UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Dawn Primarolo – 1998 Speech to the Women's Budget Group

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Dawn Primarolo, to the Women’s Budget Group on 12th February 1998.

    1.      I am very pleased to have this chance to address you here today.  Both in Opposition and in Government, my colleagues and I have had respect for the work done by members of the Women’s Budget Group.

    A:  THIS GOVERNMENT – TREASURY INCLUDED – IS PRO WOMEN

    2.       The Government – and the Treasury in particular – is committed to supporting women in their diverse roles:

    we want equality of opportunity for men and for women.   The Government must enable women to take their rightful place as the economic equals of men.  There is still much progress to be made: 79 years after women got the vote,  there are still far too many women in low income groups, low paid jobs and living in poverty in workless households.

    and we must support women in their role usually as the main carer for children. Fundamental to this Government’s mission, is to serve the children who are our future. We are committed to tackling child poverty.

    B: WE ACCEPT THE NEED FOR GENDER AWARENESS IN POLICY MAKING

    3.   I am proud to be part of a Government which understands that Governments should be aware of  – and take fully into account in the decision making-process – the differential effects of economic policy on men and women. Not as an afterthought, but as an integral part of policy making.

    4.   The reality is that – overall – women’s lives differ from men’s in ways which are structural to our economy.  So some Budget measures affect women differently than men.  That is why an analysis of gender impact lies right at the heart of this Government’s Budget process.  We will publish information on Budget Day setting out the gender impact of those policies which particularly affect women.

    5.   It is vital that our decisions – especially our Budget decisions – are taken on a gender aware basis.   Too often in the past, many of us have  felt that policy decisions have been taken in a way that is “gender blind.”  A poor policy process runs the risk of delivering poor decisions: decisions reflected in today’s status quo: a status quo which is failing women.

    C: THE STATUS QUO IS FAILING WOMEN

    6.        Previous Governments have failed to respond to the changing political and economic context, and the changes in women’s and men’s roles. They have led to a status quo that is failing women today. The figures speak for themselves. Of the lowest 10 per cent of earners in the UK, nearly two-thirds are women.  Average weekly earnings for women are only three quarters of the level for men.    Three quarters of clerical and secretarial posts are filled by women whereas they only occupy a third of managerial and administrator posts.  Women in managerial posts earn on average just two thirds of the salary of their male counterparts. More women than men are on temporary contracts.

    Previous Governments have failed to respond to womens’  changing place in the labour market.   The state –      through the benefit and tax systems – has continued to      assume that men work in secure long term jobs whilst women stay at home and care for the children. The reality is now much more diverse. More and more women are in employment  – in the last 15 years, we have seen an      increase of over 2 million working women. Many more women than men choose to take up the opportunities of part-time work.

    Specifically, the benefit system failed women by assuming a family structure in which women are dependent on men; where there is a male breadwinner, with women staying at home to look after children.  Just one example:  the benefits system fails to give partners of the unemployed the help and advice they need to find work, because of the overriding focus on getting the breadwinner back to work.

    The state has failed to adapt itself to changing social trends, for example the needs of  lone parents: parents who want to do the best by their children.  Lone parents have been denied the advice and help they need: instead, these parents were turned away with an order book, and told not to return until their youngest child had reached their 16th birthday.

    The state has failed to adapt to changing needs on childcare.  There has never been a national strategy to      ensure that childcare in Britain matches  women’s changing role in the labour market. The issue of affordability has been ignored for too long.  And the childcare disregard  has benefited only 31,000 families – less than 5 per cent of Family Credit recipients.

    The state has long failed to recognise the importance of unpaid work and the informal sector. Unpaid work plays a vital role in stitching together the fabric of society.

    D: WE WILL WORK TO ENSURE THAT WOMEN ARE FAILED NO LONGER

    7.       This Government is not prepared to sit by and watch women being failed in all of these different ways.  That is why we are embarked on a wide ranging programme of reform to ensure that women get a new deal from the state.  This new deal must ensure that we help women from welfare into work, that we ensure that work pays and that we support women in all of their diverse roles.

    8.     We have started to implement  the new deal for Lone Parents, giving women the advice and support they need in finding work, to improve their own and their children’s lifelong prospects.   This is the first national attempt to help lone parents – 90% of whom are mothers – into work.  The vast majority of lone parents  – just like women in couples – want the opportunity to work.  Not just for the financial rewards but for the self-respect and independence work brings. The employment rate for mothers in couples has risen from 53 per cent to 65 per cent, over the past 20 years.  At the same time,  the number of lone parents in work has fallen from 48 per cent to 40 per cent.  We are determined to give lone parents – and their children – a chance.

    9.     We will be spending £175 million on the New Deal for lone parents over this Parliament. The programme will be available nationally for all new claimants from April, and will involve personal assistance with jobsearch, training and childcare for people who have previously been ignored by the system.

    10.       We are modernising the tax and benefits system.  The key to tackling poverty among women and children is work.  Work provides a better standard of living than could ever be received on benefit. Our reforms aim to remove the financial penalties that the tax and benefits system present to those deciding to work.

    11.       The Government is committed to introducing a 10p tax rate when it is prudent to do so.  This will help improve take pay for the low paid – many of them women as we know –  and improve work incentives.

    12.           By setting a floor under wages, the National Minimum Wage will be of particular benefit to women in low-paid work. It will help to remove the worst cases of discrimination, and help promote work incentives. And  women stand to benefit from the introduction of the part-time workers’ directive, which aims to bring the rights of part-time workers more into line with those of full-time workers.

    13.       We are developing a national strategy for childcare.

    We have already started delivering, with a £300m out-of-school initiative.  Our national strategy will empower local communities to work together to meet their childcare needs. And we recognise the importance of, and are committed to promoting, family-friendly policies at work – for women and men and their families.

    14.         Taken together, we have a host of policies which are designed to address the failure of past policy vacuum.    We are determined to deliver on these promises, and we have already started to do so.  Doing nothing is not an option if we want to improve lives of women where the system is failing.

    E: OUR POLICIES WILL SUPPORT WOMEN CARING FOR THEIR CHILDREN

    15.       We recognise of course that many women choose to stay at home and look after their children.  The value to society of this unpaid caring work should not  be underestimated. Indeed I am pleased to note that the Office of National Statistics is now starting to collect and make sense of data on the unpaid sector of our economy.

    16.  Our policies will be designed with the importance of this unpaid caring sector in mind.  For example, we are committed to introducing citizenship pensions for those who assume caring responsibilities and lose out on pension entitlements.  This is part of our agenda to ensure a decent  income for women over their whole lifetime.

    17.      The primary caring role that women have traditionally held within the family, of course,  means that it is often women that are closer to the needs of children.  We are determined to bring forward policies which will enable women to look after the needs of their children.

    18.       I want to reassure you today that child welfare is at the heart of our policies.  We know that investing in children – in this country’s future – is the most important investment we can make. The first few years of life are the most important in determining ability to thrive at school, in work, and in society more widely. Disadvantage in childhood can lead to life-long problems which affect the rest of the community – through crime, drug abuse and unemployment. The best way of supporting children is enabling parents to give their children the best start in life.

    19.         We recognise the importance of child benefit as a mechanism for ensuring the extra cost of children is recognised.

    That’s why we had manifesto commitment to retain it as universal benefit for the under 16s.  Child benefit has been frozen on a number of occasions in recent decades. This Government is committed to uprate it at least in line with prices.

    F: AND – CRUCIALLY – OUR POLICIES WILL BE DESIGNED TO  SUPPORT FAMILIES IN WORK

    20.    Welfare to Work and the Working Families Tax Credit  are key policies which  underpin our agenda for creating fairness, justice and equal opportunities for all. Our policies must facilitate the move from welfare to work, and must also ensure that work pays. A WFTC would be key to this strategy.

