yemen —whereas others such as Zaire, where I led the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation, made it quite clear that the crisis is all about lifting the ban on American aid to Zaire on civil rights grounds, not about the merits or demerits of the Gulf? Will the Foreign Secretary look critically at what the United Nations has done?

    Mr. Hurd : The two members that voted against were Cuba and Yemen. I am not sure that Cuba is situated very close to the conflict. Yemen, as an Arab country, has been closely involved, but is not one of those countries closest to the conflict. As the hon. Member knows, the Arab countries closest to the conflict—Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates—are absolutely clear and solid on the matter. The hon. Member is not on a good argument.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

    Mr. Hurd : I shall continue a little and then give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a minute.

    Mr. Benn : I just want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one clear legal question.

    Is it the Government’s view that article 51, plus the resolution passed by the Security Council last Thursday, constitute authority for the use of force by the United States, Britain and others without returning to the Security Council or to the House of Commons?

    Mr. Hurd : Yes, it is. We believed, and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen agreed, that article 51 and the original request from the Kuwaitis provided a legal basis; the argument was about whether there should be an additional political basis. That has been supplied by resolution 678.

    We continue to read in the media that the unity of purpose in the coalition against aggression is disintegrat-ing. We have read such reports more or less continuously ever since the coalition was formed. Sometimes it is the Arabs in the coalition, sometimes it is the French or the Russians, and sometimes it is the Americans, who, according to the reports, are looking for some compromise that falls short of the requirements of the Security Council. Now, after these weeks, the House can judge for itself and see that that is not true. We are all working for a peaceful outcome. None of us is ready to settle for less than the Security Council requires.

    As for linkage, it is common ground between most of us that we have long supported the idea of an international conference on the Arab-Israel problem. That support continues. A conference is a technique, not an end in itself. It needs willing participants if it is to get anywhere. The initiative—Jim Baker’s initiative—taken by the United States Government with our support was designed to find a basis on which talks could take place between Israel and the Palestinians, with a view to a conference in due course. That was before the invasion of Kuwait. We believe that the Baker plan was a realistic effort. The invasion of Kuwait set back that search for peace and a settlement between the Arabs and Israel, as did the partial support of the PLO for the invasion. We have no intention, however, of forgetting the injustices and insecurity that persist so long as there is no peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel problem.

    Iraq under President Saddam Hussein has had and could have no useful contribution to make to this search for a peaceful settlement, but once the Iraqis’ aggression against Kuwait has been reversed we can and shall again focus our efforts on the search for a peaceful settlement. I hope that the co-operation in recent months between the different countries of the coalition against the aggression will improve the prospects of success.

    Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Given the emphasis on the need to find a peaceful settlement, why do the Government and President Bush appear so impatient with sanctions? Surely, even if they take more than a year to work, they are a much more effective, humane and peaceful means of bringing this man down than the sacrifice of even one British service man.

    Mr. Hurd : I am just coming to that argument; it is a serious one and it needs to be dealt with.

    I come now to the pressures that the international community—not just British and America—is exerting on Iraq. More than four months after the aggression, those pressures are all peaceful. The most important of them are sanctions, mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), and the build-up of allied forces representing the so-called military option. There are signs in Iraq that sanctions are having an effect. Basic foodstuffs have been rationed since September. But the Iraqi people are used to hardship. They endured eight years of one of the most bloody and futile wars since 1945 —the Iraq-Iran war. It must be questionable whether sanctions, even if applied over a long period, will undermine the resolve of Saddam Hussein to keep his grip on Kuwait.

    Meanwhile—the point omitted by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—day by day Kuwait is being obliterated from the map. We can read what the hostages are saying as they come back and we can read the Amnesty report and listen to the Kuwaitis. There is no secret about what is happening. Whatever can be removed has been taken to Baghdad. Murder, torture and brutality have been commonplace, as the Amnesty report and later evidence shows. With each day that passes, the likelihood that we shall be able to restore Kuwait to its former position decreases. The Iraqi aim is clear. Iraq is out to eradicate Kuwait as an independent nation. We all welcome the return of foreign hostages from Iraq, as we have just done, but we should not forget the thousands of Kuwaitis who are virtually hostages and prisoners in their own city.

    President Saddam Hussein’s sophisticated war machine will continue to take advantage of the time allowed to improve its military position. There are now nearly 300,000 Iraqi troops and nearly 2,000 tanks in Kuwait, and work continues every day on improving the defences. Every delay risks increasing the casualties in an eventual conflict. Those are sobering facts which the House needs to take into account in assessing the situation.

    Sir Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead) : What will happen to the Iraqi civilians now in Kuwait? Will they be removed? I refer to civilians, not military personnel.

    Mr. Hurd : If the Iraqi forces withdrew as the Security Council requires, I imagine that the civilians would be wise to follow them.

    Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) : The Foreign Secretary has said that, because of the enormity of what is taking place in Kuwait, the British Government and other Governments are not inclined to allow sanctions to have a proper chance to work. What is happening in Kuwait is very disturbing, but it will be disastrous for the population of Kuwait if war breaks out there. That is the choice. As the impact of sanctions was always to be on the Iraq Government’s overseas earnings from oil, from which they obtain 95 per cent. of their income, it is surely reasonable to allow the sanctions a proper chance to work. That will certainly not happen as a result of the months in which they have so far been applied.

    Mr. Hurd : It depends what the hon. Gentleman regards as a proper chance. By 15 January the sanctions will have been in operation for five and a half months and an assessment has to be made. I have tried to give the House the means by which that assessment will be made. Members will have their own sources of information. People may say that sanctions are producing decisive shortages which may lead to Saddam Hussein changing his mind. That would produce a new situation, but, as I have said, in our our view that is not so.

    In August Her Majesty’s Government committed their forces to the Gulf region for a number of reasons. The first was to defend Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. The second was to deter Saddam Hussein from pursuing his military adventure further. Many other countries, including some of our closest friends and allies, have committed their forces with the same intentions. Those two objectives of defence and deterrence have already been achieved without any military action.

    The third reason for sending our troops to the region was to back the United Nations demand—not that of Britain or America—that Saddam Hussein should withdraw from Kuwait. By the middle of January, Britain will have more than 30,000 troops in the area and they will stand beside more than 500,000 others, most of them from the United States and Saudi Arabia itself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will speak further about that deployment in his winding-up speech. I am satisfied that this accumulation of allied force provides the strongest single hope for a peaceful outcome. Nevertheless—there is no point in having debates such as this if one does not speak plainly—this country faces a risk of war and in that situation every hon. Member is entitled to know on behalf of his or her constituents why that risk is justified. In the age of the sound-bite and the one-minute television interview, this task of communication becomes difficult. Secondary matters crowd in and confuse the issue and immediate questions are put and answered. That is why the House and our debates are so important.

    It is not a question of who should rule Iraq—that is not a matter for us. It is not a matter of the price of oil or access to oil. If that were the issue, everyone would have settled with Saddam Hussein long ago. It is not a matter of an American—let alone a British—desire to impose some permanent presence in the Gulf. As the House knows, we are there because friendly states out of their alarm and anxiety asked us to return. The real issue is a different one and we must keep it clear.

    It has taken the world a long time to create even the beginnings of a system of collective security. In the 19th century, war was commonplace. The nation states of Europe blundered through treaties of alliance and treaties of reassurance into the great war of 1914. After that war, the international community experimented, but half-heartedly, with collective security. But the League of Nations was inadequate at its birth and it failed to act successfully even within its terms of reference.

    Haile Selassie came to Geneva, to the League of Nations Assembly, to plead his country’s cause. The League did not—could not—listen. We did not listen. The Hoare-Laval pact would have placated the aggressor, Mussolini, by giving him part of the country that he had attacked. Are there not echoes there for the House to catch? is it for a repetition of the Hoare-Laval pact that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is seeking and arguing? Abysinnia was snuffed out. The axis powers saw only weakness —

    Mr. Benn : As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, will he give way?

    Mr. Hurd : May I just conclude the point?

    [HON. MEMBERS: “Give way.”]

    I will, of course, give way.

    Mr. Benn : The first speech that I heard in the House was in 1937 when Winston Churchill denounced the Tory Prime Minister for his support for the fascists. The appeasement of the pre-war years was Conservative support for Hitler and Mussolini. There was no appeasement—there was active support for fascism. It does not fall to the right hon. Gentleman, who did nothing about Panama, Grenada, the invasion of the Lebanon or the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey, to accuse those who believe that war would be a catastrophe beyond imagining, and that the United Nations should be an agent of peace, of appeasement, and he should withdraw that.

    Mr. Hurd : I do not remember, but the right hon. Gentleman might remember—or his father and my father might remember—that when it became known that Sir Samuel Hoare, the holder of my office, had put together with the French Foreign Minister, Pierre Laval, an arrangement by which part of Abyssinia would be given to Mussolini, so that the awkwardness of his aggression should be forgotten, the Foreign Secretary was forced to resign and was swept from office.

    Mr. Benn : I have made no such suggestion.

    Mr. Hurd : I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman remembered. Some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested come close to that.

    Mr. Benn : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am in no way sensitive about my personal position, but when the Foreign Secretary argues, by parallel with the Conservative Foreign Secretary, Sam Hoare, that I have argued that a part of Kuwait should be handed to Iraq, he is misleading the House and the country.

    Mr. Speaker : With any luck, the right hon. Gentleman will be called in the debate and he will be able to make his points then.

    Mr. Hurd : If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he agrees with us that Saddam Hussein should withdraw completely and totally from the whole of Kuwait, I will withdraw any reference—

    Mr. Benn : Withdraw it now.