    21.    Family credit has contained successful elements.  But we should have no illusions about its failings.  It is taken up by only 70 per cent of potential recipients.  And the childcare disregard has benefited only 31,000 families, only one-fifth of the number originally anticipated. Family Credit has  contributed to penal marginal withdrawal rates. 650,000 families face marginal rates of 70 per cent or more, with women usually the greatest losers. It is also administratively cumbersome: almost half a million families on Family Credit receive a benefit cheque from the DSS while paying income tax to the Inland Revenue.

    22.      A new tax credit would have a number of advantages over the existing system of Family Credit:

    its clear link with employment would demonstrate the

    rewards of work over welfare and help people move off benefits into work.

    the payment of a tax credit will guarantee working

    families a minimum income, above and beyond the level of the minimum wage the onus would be on government to help ensure that as many individuals as were entitled would receive the tax credit, which – together with its status as a tax credit rather than a welfare benefit – should improve take-up  and, as the Chancellor made clear in his Pre-Budget Statement, the new system would also involve improved support for childcare through reform of the childcare disregard which has failed to cover adequately the childcare costs of lone parents and others on low incomes.

    23.     Much of the attention surrounding today’s Conference has been focussed on what a Working Families Tax Credit would mean for women. The Working Families Tax Credit would be paid  to families with children.  One in five children live in families without work. Families without work are families without independence.  We are determined to help families with children give their children the best start in life.  The Working Families Tax Credit will help people’s incomes rise as the new system improves incentives to work.

    24.       It is women who have been the greatest losers from the lack of coordination between tax and benefits systems to date.

    It is women who have most often been prevented from working by the barriers the state has created which fail to give people incentives  to work and to move up the job ladder.  A reformed system is what women and their families deserve.

    25.         The final issue that I want to talk about is the purse to wallet issue.  I believe that we need to be quite clear about the evidence on income sharing patterns within households.

    Ruth Lister’s research is a helpful start, but her findings are clearly open to a variety of interpretations. Her work shows is that there is an extremely diverse pattern of income distribution within households.  There is no  one dominant model.

    26.        There is no threat to independent taxation from the working families tax credit.  Nor would there be a compulsory transfer of resources from women to men. If the working families tax credit replaced Family Credit, families would have the right to elect to whom the tax credit is paid – the woman or the man.

    27.  Women, because they are greatly over represented in the poorest groups, will be the main beneficiaries of a WFTC. This is especially true once the dynamic effects are taken into account. It is essential not to base thinking about welfare on the false premise that we are merely sharing out the state’s resources. That can only ever be a short term view.

    G: CONCLUDING REMARKS

    28.      This government is embarked on a vast programme of change. We have put an end to men only economic policy. We will always consider the impact of our policies on women.  We will continue to support women in all of their diverse roles – as breadwinners and as carers in the home.

    29.  My message to you today is that this programme of change is not a threat to women, rather it is essential for delivering a fair deal for women. We mustn’t look back. Only by moving forward can we deliver this agenda together.

  • John Prescott – 2003 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Prescott to the 2003 Labour Party Conference.

    Conference, after six years in government I’ve picked up a few titles.

    Civil servants call me “DPM”. I’m JP to my friends. To the press I’m “Two Jags” or “Four pads”. But the title that makes me the proudest is “DL”. DL? Deputy Leader. Deputy leader of the greatest party there is. The Labour party. A great party. A great conference.

    We confounded the doom and gloom merchants in the press didn’t we? They predicted disaster, a return to the 70s and 80s. The media saw blood on my collar during Monday’s speech. That’s progress. A few years ago, in the bad old days, they ‘d have been reporting the blood all over the conference floor.

    Last weekend the headlines predicted a week of reversals. We’ve only had a couple. And now we know why, don’t we? We haven’t got a reverse gear. But as one delegate said yesterday, “if you go in the right direction you don’t really need one, do you?”

    Yesterday we honoured two comrades. Jack Jones and Michael Foot who symbolise the two wings of our great movement: the industrial and the political. Never forget that. They did so much to make the party what it is today.

    We didn’t hear them speak, but then we didn’t need to. Their life’s work spoke volumes for them.

    But we did hear two powerful speeches this week: one from Gordon, one from Tony. Weren’t they magnificent? And you showed it, in the reception you gave them.

    The press were shocked that a Labour MP, a Labour chancellor in a Labour government used the word “Labour” in a speech to Labour conference. And that a Labour prime minister, used the word “Labour” as well. Mind you, as many times as he said “New Labour”, actually. It’s funny, I’ve been using the word “Labour” for years and no one’s ever given me stick for it.

    Two great speeches. Packed full of Labour values and Labour government achievements. That’s the real story.

    We heard Gordon’s passionate words:

    “… Labour policies have achieved the longest period of continuous and sustained economic growth in the last 50 years… and “there are today in Britain more people in work – 28 million – than at any time in our history.”

    And we heard Tony’s powerful reminder that:

    “… we can be proud of the new money in our schools and health service, proud that this year, last year and next year, spending on health and education is rising faster here than in any other major country.”

    That’s economic competence and full employment, giving us – at long, long last – economic prosperity and social justice.

    Wasn’t that what we’ve always wanted? Wasn’t it why we fought through all those bitter Tory years? Why we worked so hard together?

    So, two powerful speeches from Tony and Gordon.

    And this conference knows, this party knows, the whole country knows, that these two achieve more by their common endeavour than they do alone.

    Conference, this is where we sort out our differences, within the party. I’m pleased our debates have been open and constructive. That makes for better decisions. Progress means change, yes. And change is often controversial. But the most controversial issues are sometimes those that are least discussed.

    So this week we’ve debated foundation hospitals, tuition fees, PPPs, and pensions. All of them controversial. We all agree on what we want. Better hospitals, more investment in public services, more of our people going to university, dignity if retirement. But, of course, we have differences about how to achieve them.

    I remember the huge row over the national minimum wage. Not about how much it should be. The other row. Many years ago. About whether to have one at all.

    A few of us battled hard against massed ranks of those claiming that a national minimum wage would destroy the principle of free collective bargaining.

    So it was controversial. But we worked it through.

    And so this week the trade unions were able to place full-page newspaper advert calling, amongst other things, for a higher minimum wage. A call made possible only because we’ve now got a national minimum wage to raise.

    It is a reality. And it’s already lifted millions out of poverty pay.

    So, it’s important to have the debates, no matter how controversial.

    Unfortunately too many people, in all parts of the party and on all sides of arguments, say, “listen” when they really mean “listen and then do as I say”.

    Now Tony and I have our discussions. In private. And we have our ups and downs. But when we do disagree I don’t rush out and issue a press release. Or brief the newspapers.

    I do my job as the deputy leader. I do what you expect of me. I do my best to put the views of the party. Sometimes when we disagree he turns out to be wrong. It’s good to know Tony’s human. I was beginning to wonder.

    But sometimes I turn out to be wrong. Take our clause 4.

    Just after the two of us were elected, he told me he wanted to change the party’s constitution. I said “Oh no”, or words to that effect.

    So I told him if we’re going to do it, do it properly. Consult the wider party. Engage with members. Persuade them.

    And we did. And it was a success. We adopted a more relevant statement of our values. Traditional values in a modern setting.

    I especially like the first line, don’t you? How does it go? “We are a democratic socialist party”

    So I welcome participation and debate. I always have done.

    And now we need to start a new debate, having the confidence to listen to the party and listen to the country.

    As Tony said on Tuesday: “This must not be a discussion just between us. Because if we want a government in touch with the party, we must have a party in touch with the people.”

    But conference, I believe that any debate with the country must start within the party itself.