    Mr. Hurd : I would certainly withdraw any reference to the right hon. Gentleman. But there are certainly people who have argued that Iraq should be allowed to retain at least part of Kuwait—two islands, an oilfield, and so on. If the right hon. Gentleman is not among those, and if he is in favour of total Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, I withdraw my reference to him.

    Mr. Benn : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I spent three hours with Saddam Hussein. I reported back to the right hon. Gentleman and to the American ambassador. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well, because I told him, that I told President Saddam Hussein that Iraq must comply with the United Nations resolutions, and it is in the early-day motion which I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have tabled. The right hon. Gentleman is doing what Tories always do in a crisis—they smear those who challenge them.

    Mr. Hurd : I withdraw my reference to the right hon. Gentleman —

    Mr. Benn : Withdraw.

    Mr. Hurd : I have already done so. But I hope that it will go out as the clear view of the House that President Saddam Hussein should withdraw not from part but from the whole of his aggression against Kuwait. If that is established as the universal view of the House, that is a major step forward.

    Mr. Benn : But not to war.

    Mr. Hurd : I shall come to that in a minute, though I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not blurring his position again. I hope that it is established that the withdrawal from Kuwait should be total and absolute.

    For the 40 years of the cold war, the Security Council worked imperfectly and too often it was ineffective. Things have started to change and we have begun to make the United Nations work. All five permanent Security Council members are meeting frequently, talking openly and acting constructively together. We have the same aims. In fact, we have a better chance of collective security than at any other time this century. But there is a subscription to pay —if one may so put it—for collective security, in terms of collective action when aggression occurs. There can be little respect for those who want the benefits of collective security but are not willing to find that subscription.

    Some senior hon. Members have fought in a war, but most of us have not. However, we all have enough imagination and sense of responsibility to know that war must be the last resort. No one should believe—here I agree with points made by Opposition Members—that forcing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait would be a quick or easy operation. No one should suppose that the aftermath of conflict would be painless or straightforward. We respect the belief held by pacifists that in no circumstances is war justified, even though that means that aggression and evil of all kinds may sometimes be allowed to succeed. The rest of us—probably most right hon. and hon. Members—accept that there are circumstances in which peace-loving nations may, and indeed should, use force to prevent and to reverse aggression.

    We do not argue that in any blithe or careless manner. We prepare the military option, we seek and we gain authority for the military option because in sober judgment we see the experience of that option—the possibility of that option, the existence of that option—as the last and most powerful peaceful pressure on the aggressor.

    The latest Security Council resolution—resolution 678 —is not a bluff. The legal authority to use force has been there for some time and the political authority has now been given by the Security Council. That is the strongest possible expression of collective security.

    Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of collective security and to stress the need to prepare to use force if Iraq does not withdraw from Kuwait. Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence make it equally clear that if war comes, it is likely to be protracted and bloody, and will not only engage British forces already in the Gulf but make it necessary to mobilise appropriate reserves, including air reserves? As it is likely to be largely an air war, the air element will decide the outcome of the conflict. The United Kingdom has very poor air reserves, but the United States has utilised 45 per cent. of its air transport to the Gulf from its reserves. Will my right hon. Friend make a similar commitment at this time?

    Mr. Hurd : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will deal with that point when he winds up the debate. One cannot predict with any exactness the length of a conflict of this kind. I have just said that no one pretends that it will be quick or easy.

    Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : The Secretary of State for Defence said so only last week.

    Mr. Hurd : No, no one has ever pretended that.

    Mr. Cohen : The Secretary of State for Defence said that the operation would be short, sharp and quick”.—[Official Report, 4 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 167.]

    Mr. Hurd : The existence of the military option is the strongest possible expression of collective security and the strongest possible incentive for Iraq to reverse its aggression. That military option is gaining formidable strength on the ground and in the air and Britain is adding notably to that strength.

    The aim is a peaceful solution. The Iraqis see the array that is now building up against them. They know of the authority that is backing that array, which now comes from so many nations and from the United Nations. Now that it has become clear and is no longer blurred, they have a powerful incentive and reason to comply. Let us keep the message clear and not confuse it with secondary issues. The message is a double one—if the aggressor stays in Kuwait, he will be forced out; if he leaves Kuwait and complies fully with the Security Council resolutions, he will not be attacked.

    There is a peace option. It is in Saddam Hussein’s hands. We are working for peace and will go on working for peace, but the doctrine of peace at any price leads not to safety but to danger.

    Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) rose——

    Mr. Hurd : Our policy is clear, firm and reasonable. In commending it to the House, I hope that it will have the backing of all who believe in the possibilities of collective security and a safer world.

  • Douglas Hurd – 1974 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    It is a great honour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to ask indulgence as a new Member speaking for a new constituency.

    Mid-Oxfordshire includes part of the old Banbury division, and part of the old Henley division. It would be impertinent to comment on my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), as he is very much with us, but it is right that I should say something about Mr. John Hay, who represented Henley for 24 years before standing down at the last election. He very kindly came to support me during the campaign, and it was immediately clear how much respect he enjoyed among the people in Wheatley and the surrounding areas, whom he represented so well for so long.

    Mid-Oxfordshire is one of those constituencies which look a good deal more rural than they really are. It contains a successful farming industry, but it also includes many thousands of people who go to work in the city of Oxford every day. It has a good deal of industry tucked away in rather improbable places behind old Cotswold facades. For example, the town of Witney has made itself famous for one industry. It is no good talking to my constituents about an energy policy which is based just on coal, oil, gas and nuclear energy. No energy policy will satisfy the people of Witney unless it includes maximum support and encouragement for the manufacture and use of blankets.

    My constituency also includes the town of Burford. I was reminded of the town when the Secretary of State for Employment was fascinating us yesterday with his description of Cromwell as one of the great forerunners of Socialism. It is true that in the seventeenth century there were in this country Socialists, or Levellers. On Burford Church can still be seen the bullet marks where Cromwell lined up the Levellers against the wall and shot them. The Secretary of State for Employment is lucky to be separated by several centuries from his hero, the Lord Protector.

    In the two years I have known them the constituents whom I represent have shown a keen interest in the affairs of the outside world. That is particularly seen in the degree of support which now exists for a foreign aid programme—something that has impressed me very much.

    Before I say something about that, I should like to deal with a matter of great personal interest to me. I shall try to do so in an uncontroversial manner. As you may remember, Mr. Speaker, I spent four years in a humble capacity in the British Mission to the United Nations in New York. I should like to say a few words about the appointment of the British representative there in the past two weeks. During the four years that I was there under the late Sir Pierson Dixon—the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon)—I came strongly to the conclusion that the top permanent job there was one for a professional diplomat. The reason is simple. He does not have to deal with just one Government, with one set of Ministers or officials. He now has to deal with a hundred missions almost in perpetual motion, as well as with the Secretary-General and his staff. If the skills of professional diplomacy are needed anywhere, they are needed in New York.

    That is borne out by the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, who went there with a great reputation, which he still enjoys, great eloquence and great experience of the United Nations. Yet I wonder whether that experiment was a success. It seemed to me that Lord Caradon was constantly arousing, through no fault of his own, expectations which the Government at home were not always able to fulfil. Now the experiment has been repeated in different, and perhaps less promising, circumstances. The new representative will replace a respected professional diplomat who has been there for a few months and who has worked himself into the job. He will go as the political appointment of a minority Government, with all the uncertainty which that involves. I wonder whether, through no fault of his own—this is no criticism of the distinguished person who has been appointed—he may find himself in a rather difficult and sad position.

    The decision to hive off the Ministry of Overseas Development from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a repetition of what was done in 1964. I am a little puzzled why this should be done again. It seemed to me that the foreign aid programme fared pretty well under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and also under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home). Indeed, it survived, better than had been usual in the past, the attacks of those wishing to economise in public expenditure. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the head of the Department was a member of the Cabinet, whereas in future that will not be the case.

    The argument has been that one needs a separate Department so that one can have a consistent long-term aid programme which is not bedevilled by the short-term comings and goings of foreign policy. That is an essential part of the case. Yet immediately we are up against a controversy over technical assistance to Chile and the suggestion that we should cut off that programme for short-term political reasons. This is the real problem, and it also affected the Conservative Government in respect of Pakistan and Uganda. This is what happens when one comes up against Governments whose actions are in some respects offensive to public opinion in this country. However, aid programmes are supposed to benefit people, not Governments. They are long term, and must be left to the long term if they are to be successful. If they are constantly messed about because of changes in political opinions in this country or in the receiving country, they are not likely to succeed. This is a genuine problem which has faced Labour and Conservative Governments, and I am sure that it is a topic which the Minister for Overseas Development would like to consider.

    I make one final point about the aid programme. It is common ground that most Government expenditure programmes depend on public support. It is also true that in terms of the British foreign aid programme a good deal of progress has been made in recent years, thanks to the efforts of all parties—but support arises only if the programmes, as part of the foreign aid effort, are based on the real world and on what is happening in it. There have been massive changes in the real world in recent months. We now have before us a group of newly-rich States in oil-producing countries. Some, like Iran and Nigeria, have large populations on which to spend their money, but there are others which do not have large populations and which will face difficult problems when dealing with the resources to which they have suddenly become heir. Their decisions have sharply affected the prospects for developing countries, particularly those with no resources of their own. Therefore, it is reasonable that these newly-rich States should be encouraged to share the burden now borne by the aid-giving countries—a burden which we have been carrying for so long. I hope that the Government, either alone or through the EEC, in the dialogue with the Arabs to which the Foreign Secretary referred this afternoon, will make this point to them as strongly as they can. The oil-producing countries should be brought to recognise that with their new riches they carry new responsibilities. This is an important point if we are to continue to maintain progress in this country in persuading our fellow citizens to continue to bear part of the burden.

  • Simon Hughes – 2014 Speech on Data Protection

    Below is the text of the speech made by Simon Hughes at the Manchester Central Convention Centre on 3rd March 2014.

    Thank you Chris (Graham) for your kind introduction and to the ICO for inviting me to speak today.

    Can I begin by congratulating you on your reappointment as Information Commissioner for a further two years and I very much look forward to working with you.

    It is great to see so many people here. I understand from our hosts that this conference was oversubscribed. I think this is both a reflection of the growing importance of information rights to the public and the growing importance of the Information Commissioner’s Office in promoting and protecting those rights.

    I have effectively been given a free rein on what to speak about today. Given this, I thought I would give you my reflections on my first two months as Minister of State for Justice and Civil Liberties and to set out what I see as the priorities in the field of information rights between now and the general election. These priorities include strengthening individuals’ information rights, guaranteeing the effective enforcement of these rights and making progress with the proposed EU data protection Regulation.

    Data protection and the powers of the Information Commissioner

    The whole concept of privacy and personal data has changed dramatically over the past 20 years. Individuals now share personal data on an unprecedented scale and modern data processing allows companies to provide increasingly personalised services to their customers.

    In 2011, the World Economic Forum estimated that individuals around the world send about 47 billion non-spam emails, submit 95 million tweets on Twitter, and share 30 billion pieces of content on Facebook every day. Indeed the ICO’s twitter feed is pretty busy itself, with over 9000 followers and 1700 tweets sent.

    A thriving information economy is essential for enhancing our competitiveness and driving economic growth. This is why the Government has published an Information Economy Strategy which looks at how Government, industry and academia can work together to exploit the many opportunities available in this sphere.

    Linked to this is the need to maximise the economic and social value of data sharing both within government and between the public and private sectors.

    To support this, the Government is embarking on an open policy making process to look at current thinking on data sharing of government held data. We are keen to bring together relevant parts of government with stakeholders who have an interest in the use of data for delivering better public services.

    We recognise that the views and opinions in relation to data sharing are diverse, as are the benefits and potential downsides. But I am confident that we can assuage any fears by making sure that our approach is open, honest and positve. Our ambition with this work is to listen to, and understand the arguments put forward and to work with all sides within and outside of government to reach a workable solution for data sharing that will help deliver necessary changes and result in improvements to public service delivery and the lives of people across the United Kingdom.

    Given the changing nature of how we share and process personal data, it is essential that we provide for strong rights for data subject in order to protect against abuses and appropriate sanctions for those who breach the Data Protection Act.

    As you know, one way we plan to strengthen the rights of data subjects is to make the practice of enforced subject access illegal. This practice has long been considered undesirable by the Information Commissioner and others as it runs contrary to the intention behind the right to subject access in the DPA. The DPA gives individuals the right of access to personal data held about them by a person or organisation by making a subject access request.

    The Government will commence s56 of the DPA as part of a package of reforms to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and criminal records disclosure. This will prohibit a person from requiring someone else to produce certain records as a condition of employment, or for providing a service, other than where the relevant record is required by law or where it is justified in the public interest.

    We are also committed to guaranteeing that the ICO has sufficient powers to enforce compliance amongst organisations and to punish those who commit serious breaches of the Data Protection Act.

    On this point, I would like to pay tribute to the Information Commissioner who has been a vigorous campaigner in making sure that the rogue individuals who trade illegally in personal data are brought to justice.

    He continues to argue eloquently for the introduction of custodial penalties for breaches of s55 of the DPA. As you know, this is an issue that has been mentioned as part of the wider Leveson press regulation debate. But, in truth, and perhaps more importantly this issue goes far beyond the issue of press regulation. Serious misuse of personal data by any sector causes significant distress and damage to ordinary citizens and undermines public trust in public institutions and business which in turn can undermine economic growth.

    That is why in the last few weeks we have begun to review the sanctions available for breaches of the Act so we can decide whether to increase the penalties as the law permits.

    The Government is also determined to tackle the scourge of nuisance calls. I know how frustrating nuisance calls are for many people and how they can create fear and anxiety for the elderly and others. Although I have only been a Minister for two months, I have already started to take action against the organisations responsible for making nuisance calls.

    Since 2010, the Government has increased the level of penalties that can be levied against those breaking the law. In 2010, the maximum penalty that Ofcom could issue for silent and abandoned calls was increased from £50,000 to £2 million. Similarly, in May 2011 a maximum penalty of £500,000 was introduced to allow the ICO to issue higher penalties in relation to unsolicited calls and texts under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulation.

    But we are determined to do more and, I’m pleased to say, we are doing more. We are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the ICO, OfCom, Which? and others to deal effectively with the root causes of these calls and those organisations that break the law.

    We are positively considering a proposal by the Information Commissioner to lower the threshold at which he can issue civil monetary penalties for breaches of PECR from the very high bar of proving substantial damage and distress to a lower bar of irritation and nuisance. My ministerial colleague Ed Vaizey and I have asked the Information Commissioner, working with OfCom, Which? and others, to consider what would need to be done to set up a common portal for the reporting of nuisances calls. We will publish an action plan in the coming weeks that will set out current and further plans in this area.

    Finally, we have recently conducted a consultation on extending the ICO’s powers of compulsory audit to NHS bodies. This requires secondary legislation which we plan to introduce before the summer recess so that the power can come into effect by the autumn.

    We have chosen the NHS as it is one of the largest data controllers in the UK, processing huge amounts of sensitive personal data on a daily basis. We will work closely with the ICO to monitor the effectiveness of these powers before considering whether we might extend them to other sectors that process large amounts of personal data in their day to day business.

    EU Data Protection Regulation

    Of course, the issue of Data Protection and personal privacy is a global issue. For the past two years, the Government has been working with our European Partners on a new EU data protection framework. This is following the European Commission’s publication of proposals back in January 2012. We recognise that the current legislation needs to be updated to reflect the realities of data processing in the 21st century.

    An immense amount of work has gone in to the negotiations to get the proposed Regulation right over the last 2 years. I would like to pay tribute to my Sarah Ludford, who has worked tirelessly in the European Parliament to scrutinise and improve these regulations. Her hard work has had a considerable effect, and I know that the whole of the Government is grateful for the efforts she has made. I would also like to pay tribute to the important work of the Information Commissioner who has played a pivotal role as vice-chair of the Article 29 Working Party.

    How we achieve a balance between growth and data protection rights is the key question that we have been working to resolve. The UK carried out its own Impact Assessment of the proposals. This concluded that the Regulation in its original form could have a net cost to the UK economy of £100- £360 million per annum.

    The Government wants to see EU data protection legislation that protects the civil liberties of individuals while allowing for economic growth and innovation. We are clear that these should be achieved in tandem and not at the expense of one another.

    It should give everyone the right that their personal data will be protected , whilst allowing for the free flow of data which is crucial to underpinning the digital economy.

    So how do we go about achieving this balance? We have already seen since the draft Regulation was published that there has been a tangible shift in perception as to what the best approach should be to balancing individuals’ data protection rights against the obligations on controllers.

    When the Commission first published the draft Regulation, many concerns were raised about the how prescriptive the text was; that one size does not necessarily fit all; and that the burdens placed on data controllers and of course our regulators, may not always be in proportion to the protection conferred on data subjects.

    There is now a growing consensus in the negotiations around the importance of not placing disproportionate burdens on small and medium enterprises which form the backbone of the European Economy. These SMEs are particularly well suited to taking advantage of the opportunities that technological developments will provide; we do not want to force innovative enterprises to look outside the EU to better realise their ambitions.

    Bearing this in mind, the emergence of the risk-based approach has been a welcome development during the course of the negotiations. This continues to be a key element of our negotiating strategy under the Greek Presidency. This approach should be accompanied by effective enforcement so that data controllers remain accountable for the processing decision they make and the safeguards they put in place.

    The Government continues to support a Directive, rather than a Regulation. This would provide consistency across Member States where it is beneficial but would give Member States flexibility to transpose the legislation with regard to their national traditions and practices.

    I cannot predict what will happen under the Greek Presidency; or whether the European Parliament will be able to come to a conclusion on the text of the Regulation before the European Parliamentary Elections. However, we are clear that the quality of the text should take precedence over a rush to conclude the negotiations. If the negotiations are rushed, we risk a complicated and prescriptive instrument that could damage growth and employment prospects for years to come.

    I know you will be interested in this process as it develops, and I will ensure that the Coalition Government continues to work openly with stakeholders and other member states throughout the development of this legislation.

    Conclusion

    So it is clear that a lot has been achieved over the last few years, but there is clearly a lot more still to do. I am looking forward to working closely with the Information Commissioner and others over the next 15 months on driving forward the information rights agenda. Thank you.

  • Simon Hughes – 2008 Liberal Democrat Conference Speech

    Conference, it is a pleasure and a privilege for our conference to meet in this great northern seaport city of Liverpool, the city where focus began. Our party is committed to build on the progress of liberal democracy in the north of England – in this city, in Leeds and Manchester, in Newcastle and Sheffield and in many other places besides. Mike Storey was a hugely effective leader for our party in this city and this party owes him a huge political debt. Warren Bradley has proved a tough and worthy successor, and he and his team deserve all our continuing support – above all in this European Capital of Culture year – as they seek a new mandate for our party from the people in May. Offers to help will be gladly received all weekend at the ALDC stall. (With, I am told, a tickling stick for reward!)

    No sooner had I finished my last speech to Conference than I had to leave very quickly for Birmingham, where my dear mother Paddy was critically ill. My brothers and I were really touched at the very warm and generous wishes sent to us from Brighton that week. Paddy miraculously pulled through that crisis but very sadly died last November. Our party, as well as her family and friends, owe her a great debt of gratitude, as we do to people like Claire Brooks, Cyril Carr and so many others up and down the length of Britain who have given so much of their energy, skill and time to deliver liberal democracy locally and nationally. As we work ambitiously for the future we should always be encouraged by the work and witness of so many great campaigners who have brought us to our present position – stronger than for over 80 years.