    Every section of the party – all of us – must have a part in that process:

    · trade unionists – the legitimate voice of working people;

    · socialist societies, bringing so many new ideas to our debates;

    · MPs, assembly members and MEPs – working hard to represent their constituents;

    · Labour councillors – doing a difficult job with little thanks;

    · and party members – the lifeblood of our movement in local communities.

    Let’s remember though, that we must – all of us – be prepared to think it possible that we are mistaken. We must be prepared to be persuaded in the argument by the force of the argument. We must be prepared to change our minds.

    But the right to be consulted brings with it an obligation to participate responsibly. But, I have to tell you, I have more chance of hearing the views of few of our more critical MPs on the TV, than in the place where we are supposed to air our differences: at the weekly meeting of the parliamentary Labour party.

    And when I go to party events around the country, hard-working party activists ask me “why do Labour MPs write articles, especially in the Tory Daily Mail, attacking a Labour government?” Even during the critical Brent byelection.

    I have to tell them, “I don’t know”, “I can’t understand it myself”.

    Mind you, chair, I should declare an interest. I’ve had an offer myself. Don’t laugh – it’s good money. All I have to do is write my memoirs.

    The Daily Mail say they’ll serialise it. And another newspaper wants a weekly column. All for six-figure sums apparently.

    But I looked at the small print. First, it said I have to resign from the cabinet. Second, no articles supporting Labour. To earn that kind of money I’ve got to do something else: I’ve got to slag off the government and my former colleagues.

    Then it says: “don’t worry if you take a different position now to the one you took in cabinet – we’ll just say that shows what an independent thinker you are”.

    Well conference, I haven’t been an MP for 33 years just to use the Daily Mail to attack any Labour government, let alone this one.

    So let me say to those in our party who claim that the government has betrayed Labour’s values.

    Our achievements would have been celebrated by our party at any time in its history.

    Keir Hardie would have rejoiced at our implementation of his minimum wage. Nye Bevan could only dream of the level of investment we are making in his health service.

    Any Labour leader, at any time in history, would be proud that we are lifting millions of our children out of absolute poverty, and cutting the debt burden of the poorest nations in the world.

    That’s not betrayal. I call it democratic socialism.

    So listening is important. Proper debate is important and respect for other people’s opinions is important too

    But so is leadership. And we’ve been reminded of that this week, haven’t we?

    Seeing Tony in action underlines just what a great leader we have.

    On Sierra Leone, on Kosovo, on Afghanistan and, yes, on Iraq, when he saw the need to act, he acted. As a leader. He couldn’t walk by on the other side.

    And what was the result? Small children no longer have their arms and legs hacked off in a vicious civil war in Sierra Leone. Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo stopped. A million Muslims back home, rebuilding their country. And the brutal yoke of the Taliban lifted in Afghanistan.

    Yesterday President Karzai gave us a powerful account of the emerging democracy in his country. One and a half million girls now back at school and two million refugees returned home.

    And on Iraq, I know there are strongly held views on both sides. And the debate will continue, especially over weapons of mass destruction.

    Today a statement on the Interim Report of the Iraq Survey Group will be published. The media are already carrying what they claim to be leaks from the report. All I have to say to those who doubted our action against Saddam is: wait until the report is published.

    And, as Ann Clwyd reminded us so powerfully yesterday, surely, there can be no remaining doubt that the Iraqi people live in a better country today without Saddam Hussein.

    Conference, that’s our leader. Providing serious leadership. Facing tough choices. Taking monumental decisions.

    But let’s look at the competition. When the voters face a choice let’s look at the alternative leadership on offer.

    The Liberals. Charlie Kennedy.

    He’s made a momentous decision recently. With lasting implications for his party and the whole nation.

    Conference, Charles Kennedy has ended Liberal co-operation with Labour.

    I am devastated. I never quite managed to make it to Lib/Lab liaison meetings and now I never will.

    Charlie’s leadership: Talking left and acting right, or vice versa, depending on the audience.

    Charlie’s economic policy: more government spending all round and no way to fund it.

    It’s like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: as many sweeties as you like and you don’t have to pay for any of them.

    And now there’s Charlie’s cunning plan to replace the Tories. His message to his troops: “go back to your constituencies and prepare for opposition” Another 80 years of it. That’s fine by us, isn’t it?

    And the Tories. Iain Duncan Smith.

    He made a momentous decision too.

    He wants to change the face of the Conservative party. Literally.

    He’s spent £100,000 on a makeover. I’m not kidding. A personal image consultant. So he can, I quote, “walk, talk, and look the part”.

    He’s learning how to shake hands properly. Well, it’s a lot of money and it might well buy him a different handshake. But I tell you, it won’t give him a firmer grip on reality. Or his party. Or his job.

    He’s also been taught “new hand gestures” for when he’s speaking. Hand gestures? I’ll give him a hand gesture. And I’ll give him it for free.

    It’s old. It’s traditional. And it’s the same gesture the British people will give him – and the rest of his gang – at the next general election.

    Now, while I’m on the subject of elections, there’s a few coming up.

    Next year we’ll have them for: the European parliament, the London assembly and thousands of local council seats up and down the country.

    And, conference, there’ll be an opportunity for people across the north-west, north-east and Yorkshire & Humberside to vote in referendums to establish, for the first time ever, their own directly elected regional assemblies.

    At the last two general elections we had pledge cards. Do you remember them?

    I toured the constituencies signing them.

    I have to tell you I was a bit worried that we wouldn’t achieve all 10 pledges in 10 years. Well did it. Not in 10 years. We did it in six years!

    Here’s just 4 of those achievements:

    · A stable economy; smaller class sizes; youth unemployment down; shorter hospital waiting lists.

    That’s not distorted press perception. It’s crystal clear Labour reality.

    Have you ever wondered what a Tory pledge card for the next election would look like? We have.

    And we’ve had a stab at producing one ourselves.

    Have a look at this. Five Tory pledges.

    Privatise the NHS; cuts of 20% to public services; sack thousands of nurses; scrap the child tax credit and the pension credit, slash student numbers.

    That’s enough of that. Get rid of it.

    They might look down and out at the moment.

    But, I tell you, come the next election, the choice will be clear.

    And when that election does come around. Never, ever forget that they are the lowest, the meanest and the most dangerous opponents we could have.

    Never, ever forget that the Tories are the real enemy.

    Never ever forget, either, that Tory legacy. People’s memories have faded.

    You can’t blame them for blocking out just how bad it was under the Tories. But we have to remind people about:

    · Families struggling on our worst run-down estates; parents on the dole. Children with no hope.; sky-high truancy, overcrowded classrooms; communities consumed by drugs and crime.

    But it’s all changing. The shackles of those long Tory years are being prized open. Slowly and surely people are starting to see real improvement.

    It was our most deprived estates that suffered Thatcher’s worst blows. So we believe they deserved to be top of the list. To be Labour’s top priority.

    A better life for all, yes, but more help for those who need it most.

    A baby born in Britain on that same estate today has better life chances than ever.

    She might be born in a new maternity hospital, funded by the private finance initiative.

    Returning home to a home modernised to a decent standard.

    Thanks to Sure Start, she will receive a better start in life, while her mum can study for NVQs with a better chance of finding work.

    Huge capital investment has improved her primary and secondary school.

    Year on year, with exam results improving, truancy rates dropping and smaller classes, she and her classmates experience the joys of learning.

    If she leaves school early she is more likely to be employed than a few years ago.

    If she stays on she has a better chance of going into further or higher education.

    Her parents are using the working family tax credit and the national minimum wage to help them out of poverty and regain their self-respect.

    And her grandparents, from tomorrow, receiving a great boost to their pensions.

    That’s Labour. Still caring from cradle to the grave.

    Conference, we, in this party, hold power, not by virtue of birth or wealth.

    We are all of equal worth.

    We belong to the party that civilised the 20th century. And now history has placed in our hands the future of this country as we begin the 21st century.