    Since Brighton, the party has been on a bit of a rollercoaster ride.

    But four people in particular deserve our very special thanks.

    I want first to pay a very warm tribute to Ming – and to Elspeth – for all Ming did for our party as leader, to thank him most sincerely, and to express our warmest wishes for his continuing contribution to liberal democracy in parliament, in Scotland, across Britain, and beyond. Ming has added hugely to the respect and credibility of our party, both at home and abroad.

    Next I pay tribute to Chris Huhne – on his very doughty leadership contest, and on his unqualified support for Nick since then. After winning huge credibility on environmental issues, Chris has got off to a flying start as our new Shadow Home Secretary – absolutely clear in our opposition to ID cards and further detention without charge, and standing up for the liberties of our people.

    A third parliamentary colleague has become a complete star since our last conference – Vince Cable. Vince not only has now been touted as possibly the most popular politician in Britain, but in his opposition to the regime in Saudi Arabia and his proposals for dealing with Northern Rock, he has earned huge respect across the country.

    And then Nick. Our new leader has done us proud, from the very day of his election. We all know that the last few days have been difficult – but a week is a long time in politics. I can tell you conference that no leader could have made the party’s position more clear or been more principled. Nick is determined that our party will make the positive case for maximum participation in the European Union, but never to the detriment of the rights of the British people. All Liberal Democrat MPs are united in our belief that we need to make the case for the European Union direct to the British people, so that, once and for all, Britain can shed its reputation for being so lukewarm on Europe. Britain will never be trusted in the leadership of our continent until we show that our commitment to Europe is for life, not just for one more Christmas. And we will take no lectures from Labour or the Conservatives over leadership and the EU.

    Thank you, Nick, for your leadership, your principle and your vision. We share your ambition and look forward to great things ahead.

    Since Nick’s election we have done best of the three major parties in local elections. That is a good sign. But as we all know, the next big test is May 1st – just 54 days time. In the north-west alone there are 33 councils up for election in the North West of England. Across England there are so many prizes to be won. Hull and North East Lincolnshire are just waiting for majority Liberal Democrat control. Cheltenham, Maidstone and many other places are champing at the bit to push back the Conservatives, Oldham and Sheffield to push back Labour.

    In Wales, Cardiff, Bridgend, Swansea and Wrexham all deserve to have larger Liberal Democrat groups after May.

    But good results will not just happen, as we all know. We will all need to work hard, focus our collective efforts and get our messages out to voters. To achieve the results we know Liberal Democrats are capable of, we need those of you who have no elections to cross local boundaries to help those who have. We need local efforts to be directed first to the ‘swing wards’. And we need maximum numbers of friends and supporters to be asked to help out with delivery of literature and knocking on doors.

    And in London, the battle is well and truly on.

    Brian Paddick is an exceptionally well qualified candidate to take on Ken Livingstone, who on reducing crime, building social housing and much else has promised much but quite simply failed to deliver.

    And Brian Paddick is also a seriously well qualified candidate to take on the Boris-Johnson-come-lately of the London political scene.

    All of Britain knows our capital would be better led by a senior copper than a serial clown.

    It is our job to convert that belief into votes and reality.

    And what fantastic campaigning opportunities the government has given us.

    Following Labour policy, Post Office Ltd .have just announced proposals to close 169 post offices across Greater London. And we must not let the Tories get away with hiding the fact that they did just the same. Liberal Democrats – at conference – agreed not just that we should oppose the present closure programme, but also where new funding to support the post office network would come from. The public are behind us in fighting for these vital local services and we must not let Labour off the hook.

    Nationally, we have a Gordon Brown government which has all the disadvantages of New Labour, but without the style.

    In London, we have a Ken Livingstone government, which has all the disadvantages of old Labour, but without the style.

    In London, as across the UK, we need a government which has none of the disadvantages of old or new Labour, but with lots of style. With Nick leading us nationally, and Brian leading us in London, that’s just what we’ll have.

    In Bermondsey, we are this year celebrating 25 years since this party helped me win our momentous by-election and we went on to win our first council seat – and nineteen years later to run the council. With determination and the right approach, any and every seat is winnable, and there should be no ‘no-go’ areas.

    We must field candidates in every possible election, and when we’re successful, make sure that our work and our record means that we don’t slip back. We must never forget that we win hearts and minds, not principally by votes and speeches in committee meetings or in debating chambers, but by campaigning with and for people when they need us, and where they have been ignored by complacent councils and supposedly safe MPs.

    I am delighted to report that party membership is now growing strongly. I still believe thousands more people will join us if we ask. We all have a responsibility for recruiting and retaining members all of the time. With Nick at the helm, determined to lead a party that challenges the establishment at Westminster and campaigns vigorously around the country, there will be many ready and willing to join us. Just look at the motivating effect of Barack Obama’s campaign across the Atlantic – the excitement, and the opportunity.

    If we are determined to make politics exciting as well as principled, to lead the movement for change in corrupt regimes abroad and outdated practices at home, then the widespread cynicism can be countered, and we can achieve our next goal of more than doubling our parliamentary seats within two elections.

    Tonight in London, David Haye from Bermondsey can become the undisputed cruiserweight boxing champion of the world. Today Wales can beat Ireland, and next week Liverpool can beat Milan in the Champions League.

    In this hall are many individual champions and local council champion teams. Liberal Democrats have the capacity and ideas to be the new champions in Wales, Scotland, England, and for Britain.

    Go for it, friends. Nothing should be beyond our reach.

  • Simon Hughes – 1983 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Simon Hughes in the House of Commons on 21st March 1983.

    I hope that it is significant that I utter my first words in the House on the first day of spring. The occasion may be doubly significant in that I follow not only to these Benches but in this debate a Member for the borough of Croydon. In 1949 Fenner Brockway wrote a biography of one of my most eminent predecessors, Dr. Salter, whom I believe you met, Mr. Speaker, before you were called to high office or had started on your journey to this place.

    The borough from which my constituency takes its name was described by Fenner Brockway in 1949 as a backwater in the life of the metropolis”. I shall deal with the economics of the matter in a moment, but politically one thing seems sure. Not only is Bermondsey no longer a political backwater; it is arguable that today there runs through it the strongest current in British political life. That may be because over many years, and particularly since they have been closed, massive pressure has built up behind the dock gates that have represented the industry and the economy of that part of south-east London, and that pressure has found its escape at last.

    In 1884 the Bill to establish separate parliamentary representation for Bermondsey was introduced in the House by the Liberal Adminstration. The issue which concerned the first Member for Parliament for the area was one that is as commonly discussed on these Benches today. It was the issue of electoral reform. Seventy-five years ago my Rotherhithe predecessor, Mr. Carr-Gomm, argued for the representation of workers on the Port of London Authority. The demand for the proper representation of workers on the seat of management has not been heeded as it might have been in the intervening time.

    Sixty years ago, in 1923, in an address to the electors of Bermondsey before a campaign that was successful, but—perhaps I know the feeling—not originally expected to be so, a Methodist minister and Liberal candidate, Rev. Kedward said: The enemies are in front of us in plain sight: unemployment, poverty, sickness, bad housing; let us attack them with courage. He continued: There is no easy road to victory over such foes, no magic word which when uttered will banish cares for ever”. In the same year Dr. Salter made his maiden speech, calling for a national minimum wage and decent treatment for the people who start at the bottom of the heap. He said that in a civilised society every worker has a right to a living wage. That has been a principle, though not a practice, endorsed by Governments since then. He added that wages have now sunk for millions of our people below the subsistence level”. I use his words because they are no less appropriate today. He added that it is grossly unfair that the whole burden of that depreciation of the standard of life should be borne, as it is, by one class, and that the most helpless and the weakest class. If the country has to submit to a reduction of the standard of living, that should be universally applicable.”—[Official Report, 7 March 1923; Vol. 161, c. 627–36.] I listened to the Chancellor’s Budget statement last week, and I ask him this: where are the reforms of justice and the social progress of sympathetic and progressive economic management? Why will he not consider giving the security and hope that his long-suffering fellow citizens in the inner cities need to hear from this place? Why could he not promise that they, when qualified adults, would not be left behind in the struggle for survival, and often not just left behind but also left out? Why, after 60 years, could he not ensure that people received a decent minimum wage? If he wants to see a monument to his four years of economic policy, let him come and look at my constituency. The Chancellor’s Budget last week and the examples given by his colleague today reminded me, in a phrase that came to mind last Tuesday, of a Chancellor fiddling while Britain groaned.

    My predecessor gave 36 years of distinguished service to the House and for much of that time served all the constituents whom I now have the honour to represent. He was joined in that task for a short time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), until my right hon. Friend’s seat was taken away by the process of democracy. In that election, in which my predecessor first stood as a candidate at Rotherhithe, there was one thing in common with my own—his Conservative opponent, like mine, lost his deposit. In a local election in Bermondsey two weeks after my own election, the Conservative vote fell yet again—this time to 3.6 per cent. The message is firm. The deserving people of the inner city are saying loud and clear that they have no trust in the Conservative Government.

    In the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), there is a rumbling of discontent. I, too, rumble with discontent. I come here to share that anger and discontent. As in the city of Cardiff, which I know well, as do you, Mr. Speaker, and as does the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), male unemployment in my constituency is very high. In Southwark it is no less than 18.6 per cent.; yet the Chancellor holds back for a further seven months the restoration of the unemployment benefit abatement for those who need that money to live. Of all London’s ratepayers, the residents of Southwark pay the highest inner city rates. Non-domestic ratepayers pay 245p in the pound and, as in Cardiff, are daily being driven out of business. The borough has the worst record for empty properties and hard-to-let accommodation of any authority in London. The Opposition can take no comfort in that, as it is the Labour party which is responsible locally.