    We hold in trust the memory of past generations whose pain, sacrifice and hard work built this party.

    We protect and promote the interests of today’s citizens: young and old, men and women, black and white. Not just those who voted Labour but all the people of this country.

    And with us we carry hopes and dreams to pass on to future generations.

    If we fail now. If we tear ourselves apart as we’ve in the past,

    Then that would truly be a betrayal. A betrayal of all those people who depend on a Labour government to make their lives better.

    So, yes, we will debate policy among ourselves.

    But let us remember this.

    The party in government, the party in the country, Britain as a whole, “we achieve more by our common endeavour than we achieve alone.’

    So go out there and speak to the people. Let’s tell them. Tell them what we’ve done

    Let’s explain what we’re doing. Let’s engage with them on what we intend to do.

    And let’s do that with a sense of purpose, a sense of unity, and a sense of pride.

    Proud of all we stand for. Proud of our Labour party.

  • John Prescott – 2003 Speech on the Thames Gateway

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, at the launch of a new house building project at the Thames Gateway on 30th July 2003.

    Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, it’s great to be here at Ingress Abbey.

    It is an example to all developers.

    Award winning planning.

    Award winning design.

    Built on a brownfield site.

    With social and market housing.

    And the restoration of a listed building.

    Some might say traditional values in a modern setting.

    It is a first step towards a new city here in North Kent.

    It is part of the 120,000 homes and 180,000 jobs we are aiming to create here in the Thames Gateway.

    New homes will be built alongside the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, which we rescued from collapse in 1998.

    The first phase of the Rail Link is now nearing completion – on budget and on time – and today setting a new speed record at almost 200 miles an hour. The tunnel runs right below our feet.

    Prime Minister, here at Ingress Abbey we are standing in the middle of the Thames Gateway – at the centre of the biggest brownfield site in Europe.

    It is a fantastic opportunity.

    An opportunity to boost the economy of the Thames Gateway and to provide the housing and jobs we need.

    Michael Heseltine identified the potential for the Thames Gateway more than ten years ago.

    Today we are not just talking about growth – we are making it happen.

    It was only in February that we launched our Sustainable Communities Plan.

    Today – under phase one of our programme – we are announcing plans to spend an additional £450 million over three years to support the development of key sites across the Gateway.

    That public funding will lever in three or four times as much in private sector investment. The development of the gateway will be a partnership between the public and the private sector.

    Public investment in infrastructure and land preparation will have a massive multiplyer effect.

    It will be the private sector that provides the vast majority of new housing in the Gateway.

    But we want to move ahead as quickly as we can.

    So, today I am allocating an additional £130 million to projects at the London end of the Gateway – that is in Stratford, the Royal Docks, Greenwich, Woolwich and Barking Reach where housing pressures are the most intense.

    An additional £100 million will be spent over the next three years here in North Kent, and £91 million in South Essex.

    Another £100m will also shortly be allocated for other projects awaiting approval, including setting up new Urban Development Corporations in Thurrock and East London.

    Getting the transport infrastructure in place is vital. Alastair Darling announced two weeks ago that he is allocating an additional £600 million for transport projects across the Gateway.

    And we will make the most of the £5 billion investment in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link – and the £10 billion upgrade of the West Coast Main Line.

    These massive, long term investments will provide us with faster, more efficient access to and from London from Europe and the north of England.

    Together they will form a transport corridor which will be the centrepiece of development in the Thames Gateway and other Growth Areas from Ashford to Milton Keynes and Northampton in the Midlands.

    When complete in 2007 the CTRL will open the way for domestic services providing additional capacity and faster journey times between Kent and London.

    The journey time from Ebbsfleet to London will be cut to only 17 minutes – 17 minutes by train, not hours by the motor car. That makes sense. That’s about public investment for sustainable development.

    The Dockland Light Railway will be extended to Woolwich and we will introduce new public transport infrastructure to open up Greenwich, Woolwich and Barking Reach.

    We will also ensure that the schools and hospitals are in place and that all areas are protected from flooding. Today, for example, we have announced around £130 million for three new or extended university campuses in the Thames Gateway.

    To the north of London, new development will also be well served by the transport investment we are making in:

    – the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line,

    – new rolling stock for the Midland Main Line,

    – the new interchange with Channel Tunnel Rail Link at St Pancras and Kings Cross and

    – additional investment in the M1 and M11 motorways.

    In the growth areas, I am announcing today plans for and additional £163 million to be spent in:

    Ashford, Milton Keynes and the South Midlands, and the London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor.

    This investment will help deliver an extra 130,000 homes and 120,000 jobs in the Milton Keynes- South Midlands area alone.

    To complete the picture, yesterday we announced a new £89 million Liveability Fund, to invest in our parks, public spaces and streets – improving the very sinews of our communities and the quality of life for everyone.

    And although the Thames Gateway is about new build, we also want to continue our record of improving the social housing stock.

    Two days ago we provided £1.5 billion to 13 new Arms Length Management Organisations to improve the quality of nearly 200,000 council-owned homes. That is in addition to the 800,000 council homes that have been brought up to a decent standard since 1997.

    Finally, I am very pleased that we are joined here today by Richard McCarthy, who will join my department to head up the new Sustainable Communities office in the autumn.

    The message today is that we are not just talking about sustainable growth.

    We are making it happen.

    Today marks the start of a long term commitment coupled with a long term process of delivery.

    We are putting new delivery mechanisms in place.

    We are putting the investment in place.

    And we have the political commitment to make it happen.

    Prime Minister, we are delighted that you are here with us today. We are embarking on a huge enterprise with the development of the Thames Gateway and the other growth areas. I know you want that to happen.

    It is a huge challenge, but we all know you will be keeping a close eye on it with the Cabinet Committee you chair. And together with our partners in the public and private sector we are determined to deliver.

  • John Prescott – 1999 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, to the 1999 Labour Party Conference.

    Two years ago, we inherited a Britain that was socially divided.

    Public services were starved of investment.

    Our environment was degraded. The air polluted. Water and rivers contaminated.

    Local government was shackled. Housing investment slashed.

    Rural communities neglected. A massive investment backlog, Disorganised railways, And crumbling roads.

    That’s the legacy the Tories left us.

    We are committed to reverse that.

    On day one, we brought together a new government department whose very purpose is a better quality of life. Improving people’s homes, their neighbourhoods, their travel, the air they breathe, the water they drink.

    There is much to do. But we have taken the essential long-term decisions to implement our manifesto Programme, and have a good ministerial team to implement it.

    We have a new positive partnership with local government. No longer is local government treated as the enemy within. We value public services. We value public servants. And like them, we want to deliver better public services.

    We promised to bring decision making closer to the people. We are giving London back to Londoners. Next May, Londoners will celebrate by ensuring their new mayor is neither Steven Norris nor Jeffrey Archer.

    And alongside devolution in Scotland and Wales, We’ve taken a step towards the sort of regional government that I have long believed in, With Regional Development Agencies, new regional planning and accountability.

    Two centuries after the world’s first Industrial Revolution, we face a new And momentous challenge – to renew and revitalise our towns and cities for a new age.

    As Lord Rogers’ Urban Task Force report makes clear, This calls for nothing less than an urban renaissance.

    It’s not just a matter of housing, planning or design.

    It’s about jobs, transport, schools, crime and health as well – The whole quality of life in our cities and communities.

    We have already started.

    £5bn of capital receipts to help imporve2m homes as we promised.

    £4bn to regenerate areas in need.

    Almost a billion to help lift our poorest neighbourhoods out of the cycle of deprivation. Tackling the causes, not the symptoms.

    A £350m package for our coalfield communities, To start to repair the damage caused by Mrs Thatcher’s spiteful attack on our pit communities.

    We are offering jobs and hope, instead of despair and dole.

    A new style of living – which puts people first – in the concept of the Millennium Village.

    Built to the highest environmental standards The highest environmental standards. A social mix of housing. Excellent public transport.

    The first two of these are at Greenwich by the Dome and in the mining town of Allerton Bywater.

    Reclaiming contaminated industrial land to create a living, thriving, healthy community.

    And I can announce today that we will invite proposals for a further five Millennium Villages in other part of Britain.

    A new start for Britain.

    And in the countryside, we have set up a new Countryside Agency to champion rural needs.

    We are safeguarding rural schools and post offices.

    And today, I can announce that our Rural Bus Fund is supporting 1,800 additional bus services, linking villages to hospitals, schools, jobs and market towns.

    That’s social justice.

    Well, let me tell you about the Tory Council of NorthYorkshire.

    We gave the Council nearly a billion pounds from the Rural Bus Fund. The Council sent it back.

    But local people want the bus services.

    No doubt they will contact their local MP the leader of the opposition, Mr Hague.

    No wonder the Tories are no longer the party of the countryside!

    Under Labour, our air is getting cleaner. Our rivers and beaches are less polluted.

    No longer is Britain tagged the ‘dirty man of Europe’.

    And what about water supplies?

    Every summer a crisis under the Tories.

    We have got the privatised water companies to cut the leaks, repair the pipes at their own expense, and cut the water bills from next April.

    And we’ve told them no more disconnection’s for families who can’t afford to pay.

    That’s social justice. And it takes a Labour government to deliver it.

    But the biggest environmental challenge we face is the poisoning of the earth’s atmosphere by the industrialised countries.

    People see on TV the ice caps melting. Greater droughts. Fiercer storms. Rising seas, which threaten to wipe out whole coastal communities. They know something is wrong and they want action.

    This is a global problem and needs a global solution.

    That’s why Britain led the world at the UN Climate Summit in Kyoto, Negotiating legal limits to the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

    To take the lead in international negotiations.

    Because, under Tony Blair, Britain is respected once again throughout the world.

    And why do we do this?

    Because we have an obligation to pass on to our children a better world that the one we inherited.

    That’s what we mean by international solidarity – the essence of Labour’s beliefs.

    That’s why we brought the environment and transport together, to get a more Integrated approach.

    Of course transport is never out of the news.

    The M4 bus land trial now means buses and taxis are getting through quicker. Cars are also getting through quicker.

    Every week you get another alarmist news headline – seldom checked in case the truth gets in the way of a good story.

    Reducing the speed limit from 70 to 50 – not true.

    A policy to nick everybody, everywhere, driving over 30 – not true.

    Anti-motorist – not true.

    How could I be anti car, driving two jags?

    It’s a pity we can’t have a more intelligent debate.

    That’s why we set up the Integrated Transport Commission.

    Anyway, people don’t pigeon-hole themselves just as motorists.

    We are parents and pedestrians as well. People who drive cars care about pollution and their children’s future too.

    We are not anti-car. We are pro-people.

    Even the last Government came to accept that you can’t build your way out of congestion.

    When the Tories came in, there were 70 cars per mile of road.

    And, after £70bn spent on roods, this increased to 100 cars per mile of roads.

    The worst option for the motorist is to carry on as before.

    But John Redwood has disowned the last government. With promises of higher speeds, more tarmac, and ripping out road safety measures.

    Even the Times newspaper called his plan “cheap populism”.

    His solution to traffic jams is to deregulate the roads.

    Fewer speed limits, fewer traffic lights – compromising safety.

    What we need is a better balance.

    In other European countries they own more cars. But they use them less. And they use public transport more.

    Above all, we need to widen choice by steadily improving public transport.

    For too long, politicians have dodged long term responsibility for short-term expediency.

    I intend to do what is right.

    Our policies are decided not for tomorrow’s newspapers, but for tomorrow’s children.

    Our biggest challenge is to reverse the massive under-investment and damage of the Tory years.

    As an ex-seafarer, I am particularly pleased that we are about to double – that’s right double – the size of the British registered fleet, under the Red Ensign.

    That’s the kind of revival we are producing.

    Under the Tories, privatisation saw rail companies re-painting their trains, instead of replacing them. The biggest beneficiary was Dulux.

    Now billions of pounds are being invested in road and rail infrastructure.

    Of course an ageing transport system that has been neglected for decades will have breakdowns and delay.

    And you can’t put in brand new infrastructure without causing some disruption.

    But we should celebrate the fact that public transport is now a growth industry.

    We are making the investment for that to happen.

    As we promised in the manifesto, As conference agreed last year, The new investment is from public and private sources.

    New bus investment up 80%.

    100 new rail stations.

    1,000 more train services a day.

    And we are getting more rail investment in 10 years than in the past 100 years.

    New local transport plans will bring better quality and more choice in public transport, with £800m to kick them off.

    In London we will hand over a £5bn legacy to the new mayor.

    A package which includes the Light Rail crossing the river to Lewisham.

    The new Jubilee Line extension, the Croydon Tramlink, and much more.

    We are only able to do this because we are mobilising billions of pounds of private finance to serve the public interest.

    But big investment can’t be done overnight.

    Upgrading the national rail network.

    Modernising the London Underground.

    Completing the high speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

    All these take time.

    But we have established the new Strategic Rail Authority, To safeguard the public interest and develop the rail network – both passenger and freight.

    Together with the new regulator, everyone agrees we now have a watchdog with a bite as well as a bark, acting on behalf of you – the public.

    And I have today issued new instructions to the SRA to start the renegotiating rail franchises, to establish a new modern railway for a new century.

    Last year I said the railways were a national disgrace.

    Well, the industry has made some efforts.

    The first signs of improvement are starting to show.

    But I say to the rail companies: “You are on probation”.

    By the next Spring Rail Summit, we will judge how far you have advanced.

    Public private partnership is also the key to securing investment in the London Underground and Air Traffic Control.

    That’s why we proposed in our Manifesto a £7bn public -private partnership to modernise the underground. A service which will be publicly owned and publicly run.

    Where employees will have their employment conditions, pensions and free travel guaranteed.

    We are mortgaging the Tube assets, just like you do with a house. And the assets will come back to the public sector, when they have been upgraded.

    So it will be completely publicly owned once again.

    I understand the concern about proposed changes in Air Traffic Control.

    And of course we will continue to consult all the interested parties, including the unions.

    But air traffic is growing fast. NATS want to use its expertise abroad to share in the growth of the aviation industry.

    It needs over a billion pounds to keep up with growing air movements.

    NATS has never been able to plan ahead to invest with certainty under past government financing.

    NATS is an equity-based company already.

    What is proposed is for government to keep a 49% stake, with 5% for staff – leaving 46% for the private sector.

    We could ask the Chancellor to shell out the billions of pounds from public funds.

    But that would mean less cash for hospitals and schools.

    Some local authorities have swapped their paper shares in municipal airports to build new schools.

    What’s wrong with that?

    My own city of Hull has sold some of its shares in its telephone business to improve council services.

    What is wrong with that?

    So why shouldn’t we raise money from bricks and mortar to provide kidney machines and school computers?

    Or – yes, in some cases – other forms of public transport that need investment funds.

    This is a question of priorities.

    As Nye Bevan said: ‘The language of priorities is the religion of socialism’

    Our priority is not rigid dogma, but giving the people of this country the best possible public services

    And using our public assets to the best possible advantage.

    And let’s be clear about this. Whether it’s air traffic or anywhere else I will never agree to anything that would put safety at risk.

    We will keep strict safety regulation entirely in state hands.

    A government golden share.

    A government director on board.

    And a veto built in through the licence to protect the national interest.

    Not a triple lock, but a quadruple lock.

    The airlines are satisfied with that.

    The RAF is happy with that.