    Just before I took my seat in the House there was a pensioners’ lobby here. One out of five of my constituents was represented by those who rightly came here to ask for a better deal. What do they receive in the Budget? The answer is a mean-minded and ill-timed administrative alteration in pensions that will lose 70p for a single person and 110p for a married couple every week. They receive no help with heating or standing charges and are still penalised if they receive income which is additional to their pension.

    At the other end of the age scale, the young, with whom I have worked for a long time in this city, are job-starved, often educationally deprived, having left school before the statutory age, and look with little hope at the future of communities where they want to stay. Therefore, as in the past, they are soon forced out—and will continue to be so, whether it be on bicycles or whichever other form of transport the Government have not seen fit to provide.

    Yesterday’s papers told us that the low-paid have lost at least £45 a year in real terms over the period of the past five Budgets. It is no benefit to them to know that people who earn £30,000 now get an extra £3,500 each year.

    The economy of the past four years has done nothing for the inner city. That area is as bare, empty and lacking in progress as it was in 1979. Our people refuse to believe that there cannot be a better way. They also refuse to believe that they do not deserve a better way. I hope that I am not arrogant, but I am angry on their behalf. I am not only the newest but I am the youngest Opposition Member of this House. I am here to tell the House what people said by electing me three weeks ago. This waste and mismanagement of our resources, both human and natural, is, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, not only unacceptable, but immoral too.

    The people of Bermondsey and Southwark are, however, spirited and have not yet given up the fight. The spirit that led them to resist some of the worst attacks that the city knew during the second world war has led them, in peace, to resist the destructive attacks of politicians in their turn. However, they cannot resist for ever. They have already been generous. They were generous when my learned predecessor made the mistake of saying that the docks would close only over his dead body. They forgave him for that. They were also generous to the Leader of the Opposition when he made similar statements about an election not many weeks ago. They spared him from that. However, they cannot be generous for ever. They have turned to me and I, above all, now turn to the House to remedy their problems.

    William Wilberforce died 150 years ago this year. It was his part as a reformer to liberate the people who were enslaved abroad. At home, Gladstone and Lloyd George followed that tradition, as did others who turned their attention to inner cities where the work was done and where the workers remain. My politics are to be those politics of liberation. I am anxious to liberate our people—those whom I can help—in little ways as we are allowed to do, from enforced idleness, unjustified discrimination and harmful dogma.

    I have news for the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). He seems to think, to judge from his comment when I took my seat, that I shall not be here for long. I can tell him this. I shall be here for as long as is necessary to work for those people who sent me here to get them back to work.

    I conclude with a quotation from a small guide which my library provides for those who want to know about the history of the constituency which I now have the honour to represent. It says: People are right to be proud to say ‘I am from Bermondsey’. This little area has a great history. In the old times it was the place of Chaucer, Shakespeare and, later, Dickens. It continues: In Victorian times it was at the centre of London’s trade and industry. Later, it took a lead in social reform. Now is a time of change when Bermondsey, like its neigbours in North Southwark and Rotherhithe, awaits new developments. The tide of economic welfare has flowed out far enough and for long enough as well. Although there may be an appropriate analogy between my arrival here and the quiet, timid and, as yet, inexperienced first cuckoo of spring, I hope that the Government will listen and learn that it is still not quite too late to turn the tide and to come to the rescue of the people who, at the moment, are beached and waiting for help.

  • David Cameron – 2015 Speech on Climate Change

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, in Paris on 30 November 2015.

    Thank you very much Mr President and can I start by thanking the French President and the French people for hosting us here in Paris.

    Now we’re at the stage of this conference, after a whole series of speeches, where I think we can safely say that every point that needs to be made has been made, although not by every single speaker.

    We all know exactly what is needed to make a good deal here in Paris.

    We need a deal that keeps 2 degrees alive.

    A deal with a binding legal mechanism.

    A deal that has a 5 year review so we can see how we are doing.

    A deal for the poorest and most vulnerable in terms of finance.

    A deal so that we can measure and verify what happens with the agreement that we make.

    And a deal that transfers technology from the richest countries to the poorest countries.

    So let me take this argument the other way around.

    Not what we need to succeed – we all know that – but what we would have to say to our grandchildren if we failed.

    We’d have to say, “it was all too difficult”, and they would reply, “well, what was so difficult?”

    What was it that was so difficult when the earth was in peril?

    When sea levels were rising in 2015?

    When crops were failing?

    When deserts were expanding?

    What was it that was so difficult?

    Was it difficult to agree on 2 degrees?

    Was it difficult when 97% of scientists the world over have said that climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed?

    When there are over 4,000 pieces of literature and reviews making exactly this point?

    Why was, they would ask us, sticking to 2 degrees above industrial levels so difficult?

    Presumably we might have to say: well it was difficult to reach a binding agreement.

    But they would ask us why is it difficult to reach a legally binding agreement when in 2015 there are already 75 countries – including countries across most of the continents of our world – that already have legally binding climate change legislation?

    Countries like Britain.

    And countries that aren’t suffering from having legally binding climate change legislation; countries that are thriving with that legislation.

    Perhaps we’d have to argue it was too difficult to have a review after 5 years.

    Why, they’d ask us, is it difficult to have a review after 5 years?

    No one is being asked to preordain what that review would say.

    No one is being asked to sign up to automatic decreases in their carbon emissions.

    If we are off track in 5 years’ time, a review isn’t difficult.

    Perhaps we’d have to say it was too difficult to reach an agreement about finance, too difficult to get to $100 billion of climate finance by 2020.

    But how could we argue to our grandchildren that it was difficult when we’ve already managed to generate £62 billion by 2014?

    How can we argue that it’s difficult when in London alone there’s 5 trillion of funds under management and we haven’t even really begun to generate the private finance that is possible to help in tackling climate change?

    They’ll ask us: was it really too difficult to agree to a mechanism to measure and verify what we’ve all signed up to?

    How can that be so difficult, that we agree that over time we must make sure that we are delivering on the things that we said we would deliver on here in Paris.

    And finally, would we really be able to argue that it was too difficult?

    Too difficult to transfer technology from rich countries to poorer countries?

    Our grandchildren would rightly ask us: what was so difficult?

    You had this technology, you knew it worked, you knew that if you gave it to poor and vulnerable countries they could protect themselves against climate change – why on earth didn’t you do it?

    What I’m saying is that instead of making excuses tomorrow to our children and grandchildren, we should be taking action against climate change today.

    What we are looking for is not difficult, it is doable and therefore we should come together and do it.

    Thank you.

  • Tristram Hunt – 2014 Speech on Schooling for the Future

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tristram Hunt, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, on 12th February 2014.

    THE VALUE OF SCHOOLING

    Thank you.

    I would like to begin by thanking Andrew and AQA for organising this conference on a very important theme. They are at the forefront of developing new ways to make assessment imaginative, rigorous and deliverable – which, as we know, can sometimes be challenging in the creative subjects.

    It is also a great pleasure to be here at the Institute of Education, an institution established in that golden period of London’s history – the heroic phase of municipal socialism under the LCC.

    Dockers’ leader and London County Councillor John Burns put it best, when he said that what he and his fellow Progressives were struggling for was ‘a revived municipal ideal’; the goals of the LCC were ‘to do for all what private enterprise does for a few.  It is the conscious ordering of the city, through ownership of public services, of its own comfort, happiness, and destiny.’

    For with the nuts and bolts of municipal socialism – the trams and the public health – came a commitment to learning, art and recreation.  By 1907 over £10,000 p.a. was spent on some 1,200 summer concerts.  The LCC Chair, Lord Meath, thought the council should offer music ‘of a high and noble character’, because such music served an educational purpose and could ‘be brought to bear in a very agreeable manner on large masses of people.’

    These themes of education, creativity and character are what I want to touch on today.

    In recent weeks I have been setting out how teaching and learning fits in with the Labour Party’s wider purpose of building a strong society and a growing economy.

    From Michael Barber to Andreas Schleicher, respected educationalists have repeatedly pointed out that no education system can exceed the quality of its teachers.

    So that is our starting point: we believe that raising the status, elevating the standing and enhancing the standards of the teaching profession is the surest way to improve our children’s attainment and give them the start in life they deserve.

    However, today I want to talk to you about the institutions of change – schools – and argue that the demands of the 21st century will require charting a markedly different approach to schooling.

    Because though my first priority as Education Secretary in the next Labour Government would be to make sure we have ‘a world class teacher in every classroom’ I realise that it will not be enough just to raise the quality of individual teachers.

    Evidence from disciplines such as organisational psychology and economic geography shows that collaboration is crucial to innovation and creativity.

    So I begin from the premise that we should celebrate the fact we educate our children in a supportive social environment; that there is something intrinsically valuable in schools as dedicated learning communities – where young people learn from each other in addition to the foundations of knowledge from teachers.

    This is not a banal declaration – such is the awesome technological power being unleashed by the internet that it will not be too long before somebody proposes an institution-less model of schooling.

    Indeed, one only has to look at the popularity of Massive Open Online Courses to imagine how that might look.

    Yet one of the many attractions of Ed Miliband’s ‘One Nation’ approach to our politics is a revival of an older argument that everything of value is not reducible to price.

    Real value, as John Ruskin wrote in Unto this Last, “depends on the moral sign attached…. There is no wealth but life”.

    And for the Labour Party, the value of schooling, its social ethos and its moral purpose, is immeasurable.