    And I think this Conference should trust this government would never put air passengers lives at risk.

    I do not take exception to suggestions that I might be soft on safety.

    All my life I have campaigned for transport safety.

    From Lockerbie to Clapham Junction, I hounded the Tories.

    In office, I have demanded train safety protection to stop trains going through red lights.

    I have reopened the files on the sinking of the Gaul and the Derbyshire.

    And last month I announced a public inquiry. So that the full story can be told of the Marchioness disaster.

    So don’t let anyone doubt my commitment to safety.

    I will never, repeat never, play games with people’s safety.

    And I deplore those who seek to stir up safety for ideological or industrial ends.

    Social justice. Labour is the party for the many, not the few.

    But sometimes social justice demands that the many must help the few.

    That’s why we have outlawed all forms of asbestos

    – Britain’s biggest industrial killer

    – That’s social justice

    That’s why – as we enter the new Millennium We will guarantee every person currently living rough on the streets a bed to sleep in, with a roof over their head.

    That’s social justice.

    That’s why today Stephen Byers and I are announcing a new scheme to help pensioners and poor families who need help to make their homes warmer

    And not just insulation, But brand new central heating.

    To reduce the obscenity of deaths from hypothermia – that bring disgrace to this country.

    That’s social justice.

    It was that great post War Labour government which gave Britain its first National Parks, the jewels of the Countryside.

    I remember as a boy the wonder I felt on my first visit youth hostelling to the Lake District.

    Its beauty remained eternally with me.

    50 years on, this Labour government will begin the process to create new National Parks – in the south downs and the New Forest.

    Two new national parks for the new millennium.

    A hundreth birthday present from Labour to the nation.

    And we will introduce legislation to extend the right to roam and enjoy open countryside.

    Because we believe our natural heritage is for the many, Not just the privileged few.

  • John Prescott – 1996 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Prescott to the 1996 Labour Party Conference.

    Well, what a week it’s been! The people are coming home to Labour. Labour coming home to government.

    We’ve been away too long. And millions of people have paid the price for it. We’ve adopted the football song Coming Home. I hear that next week John Major is planning to revive his own 1966 football anthem.

    But John, honestly, you can’t make the same impact with World Cup Willie.

    But what a great conference we’ve had! Labour’s coming home, And coming together.

    Bringing together all the strands in the party – old and new. Bringing together the politics of ideas and the politics of organisation. I told you it would work.

    This week we’ve faced tough choices. Spoken the language of priorities. No more the party of Opposition but a government in waiting.

    Counting the days and the weeks till we get rid of this Tory government.

    Because this week will go down in history as the week when Labour – a party reborn, proud of its heritage, confident of its future, clearly proved it is ready for Government.

    This week we have seen the team which will form the next Labour government. Led by Tony Blair, our great and sagacious leader. As I always call him.

    Compare him with the Galloping Major running scared of Labour, running scared of his own MPs, running scared of an election. And most of all John Major is running scared of Tony Blair.

    Because here is a man who leads from the front.

    I’ll tell you what. It may be a bumpy ride at times, I know that well enough.

    But Tony is a man who knows where he’s going. Who has a clear vision of where the country should be going too. Who strikes a chord with the British people. A man who deserves to be the next Prime Minister of this country.

    You know, this week you can really feel the anticipation in the air. You can feel it running through conference.

    What a contrast with next week when the Tories turn up in Bournemouth. I can’t wait, can you? The Tories are divided, desperate and dangerous. And they are up to their necks in sleaze.

    What a miserable lot they are too, aren’t they? The only Tory worth backing to win at the moment is Frankie Dettori.

    Just take a look at the gang in charge. John Major. He used to be a banker, you know. He must have worked for the No-one’s Listening Bank. No one listens to him in his own cabinet. No one listens to him in Europe. No one listens to him in Parliament.

    But there’s more bad news for John Major. They’re closing his favourite eating-place. The Happy Eater. He’s so depressed. The Happy Eater was the only place he could get anyone to take his orders.

    Then there’s Michael Heseltine, the man who advises firms to delay on paying their debts. They say as a politician he owes a lot to Churchill, but Winston’s still waiting for the payment.

    He says the economy is bouncing back. But why are so many cheques doing the same?

    Then there’s the Home Secretary Michael Howard, The man responsible for the rule of law. He’s up before the judges so often, he asks for his previous offences to be taken into consideration.

    And finally there’s Major’s side-kick, Doctor Mawhinney, The Colonel Sanders of the Tory Party. Leading the chicken run.

    There’s something you should know about Brian Mawhinney, in case you bump into him. He always get very ratty if you don’t call him Doctor. This began to puzzle me, since he’s the only doctor I’ve ever met who makes everyone feel sick.

    I phoned the British Medical Association. They said they’d never heard of him. I began to think he isn’t a chicken at all. He’s a quack.

    But then I thought, maybe he’s a spin doctor. But I checked with Peter Mandelson and he said: No he isn’t in the Union …Sorry, Association.

    And then I thought, anyone who can turn a £17 million deficit into a £24 million surplus must be a Witch Doctor.

    Or maybe he’s Doctor Doolittle. Talking to the animals with their snouts in the trough.

    We’ve got to get to the bottom of this. The publics got to be protected.

    But I tell you one thing. After the election, he’s going to be …. Doctor Who?

    The best slogan he could think up for their conference next week is Life’s better under the Tories. Sounds to me like one of Steven Norris’s chat up lines.

    Can you believe that this lot is in charge? Not for long, eh?

    Then after 17 years of this Tory government, they have the audacity to talk about morality.

    Did you hear John Major on the Today programme? – calling for ethics to come back into the political debate?

    I’m told some Tory MPs think ethics is a county near Middlesex. It’s a bit hard to take: John Major – ethics man.

    The Tories have redefined unemployment they have redefined poverty. Now they want to redefine morality.

    For too many Tories, morality means not getting caught.

    John Major’s argument is that cutting public spending and reducing tax is a moral issue.

    And what a perverted definition of morality! It’s all about money in the pocket, isn’t it?

    And we’ve heard an awful lot about money in the pockets of Tory MPs lately, haven’t we? I heard two Tory MPs talking last week about cash for questions. One said: What should we do about the Sleaze Bill? The other said: Get someone else to pay it.

    Neil Hamilton, that Guardian of Tory morals, told the Deputy Prime Minister he had no financial relationship with a lobbying company. But now we hear he did take payments after all.

    But will he resign? No. Tories never know when to say sorry. And if John Major is serious about morality, He should let Nolan look into party funding.

    On Wednesday I called on John Major to join Labour to clean up British politics. Yesterday he said he’ll give evidence. Well I’m afraid that’s just not enough.

    If Neil Hamilton has a shred of honour left in him, he should go and go now.

    But John Major can’t afford to lose him, can he? Why? Because this man is his parliamentary majority of one. He is John Major’s immoral majority. And the silent majority have had enough of them.

    Because let’s be clear, Morality is measured in more than just money. Its about right and wrong. its about values. its about fairness and it’s about social justice.

    I’d like to ask John Major this: what morality is there ……. In one man making £34 million out of rail privatisation, when so many of our people live in poverty?

    Where’s the morality in people being bussed from one hospital to another begging to be admitted?

    Where’s the morality In record crime? In record unemployment? Record bankruptcies? Record poverty?

    All the product of deliberate government policy. That’s what I call immoral.

    And where’s the morality in 16 year old kids forced to sleep rough on the streets?

    Do you know it’s 30 years since the film Cathy Come Home shocked this nation about the plight of the homeless?

    And after 17 years of Tory government, there are thousands more like Cathy -record numbers of homeless people.

    But don’t believe the Tory lie that nothing can be done. It’s time the nation was shocked again.

    Because – what’s really immoral is this…. There’s £5 billion from council house sales locked up by the Tory government. There’s a quarter of a million building workers trapped in unemployment.

    But the Tories refuse to bring them together. Labour will bring together the money, the people, the skills to meet the social need of our people.

    Labour’s coming home. And when we are in government, Cathy can come home too.

    That’s the moral difference between us and the Tories. There is an alternative. New Life for Britain our philosophy our priorities our programme for government.

    It’s a radical document, It will make a real difference to the lives of ordinary people.

    And we are not just asking you to sign up to it for the next few months. It’s for the first five years of a Labour government.

    This programme shows we are a party with a heart. We will enthuse our supporters and convince the voters.

    We are a party of principle. We will earn the trust of the British people.

    We are a party with vision. We will give the inspiration people have been looking for. An age of achievement. A decent society.

    And we are a party with compassion – who are prepared to stand up for the rights of the poor, the sick, the unemployed and yes pensioners.

    And when we talk about our pensioners. Remember it was Labour who brought in the decent state pension.

    It was Labour who brought in SERPS – the Earnings Related Pension.

    It was Labour who enabled occupational pensions to flourish.

    The Tories have never done anything for pensioners.

    The only raise they gave them was to put VAT on fuel.

    Our commitment shows it. Our history proves it. A Labour government will not forget our pensioners.

    We are a Party of ambition and aspiration.

    It was Ernest Bevin who warned us against the poverty of ambition. Taking second best for granted.

    We want to unlock the potential of our people. To allow people to live their lives to the full to achieve just a few of their dreams.

    I was an 11 Plus failure. But I was given a second chance. By my trade union as a matter of fact. When they sent me to Ruskin College.

    It opened my eyes. It excited my mind.

    Tories will say ‘That shows the system’s working.’ But I was one of the lucky ones. And I know there are millions of people who have been written off.

    Who never got a first chance, a second chance or a third chance. And it’s our job to make sure they get a chance in the future.

    That’s why Tony Blair was right when he said educate educate educate, to unlock the potential in our people.

    Yesterday this conference overwhelmingly endorsed New Life for Britain.

    Now for the first time we are asking every one of our members and millions of trade union members to pledge their support.

    This will be the one of the greatest exercises in party democracy in history. Never before has a party set out its programme so far in advance of an election. This is not a three week manifesto. It’s for members to vote on, to pledge their support and to campaign on from now until election day. And for a Labour government to implement after the election.

    But it’s only as good as you present it, So read it, understand it, campaign with it take the message to the people in your community.

    The ballot papers are going out, at this very moment, to millions of homes.1,500 coordinators are ready, in the constituencies.To organise to conduct this ballot; to ensure everyone is involved. Phil Wilson is here with some of those volunteers. Stand up Phil, so we can see you.

    Look in your post tomorrow. And when your ballot paper arrives vote Yes for a New Life for Britain. And if you need an extra incentive, just turn on the telly next week, tune in to the Tory party conference.

    When they won’t talk about their record, when they refuse to do anything about the crucial issues.

    Don’t just get angry, do something positive.

    Get the ballot paper off the mantelpiece. Put a cross in the box. And Vote yes for a new life for Britain.

    But to all of you who are watching out there on your TV sets, There’s more than that to do.

    There’s no more standing on the sidelines now. The time to hesitate is over.

    Now is the time to get involved. Come and join us in the Labour party. Join our campaign.

    So I ask all party members to vote, to organise, and help us in our campaign.

    Because when the vote is over, when you have pledged your support and endorsed our programme, the job is not finished.

    We have to put the case to the people of Britain.

    In New Life for Britain we have many proposals. But we highlight those five key pledges. Set out on this card.

    This card is a campaigning tool to help you take the message to the electorate.

    Straightforward pledges which capture our basic principles.

    Smaller classes

    tough on crime

    shorter waiting lists

    more jobs for the young

    a strong economy.

    Let’s take the issue of jobs first of all. To spell out what we mean in that commitment.

    To get 250,000 under 25s out of benefit and into work. But it goes deeper than that.

    This pledge is symbolic of our ambition to provide job opportunities for all. Because we believe government can make a difference. And it has a responsibility to seek a high and stable level of employment.

    That’s why we are different from the Tories. And it will be paid for by a windfall levy on the profits of the privatised utilities.

    Yesterday I was sent this pledge card from Northumbrian Water Actually it says: New Northumbrian Water.

    It contains five pledges. But I’ll add a sixth.

    Pay the new windfall levy and put our kids back into new jobs . That’s what I call jobs and social justice.

    In Education, our pledge is to reduce class sizes for 5 6 and 7 year olds to 30 or less. But we are saying more than that. This pledge symbolises our strong commitment to comprehensive education. Which gives everyone a chance, not just a few.

    And there will be no return to the 11 plus.

    We want a good state education system for the many not just the few. And we will pay for it out of the Assisted Places Scheme which subsidises private schools. And take unemployed teachers off the dole to teach our children. That’s jobs and social justice.

    In our card, we pledge to cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients, Because we believe in the principle – the socialist principle – of a health service, based on need, not the ability to pay. Giving greater priority to the needs of the patient, not the needs of the market.

    And we will pay for it from the money saved from the huge bureaucratic waste of the internal market.

    That’s jobs and social justice.

    Together with a strong economy and action on crime, these are among the building blocks of a decent society.

    Bringing together our traditional values and putting them into practice in modern ways in a modern setting. That’s what we are about.

    We are proud of our history. And we are determined about our future.

    There are at most 200 days to the general election. The countdown starts now.

    Victory will not come easily.

    It will mean knocking on doors, canvassing, hitting the phone buttons, good organization.

    And we can’t rely just on our sound bites and the media message alone.

    Yes they’re important.

    But we can’t do without the people who do the work – activists they are called.

    Ordinary people talking to ordinary people.

    You can make the difference between winning and losing.

    The general election campaign starts right here, right now…

    We have the best professional organisation.

    The best programme for government.

    The best and most popular leader.

    Now we must deliver.

    The minute conference ends, Tony and I will be leaving here to visit key seats on our way home.

    Even though Tony and I are carrying on working, you can have the rest of the day off.

    But I want you out working tomorrow. And if you can’t visit a key seat this weekend, I want a promise you’ll visit one soon.

    Because the key seats are the battleground for the next election.

    So during these next 200 days ask yourself each day Did I do enough today?

    Could I have done more to secure a Labour victory? Let that question stay in your mind right up to the general election. Think about what you can do to play your full part. Ask yourself: Did I do enough today?

    Think of that day on the 10 April 1992. When we faced another five years of Tory government…… And said: If only……, If only…..

    I will never forget that day burned into my memory Neil Kinnock speaking on the steps of Walworth Road, conceding defeat, With great dignity and emotion. He echoed our frustration, disappointment and despair.

    Never, never, never again.

    That image will only be extinguished when we see Tony Blair on the steps of 10 Downing Street, Announcing a magnificent Labour victory in the next general election.

    And we will never forget the people who led us through the hard times to the threshold of government today. John Smith, Neil Kinnock, and yes Michael Foot.

    Victory is within our grasp after seventeen long years.

    A chance to serve – that’s all we ask. And with your help, and the people’s trust, we can win.

    That will give new hope to pensioners, new hope to young people, new hope for the low paid and families, new hope for industry.

    New hope for the whole of the British people.

    We’ve had enough lies.

    Enough sleaze. Enough excuses. Enough poverty. Enough unemployment. Enough failure. Enough is enough.

    We are united and ready to govern.

    This was the week when old and new came together.

    A Labour Party united.

    A country united

    A new Labour government.

    New hope for Britain.

  • Michael Portillo – 1985 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Michael Portillo in the House of Commons on 4 March 1985.

    I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye so that I can make my maiden speech.