    What is more, this is far more important than the name emblazoned upon the school gates. Indeed, beyond some fundamental prerequisites necessary to raise standards – autonomy with local oversight, good leadership, financial transparency and qualified teachers – we are not overly interested in passing judgement on different school types.

    What exercises us is a school’s quality, its ethos and the values of schooling we want our education system to embody.

    Yet to preserve these values in our brave new, digitally enhanced world we need to re-emphasise two fundamental educational capabilities that are in serious danger of being crowded out.

    These qualities are, I believe, vitally important in preparing young people for the economy of the future.

    They are important in our push to raise academic attainment and deliver educational excellence for all.

    But most of all they are important because they are valuable in terms of the type of education we want our young people to enjoy in order to reach their fullest potential.

    They are: character and creativity.

    CHARACTER IN THE CLASSROOM

    Let me start first with character. And not just because, “The historian’s first task is the elucidation of character”.

    No rather I start with character because I believe that is where schools should also start.

    Because it seems to me that sometimes the managerial, target-driven performance culture that has permeated our education system in recent years, can threaten the social ethos of schooling we hold so dear.

    Do not mistake me: I am zealot for minimum standards, rigorous assessment and intelligent accountability.

    I am supportive of a dynamic and interventionist Ofsted, tasked with a commitment to rooting out underperformance wherever it lies.

    But as with so many things we need to strike a balance.

    And if we choose to focus upon exam results and league tables to the detriment of everything else, then surely we are guilty of misunderstanding the purpose and nature of education?

    We should begin then with a deeper question: what do we want for and from our young people?

    First and foremost, the Labour Party wants young people who are equipped with the academic or vocational skills they require to succeed in an ever more competitive global market-place.

    More than that, we want young people who are confident, determined and resilient; young people who display courage, compassion, honesty, integrity, fairness, perseverance, emotional intelligence, grit and self-discipline.

    We want our young people to have a sense of moral purpose and character, as well as to be enquiring, reflective and passionate learners.

    Of course saying that character should be the focus of schooling is the easy part. The trickier question is how do we deliver it?

    However, this is where it gets really interesting. Because emerging research from people like Professor James Heckman at the University of Chicago and Professor James Arthur at the University of Birmingham clearly demonstrates that character can be taught.

    And as the excellent manifesto published yesterday by the All Party Group for Social Mobility demonstrates, there is a burgeoning debate about how best we can do that.

    But what is clear is that this is about more than bolting-on some music lessons or sports clubs to the school day. “No, this is about learning from the rigorous academic discipline that is character education and implementing a holistic approach that goes beyond extra-curricular activities and into the classroom.

    So I am calling upon initial teacher training providers to  include character education in initial teacher training.

    And we should encourage all schools to embed character education and resilience across their curriculum.

    Of course this focus harks back to some ancient educational ideals. From the Stoics, Plato and Aristotle, to Milton, Samuel Smiles and the Arnolds; for more than 2000 years schooling has been primarily concerned with the formation of character.

    ‘The noblest heraldry of Man,’ as Smiles called it – ‘that which forms the conscience of society, and creates and forms its best motive power.’

    As Matthew Arnold – a truly independent schools inspector – wrote, schools should be seen “not as a mere machine for teaching, reading, writing and arithmetic, but as a living whole with complex functions, religious, moral and intellectual.”

    Indeed, the 2002 Education Act required the National Curriculum to “promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society”.

    So we do not have to look too far into the distant past to a find a time when such values were promoted.

    Yet, I would argue that the contemporary context makes the cultivation of character even more important.

    One only has to look at, for example, the research of Professor Avner Offer at Oxford University, to find a persuasive argument that ‘the flow of novelty’ in contemporary society is so strong that higher levels of commitment, discipline and self-control are needed to ensure that long-term wellbeing is not repeatedly sacrificed upon the altar of short-term gratification.

    Our young people grow up in complex times. Incidents of mental illness appear to be rising, technology and social media appear to be making it more difficult to concentrate for long periods, whilst some might argue that respect for education itself is in decline.

    The benefits of delayed gratification, attentiveness and patience must be more clearly articulated.

    Moreover, research clearly shows that vulnerable and disadvantaged young people are far more likely to deal with the consequences of failure and setbacks in a negative way.

    Character is not best taught through adversity – its study belongs in the supportive, dedicated and aspirational communities that the best schools provide.

    Now I am not the kind of politician to tell professionals how to do their job – how many lines pupils should write or litter they should pick up.

    But what I hope I am doing is using my position as a democratically elected politician – and aspirant Secretary of State – to indicate what matters to a forthcoming Labour government and what evidence is available to endorse it.

    By prioritising character, moral purpose and the education of well-rounded individuals as well as academic attainment, the Labour Party is demonstrating its commitment to taking some of those deeper cultural challenges head on.

    CREATIVITY IN THE CURRICULUM

    But character is not the only virtue we need to re-emphasise in a contemporary vision of schooling.

    We need to keep working on developing creativity in our schools too.

    Let’s start with some cold hard economic facts.

    Our creative industries are worth £36 billion a year to our economy, employing 1.5m people, and generating around 10% of our total exports.

    Moreover, they currently represent the fastest growing sector in the economy; they are a vital conduit of our soft-power right around the world.

    We are the country of Danny Boyle, Harry Potter, Adele, Robbie Williams, EL James and Stella McCartney.

    We have remarkable reservoirs of creativity in our DNA.  And so there is a pretty basic economic argument for encouraging creativity in the curriculum.

    However, once more it is technology that makes this increasingly imperative.

    We know that digital revolution has made the entire history of human achievement.

    We know too that this globalisation of knowledge that opens up enormous possibilities for creativity and innovation both economically and educationally.

    But what might not be so well known is that this is already changing the way we work – a recent study by Princeton University showed a sharp increase in the workplace demand for non-routine analytic and interactive skills. Employers reported that they needed people who were innovative, flexible, creative team-players.

    We have seen this too in the emergence of the STEAM agenda, which recognises the economic importance of the arts in education as well as science, technology, engineering and maths.

    As Steve Jobs famously said: “It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough. It’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities that yields the results that make our hearts sing”.

    And whilst I do not agree with everything Sir Ken Robinson says, his definition of creativity – that it is “the process of having original ideas that have value” – makes it crystal clear why it is so relevant to a modern economy.

    Yet the truth is that preparing our children for the jobs of the future is an even more daunting challenge. As Andreas Schleicher of the OECD has said:

    “Because of rapid economic and social change, schools have to prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created, technologies that have not yet been invented and problems that we don’t yet know will arise.”

    That is why from 2015 the OECD will start testing collaborative problem-solving alongside reading, maths and science in the next round of PISA assessments.

    Of course that does not mean undermining the importance of knowledge.

    I want to make it absolutely clear that I would never give an inch on getting the academic basics right.

    Literacy and numeracy skills are vital 21st century skills, fundamental to the life chances of all young people. Particularly the disadvantaged.

    Furthermore, as the work of Daniel T Willingham from the University of Virginia has shown, there is a vital relationship between critical thinking and knowledge.

    Thought processes are intertwined with what is being thought about.  Knowledge enhances cognitive processes like problem solving and reasoning.

    However, again it is question of striking the right balance. And in practically every other country, ‘broad’ educational frameworks are currently being drawn up that, in the words of former US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, “combine a mix of ‘old-fashioned skills and knowledge’, such as numeracy and literacy, with ‘twenty-first-century’ skills”.

    And uppermost in the vast majority of 21st century skill frameworks? Creativity and innovation.

    So, I am encouraged that the Government has made a step in the right direction with its focus on the ‘Best Eight’ of subjects for GCSE bench-marking.

    However, right across the new curriculum proposals we are seeing a narrowing of assessment criteria, with an emphasis on the theoretical over the practical and the creative.

    Geography fieldwork, practical lab-work in science, extended projects; the speaking and listening component of English GCSE; and the practical elements of music and art – all of these are under threat, which can only impact negatively upon young people’s development as rounded, inquiring, creative individuals.

    However, what really concerns me with this narrowing of the scope of education may actually begin to affect attainment in core subjects such as English and Maths.

    Because there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that not only do creative subjects have a positive impact on young person’s overall development but that they actually boost attainment across the board.

    The imagination and visualisation skills inherent in drawing, painting and the visual arts have been shown to help writing skills and the interpretation of texts.

    Representing Stoke-on-Trent I am particularly taken by studies showing that the dexterity of medical surgeons benefit from working with clay.

    Music has been found to have strong connections to improving spatial reasoning and understanding complex mathematical concepts.

    This should not surprise us – in the real world information is interwoven, layered and sophisticated. It is not experienced in isolated subject blocks.

    So, just as with character, a broad and balanced education requires that creativity is embedded right across the curriculum.

    NO SURRENDER ON STANDARDS

    Of course absolutely vital to delivering on this promise will be a highly qualified, self-motivating and dedicated teaching profession.

    And the changing economic and educational necessities only further demonstrate the importance of regular professional development, of making sure that teachers’ skills and knowledge are up-to-date with the latest pedagogical and technological expertise.

    That, as I have said, is the surest way to raise standards in our schools.

    Nevertheless, there may be those who say that a contemporary vision of schooling which stresses character and creativity alongside attainment is a surrender on standards.

    Let me say very clearly: I see absolutely no reason why we need to make a choice between taking academic rigour seriously or developing character and creativity.

    As Andreas Schleicher from the OECD made clear when he presented the PISA survey in December, success in the 21st century will depend as much upon what you can do with what you know, as what you know.

    And I have seen this creativity at work in the sports ethos of Sir Thomas Telford City Technology College; the Hairspray rehearsals at the Ormiston Sir Stanley Matthews Academy; and the rich, glorious displays of children’s artwork on the walls of St Mary’s Redcliffe, Bristol and Divine Mercy Roman Catholic School, Manchester.

    They have shown the ethos, excellence and culture of high expectations we want to see spread to all schools.

    And as any employer will tell you – outstanding qualifications, on their own, are no guarantee of the wider aptitudes required for the world of work.

    So preparing our young people, equipping them with the character and creativity needed to succeed in this most demanding and competitive of centuries, is an essential partner to raising standards.

    Literacy and numeracy, creativity and character – these are the themes we want to pursue in office.

    It speaks to our tradition within the Labour movement and to the modern demands of a global economy.

    And it has been done in the past.  Let me end by returning to the past.

    In 1936, the Mayor of West Ham looked back on the great era of municipal socialism in London:  In my early days there were no municipal recreation grounds or playing fields: no municipal college, secondary, central, special, open air or nursery schools; no municipal libraries, baths, tramways or electricity undertakings; no municipal hospitals, maternity and child welfare clinics or school medical clinics.  Truly there has been a wonderful growth of educational and public health services: those twin handmaidens, which have brought to our citizens healthier, happier and longer lives.

    Education as the handmaiden of a healthier, happier and longer life – that seems to me a worthy ambition.

  • Philip Hunt – 2006 Speech on Age Discrimination Act

    Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hunt, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, to the Third Age Employment Network on 3rd October 2006.

    Introduction

    An 80 per cent employment rate. That is the long term aim that the government has set itself – something currently unheard of beyond the volcanic pools of Iceland.

    We haven’t just plucked this figure from the ether – whilst our employment rate is already the highest of the G8 countries – we want and need to do more to rise to the new challenges we face. Our aim of an 80 per cent employment rate signals our determination to end social exclusion by offering the opportunity of work to everyone in our society, to provide security in retirement by addressing the dramatically rising dependency ratio between those in employment and those in retirement and to enable us to compete in the world-wide economy.

    And to do this we will need to break down the barriers holding back employment opportunities among ethnic minorities, address the problems in employment black spots like some of our inner cities and get more lone parents and people claiming Incapacity Benefit back to work.

    And on top of all that we want to see a million more older people in work than we have now.

    By building on our past successes, developing our current proposals and changing attitudes and opinions for the future we can achieve what many would call the impossible dream.

    Successful Labour Market Policies

    We have already shown we can successfully tackle difficult employment problems – there are nearly 2.5 million more people in work today than there were in 1997. In fact, there are more people in work than ever before. The claimant count is falling and we have virtually eradicated long-term youth unemployment, an achievement that some thought was impossible.

    We are already achieving success in some of the key areas of our challenging aim of 80 per cent employment. For the first time there are more than a million lone parents in work. We have managed to bring the number of people claiming incapacity benefits down to the lowest figure for 6 years. And we have increased the employment rate among older workers to over 70 per cent – a faster increase than in the overall employment rate. All these things were thought to be difficult if not impossible.

    It is these successes that enable us to believe that we can achieve our latest “impossible” aim of an employment rate of 80 per cent.

    Health and employment

    Clearly a person’s health is going to be a key factor in whether they are able to work for longer. This is true regardless of the person’s age, and health problems or disabilities can act as barriers throughout a person’s working life. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the fact that there are currently over 2.7 million people claiming incapacity benefits and there were 164 million working days lost to sickness last year.

    If we are to help as many people as possible to enter into, remain in or return to work, and if we are to truly extend working lives, we need to improve the health and wellbeing of all working age people regardless of their age – making this a real priority for government and society. This is why we launched our Health, Work and Wellbeing Strategy, a cross-government strategy involving DWP, the Health and Safety Executive and the Departments of Health in England, Wales and Scotland.

    Through the strategy we are working in partnership with a wide range of partners, including employers, trade unions, insurers and healthcare professionals, to create healthier workplaces, reduce the likelihood of people becoming injured or sick at work and encourage the provision of good occupational health services and enhanced return to work support. There is a need to change public perceptions about the importance of work and links between work and health as well as the perceptions and behaviour of healthcare professionals.

    We need to support employers, helping them to better adapt to the challenges of an ageing workforce. We also need to look intelligently and creatively at government services, and particularly healthcare, to ensure that we are delivering the right services for working age people and give these people the priority they deserve.

    By taking this action I hope that we are improving the health of older workers; helping them manage chronic health conditions the incidence of which increases with age; helping more people with health conditions find and remain in work; and ultimately help people to work longer and retire healthier.

    Continuing Progress

    We are working hard, on a range of fronts, to break down age barriers in employment.

    In January this year our Welfare Reform Green Paper outlined our proposals to help people stay in work if and when their situation changes, to support people to get back to work and to help people stay in work through in-employment support.

    In the summer, the Pensions White Paper introduces changes to the State Pension Age.

    We have been successfully working with employers to promote the clear business benefits of age equality, as well as challenging all the ingrained prejudices.

    And we’re backing up our determination to eliminate age discrimination with new legislation.

    Welfare Reform Green Paper

    Our Welfare Reform Green Paper sets out our proposals for building towards an 80 per cent employment rate. There are specific proposals for people aged 50 and over but each and every proposal has the potential to make a real difference to older people.

    As I mentioned earlier, we have ambitious plans to transform workplace health and we have appointed a new Director for Health and Well-Being to work with employers, employees and their representatives and health professionals to ensure that the right support is available at the right time to help people remain in work.

    Almost half of the 2.7 million claiming incapacity benefits are aged 50 and over and a third of those have been claiming for ten years or more. That’s just one of the reasons why we are transforming incapacity benefits, building upon the success of our Pathways to Work pilots which have already helped over 25 thousand people into work. Pathways has demonstrated that most people claiming incapacity benefits want and expect to work given the right support.

    And Pathways isn’t just an idea, not just a set of statistics, it’s real and it’s making a difference to real people. Jane had been claiming Incapacity Benefit since 1978 because of a back problem and depression. With the support from her specialist Incapacity Benefit Personal Advisor, and help through the Return to Work Credit, Adviser Discretion Fund, Tax Credits and New Deal 50 Plus, Jane started work as a Production Operator after 25 years on benefits.

    We are transforming the entire regime of benefits and support with a revised initial health assessment which focuses upon capability and support needs, early support from employment and health specialists and a personally tailored action plan to enable the individual to acquire the skills and support they need to return to employment, and to retain new work.

    Our Welfare Reform proposals also, for the first time, will enable older people to access a number of initiatives that have previously only been open to younger people.

    For example, at present the New Deal 25 Plus Intensive Jobsearch Activity Period, with its more extensive support, is mandatory for jobseekers aged between 25 and 49, but voluntary for those aged 50 or over. However, this group often fail to take the offer of this help because they’ve grown demoralised about their chances of returning to work.

    Therefore we have been running a pilot study since April 2004 to trial mandatory participation in this Intensive Activity Period for people aged 50 to 59.

    We are seeing positive results. Where this extra support is given to everyone, more people aged 50 to 59 do successfully leave benefit dependency and return to work. That is why we plan to extend this mandatory help nationally in 2007.

    Similarly we propose to bring couples over 50 and claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance into the Joint Claims regime, where we’ll treat each person as an individual jobseeker. This is already required for couples who were born after 1957, and serves to keep both parties in contact with the work-focused help and support available through Jobcentre Plus.

    New Deal 50 plus continues to offer help on a voluntary basis to eligible customers and their partners who are aged 50 or over. We estimate that since 2000 the programme has supported over 150,000 people in their return to work, and we’re continuing to look at improvements to the programme, such as aligning the exclusive In Work Training Grant more closely with Information Advice and Guidance providers.

    We are also proposing a pilot initiative to test the effects of strengthening New Deal 50 plus by making participation in the programme mandatory at 6 months rather than purely voluntary. By doing this we can test whether more people over 50 can be helped into work in this way.

    Additionally, we are working on a project to test the effectiveness of face-to-face guidance for older people in work. We plan to trial the means of giving people information on their options for working up to State Pension Age and beyond, if they wish, to help them plan for a more financially secure retirement..

    Pensions White Paper

    Increasing the number of older people in work by 1 million is a long term aim. Achieving it will depend on a number of factors, including continued macro-economic stability, the pace of welfare reform, and ensuring we have the right policies in place to reach those most likely to otherwise leave the labour market early.

    In the medium term we’ll be phasing in a rise in Women’s State Pension Age from 60 to 65 between 2010 and 2020.

    In our recent Pensions White Paper “Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system” the Government announced proposals to raise the State Pension age from 2024 onwards. It is vital that we safeguard the long term affordability of the State Pension.

    To ensure people have the opportunity to work to age 65 and beyond they will need greater access to flexible working and later retirement opportunities, and the ability to manage their work and pension income to meet their own circumstances. We have increased the range of choices and financial incentives for individuals to draw or defer their State Pension while they carry on working. Tax rule changes also now allow people to draw part or all of their occupational pension while continuing to work for the same employer, where scheme rules allow. For carers, the majority of whom are aged over 45, there will be a new right to request flexible working from April 2007.

    There will need to be behavioural and cultural change around retirement along with changes to the benefit system. Information will be available on the services the Government and others offer to support people in making informed choices.

    Working with Employers

    There is, of course, one particular barrier that can prevent older people working – age discrimination.

    We have been working closely with the business community to drive forward the age agenda. Our Age Positive campaign has been running successfully since 2001; and with business lead organisations our ‘Be Ready’ campaign has been promoting practical guidance on adopting age good practice to employers since Spring 2005. We supported this business-led campaign to reach all 1.4 million employers, offering free guidance material to help employers prepare towards the age legislation. And through the age legislation we have taken the decision to introduce a default retirement age of 65 to make compulsory retirement below that age unlawful, for the first time.

    But we must do more. A report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, published last year, found that well over half of respondents had suffered age discrimination at work, and nearly a quarter still used age in recruitment decisions.

    Clearly this is an unacceptable situation which cannot be allowed to continue. Since Sunday, as you will all know very well, it has been unlawful to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of age in the field of employment or vocational training. The Age Regulations give individuals important new rights, extend existing rights and remove traditional barriers. We have worked with employer organisations to help prepare employers and have directly contacted all employers three times since May 2005 to help prepare them, and offered free guidance and support.

    We will monitor the effects of the default retirement age and review them five years after implementation. Our aim over time is to move to a position where there is no compulsory retirement unless it can be justified by individual employers. We intend to remove the default retirement age as soon as we can show that it is no longer necessary or appropriate.

    Default retirement age is not a compulsory retirement age. We will continue to encourage employers to adopt more flexible practices around retirement. I’m delighted to say that my Department, the DWP, has taken the decision to remove its retirement age altogether for staff below the senior civil service. The message is the same for all – it’s time to remove age discrimination from your business.

    I am aware that criticism has been levelled at the Government for retaining the development rate of the National Minimum Wage for workers aged between 18 and 21. We have done this to protect younger workers. Our concern is that, if we did not protect the development bands some employers might lay off their young workers. The independent Low Pay Commission share this concern and recommended the introduction of an exemption along these lines last year.

    Unskilled, inexperienced young workers are in an especially vulnerable position in the employment market. The exemption will allow employers to take on young workers and use the development bands of the minimum wage, without the fear that this could be unlawful.

    For the first time this country’s legislation will give people new rights to protect them from being discriminated against due to their age. Whatever your view of the new law, it represents a major step forward.

    Conclusion

    To finish, our strategy is not about forcing people to work until they drop. It is to enable older people to continue in work if they want to, stop employers from discriminating against them and demonstrate that people of a certain age should not be thrown on the scrap heap and left there. And as I said earlier, work is generally good for your health and wellbeing and can influence a person’s health when they reach retirement and therefore the quality of that retirement.

    We are proud of our achievements over the last 8 years in improving the prospects for older people to stay in, or re-enter work. But we know we can’t take an exclusively “top-down” approach and try to tackle this problem alone. The work of organisations like TAEN, and initiatives like your own Agebusters website, are essential to challenging and removing ageist workplace practices that have been accepted as ‘common sense’ for years.

    We’re not complacent. We know that there’s more to be done. And you can be assured that we’ll be working hard to move towards our long term aim of an 80 per cent employment rate and a million more older workers.

  • Kim Howells – 2004 Speech on Entrepreneurship Education

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Education Minister, Kim Howells, to the Institute for Small Business Affairs on 4th November 2004. NB – some monetary figures are not available on this speech.

    May I congratulate the Institute for Small Business Affairs on organising this conference?

    It is very timely and extremely relevant. Like South Wales where I come from, the north east has had to re-invent itself in the 1980s. There was talk of terminal decline, fragmented communities. In this changing social and economic landscape people faced an uncertain future, a future with new challenges. Tackling these challenges, we know, would require a shift in thinking. Old skills would have to be replaced as old industries closed. To fill the void we would have to learn new skills and adapt to different national and international demands.

    Promoting the debate on the need for this realignment were the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs), enterprises you represent. Together with your partners you continue to lay foundations for the future prosperity of the region. But I recognise that you’re unable to work wonders alone. That is why this Government, committed to offering opportunity to all, to marrying social justice with economic success, is keen to build partnerships with this key sector. We need to create partnerships that offer young people now and in the future relevant experiences of the world of work. We need to equip them to take on the challenges that lie ahead. To do so they will need to be inspired risk-takers, motivators who are adaptable and capable of innovation; in a word, enterprising.

    But many of our young people have an insufficient grasp of these key skills. As many in this audience will attest, too many leave school without the skills employers need. You will hear today of how our European and wider international partners and competitors are tackling these issues and the part education plays in these strategies. And these are lessons we in the UK must listen to. We have an immensely strong and stable economy, but our productivity continues to suffer because of an imbalance in skills available and skills needed in a number of key areas. And they are not only in basic skills, as one may think. For example, comparative wage increases for corporate managers suggest that management skills may be in short supply. And this is when demand for such expertise is expected to increase by 650,000.

    Foundation Degrees

    I recognise that as a Government we can only tackle such shortages properly by listening more to employers. But I also believe that both Government and employers must develop stronger broader partnerships if we’re to raise the nation’s skills base. It’s something we can only do together. So, it may come as no surprise that I welcome the latest figures showing that over 24,000 students are now studying for Foundation Degrees – compared with 12,400 the previous year. And indications are positive with acceptances on full-time courses this year 2004, up one third at the same point last year.

    Foundation Degrees can be available in both full-time and flexible modes of study (including work-based and distance learning and part-time study) to suit employers and learners. The length of course varies according to the place offering the course, the subject and method of delivery, and whether the student is part or full time. Conventional full-time courses currently take two years, other courses may take between 2 to 4 years.

    Crucially, and this ought to be a massive incentive for more of your sector to become involved, Foundation Degrees are designed in conjunction with employers. They are designed to meet skills shortages at the higher technician and associate professional level. They’re developed and delivered by partnerships of employers, higher education institutions and further education colleges with work-based learning as a key characteristic. And I’m sure you will agree with me when I say I would like to see more SMEs taking advantage of this opportunity to influence learning. It’s a real, tangible opportunity to shape the future.

    The University of Teesside is drawing on business expertise in its pioneering Upgrade2 programme. It helps graduates from any university or degree discipline to set up new businesses in fields ranging from animation and computer games to interior design and music. New Entrepreneur Scholarships provide training and support for potential entrepreneurs in the Tees valley. And similar innovations can be found in the Burnside Business and Enterprise College. Proof of the power of partnership in nurturing the next generation of business leaders.

    Partnership is also central to our 5 Year Strategy in which we place work-related learning at the heart of our education system, and it’s certainly a key element of the Government’s 14-19 strategy.   We’re determined that an integral part of every school’s work-related learning programme should involve learning about enterprise. We want to see enterprise just as much a part of the school day as core subjects such as English or science. Indeed, the Qualifications and Curriculum’s Authority (QCA) guidance on work-related learning, is quite emphatic on this point, with a key guideline that states: “students should be taught to recognise, develop and apply enterprise and employability skills’.

    I see schools as uniquely placed to give students these opportunities, but I don’t expect them to do so alone. My Department is providing funding of ?? million a year from September 2005 to enable each school to develop enterprise education. National guidance for schools will also be available, including QCA case studies of enterprise in all subjects.

    Enterprise Education Pathfinder

    Crucial to this guidance is the Enterprise Education Pathfinder programme, and I’m pleased to say it’s a programme going from strength to strength. One hundred and seventy one (171) Enterprise Pathfinder projects have been set up in the past 12 months in over 500 secondary schools. And we plan a full national roll-out next year.

    Ferryhill Business and Enterprise College, Staindrop Comprehensive and Deerness Valley Comprehensive, in Ushaw Moor, are flying the flag for Durham. They’re working with the national charity ‘Changemaker’ to play an active role in community change. These schools will be part of a local and national social enterprise model encouraging enterprise capability amongst school children. And I know that the local LEA are keen to hear from any employer, or self-employed people interested in contributing to help young people take part in the project.

    Some Pathfinder schools are encouraging teachers to undertake special enterprise-based Professional Development Placements. And they’re developing partnerships with the corporate world through initiatives such as enterprise focus groups. We need to view enterprise education as an integral part of the work-related learning programme, and not some separate bolt-on initiative.

    This will be explored through the ‘Make Your Mark – start talking ideas’ campaign. It seeks to influence people between the ages of 14-25 to have a more enterprising outlook on life in general. The focus of this year’s campaign is Enterprise Week, running from 15th to 21st November. It will consist of over 500 events on the theme of enterprise. Many schools are taking part, and, I’m sure, will play a key role in making the week a success.

    But for enterprise projects to have a more realistic feel requires the involvement of business as well as schools. There’s a huge and growing demand for all you have to offer – as organisations and individuals. That’s why Northumberland College is keen to have business represented on the new Learning Park campus currently in the planning stage. The relocation of the college to a more central location will focus provision of education and allow more people to gain the skills business requires. And it will further the development of Ashington Town Centre – an area particularly affected by the decline of the coal industry.

    Several of the Education Enterprise Pathfinders have used their funding to appoint an Enterprise Co-ordinator to develop their business links, and organising enterprise days and other activities. There is a lot of mileage in this approach, which will be open for enterprising heads to adopt in September 2005. It‘s also a useful mechanism for strengthening collaboration between schools, which is another key aspect of the Government’s 14-19 strategy.

    Enterprise Adviser Programme 

    Running alongside the Enterprise pathfinders is the ?? million Enterprise Adviser programme managed by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). This innovative scheme has sent Enterprise Advisers with business skills and experience to 1,000 schools in some of our most deprived areas, spreading the word about enterprise and the possibilities it can create in areas of deprivation; precisely those areas, affected by the industrial decline I mentioned earlier.

    Conclusion

    For a business to succeed it needs to remain competitive. To remain competitive it needs to be able to harness the skills and vision of new, young enterprising entrepreneurs. For these people to emerge we all need to offer them the opportunities to develop. That is the task for, Government and business working together. I believe Government is doing a great deal through education to nurture enterprise, to develop the skills business needs. But I would like to see more businesses become involved in the creation of the nascent entrepreneur. If they don’t, then that educational experience will be the poorer. So will the north east and so will the United Kingdom.