    I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor as the Member for Enfield, Southgate, Sir Anthony Berry. Sir Anthony was a popular member and his death in the bombing at Brighton last October was tragic. I had the privilege of hearing you, Mr. Speaker, outside the House deliver an address in which you recalled Sir Anthony’s life and his many fine qualities. I shall not attempt to repeat the well chosen words that you used on that occasion, but, from my constituency experience, I shall add a few words.

    It is clear that Sir Anthony was absolutely dedicated to the welfare of his constituents. He showed that dedication by his custom of visiting people in their homes to discuss their problems. That courtesy and kindness was typical of Sir Anthony. It is a stunning paradox that such a kind, courteous and gentle man should lose his life at the hands of men of violence. I know that the whole House joins me in remembering Sir Anthony, deploring his death and grieving for him. I am sure that all hon. Members also join me in paying tribute to Lady Berry, who has borne her bereavement with dignity and courage. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”]

    Sir Anthony Berry made his maiden speech almost exactly 20 years ago in January 1965. He referred to the part of the North Circular road that runs through the constituency of Enfield, Southgate. He looked forward to that piece of road being widened shortly. Twenty years later we are still expecting the road to be widened. We often hear the Government say that not all public expenditure is necessarily desirable. Many of my constituents agree, because they are living in properties that are decaying, not because anything is wrong with them but because of planning blight. A number of my constituents would like the Government to save the money that they have in mind for the project and to allow them to continue to live in their homes rather than cause those homes to be destroyed.

    At the other end of the constituency, far from the din of the north circular road, my constituency reaches the countryside. One can drive along the Hadley road and see nothing but green fields on either side. I imagine that I am one of the few London Members who has the privilege of having a number of farmers among his constituents.

    In the middle of my constituency is Winchmore Hill. One of my history books says that about the year 1600 the people of Winchmore Hill were very primitive and much given to witchcraft. Recently, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the belief that public expenditure could cure all our ills as an ancient form of witchcraft. I assure my right hon. Friend that nowadays the good people of Winchmore Hill are no more attracted to that practice than their near neighbours in Palmers Green or Cockfosters.

    Frequently, when discussion in the House turns to public expenditure, a number of hon. Members wonder whether they can improve on the traditional procedures by which they consider the revenue that the Government raise at one time of the year, in the Budget, and how that money is spent at another time of the year, in the autumn round of discussions. The Armstrong committee considered that matter in 1980 and came forward with a series of proposals for bringing the consideration of taxation and spending together. The proposal was considered by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance). The Government went some way towards meeting the point by devising the autumn statement in the form in which we now know it.

    In its present form, the autumn statement has given rise to a number of unforeseen difficulties. Public and press attention naturally focus on that part of the autumn statement in which the Government say how they view the prospective fiscal adjustment in the following Budget—whether they consider that taxation is likely to be increased or decreased. During the past two years we have seen that, whatever the Government say, the results can be unfortunate. In November 1983 the Government announced that the prospect was for a moderate increase in taxation in the following Budget. The Government were denounced for being too gloomy. People asked whether the Government were still committed to their policy of cutting taxation. In the event, all that gloom was unnecessary, because the Government were able to decrease taxes in the Budget.

    Last November, the Government said that the prospect was for a decrease in taxation in the Budget, but that statement brought denunciation on the Government. At first people said, “The Government have underestimated how much money there is to give away in the Budget.” People thought that the Government were being too cautious. Subsequently, the Government were denounced for having thrown caution to the wind. It appeared that the Government were more determined to cut taxation than to continue their fight against inflation.

    No one can reliably estimate in the autumn the leeway that the Government will have in the spring. Whatever figure is announced, it either increases or depresses expectations. More importantly, it creates confusion about the Government’s policy. Sometimes that can have serious consequences.

    Our present arrangements are an uneasy halfway house between our traditional procedures and the radical proposals in the Armstrong report. This middle position does not satisfy those hon. Members who want a thoroughgoing reform. On the other hand, it sets a number of hares running about in a way that is not helpful to the Government or to the House. I cannot help thinking that the present position is likely to prove unstable and that we shall want to move either forward towards the Armstrong proposals or backward to the position in the old days when the Chancellor said very little in advance of his Budget statement.

    May I use the opportunity of my maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, to make a point that concerns the relationship between public expenditure and unemployment? I am reminded of what happened to me last year at the Conservative party conference in Brighton. At about 2 am on what proved to be that terrible morning of 12 October, I was standing in the bar of the Grand hotel. Because the hour was late I got into a heated discussion with a journalist. He said, “The Government’s policies are designed to create unemployment.” Of course, I disagreed with that. The discussion became heated. To emphasise his point, the journalist beat the pillar beside us with his fist and said, “This is a pillar; that is a fact. Your policies are to create unemployment; that is a fact, too.” The discussion became even more acrimonious and the journalist rather abusive, so I left the Grand hotel and went safely to bed in my hotel down the road.

    In the morning I reflected on two things. First, I was grateful to that journalist for having been abusive towards me; otherwise I might have stayed in the Grand hotel and been there at the time the bomb went off. Secondly, I reflected on the fact that the pillar which he had thumped with his hand and which represented for him absolute certainty was probably a pile of rubble. I thought that, in the light of day, the journalist, too, was a little less certain about the motives of Government policy.

    Although I understand that the Opposition believe with absolute conviction that the way to reduce unemployment is to increase public spending, I ask them to understand the absolute sincerity with which Conservative Members say that to increase public spending is to increase taxation which would lead to fewer jobs and higher unemployment.

  • Michael Portillo – 2000 Welsh Conservative Party Conference Speech

    Below is a part of the speech made by the then Shadow Chancellor, Michael Portillo, to the Welsh Party Conference on 9th June 2000.

    A couple of weeks ago Peter Mandelson, the Northern Ireland Secretary, tried seize control of Government policy on the euro. Now that the Prime Minister has weakened his Chancellor, by failing to endorse his class war language, new ministerial minnows are coming forward to seize Gordon Brown`s territory.

    Fresh from his debacle in a South African suit Mr Byers dresses himself as the Cabinet’s greatest euro enthusiast. He makes plain that Gordon Brown’s five economic tests are mere decoys and are not to be taken seriously. The Government plans to join the euro irrespective of the economic conditions.

    The plan to con voters into the euro has been carefully laid, and new dishonesties are being carefully crafted. While every European statesman says openly that the euro leads to creating a country called Europe, Mr Byers plans to tell us that British sovereignty is not at stake. Fortunately, his subtlety is no greater than his sincerity. We can see him coming.

    The moderate majority want to keep the pound and will not be easily fooled.

    Gordon Brown seems to know nothing of enterprise. He talks of it like he has learnt a foreign language. It sounds okay, but it is devoid of meaning or understanding. Why else would he make extravagant claims to be creating an enterprise economy while piling new regulations on businesses, inventing new forms and slapping on extra stealth taxes?

    Labour claim they are building an information society in Great Britain. In their dreams. We are lagging dangerously behind the US. We are beset by restrictions. The government keeps talking but their words mean nothing. Business is giving Gordon Brown a slow handclap.

    Enterprise is actually open to all. It`s the university of life. It has no doors and no admissions policy. It is not a zero-sum game. One success does not block another or exhaust a quota.

    In fact, one success stimulates the next. Enterprise feeds on freedom and starves under a system of control. Centralisation strangles it. Given the choice, Gordon Brown will regulate not liberate. Enterprise under Labour will always be sickly. And we are condemned to watch from the sidelines while the US shows us how things might be.

  • Michael Portillo – 1996 Speech on European Security and NATO

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Portillo, in Brussels on 23rd October 1996.

    The Credibility of NATO

    The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation came into existence nearly 50 years ago. It has proved to be one of the most durable military alliances in history, and the most successful.

    It has enhanced the security of all its members because its objectives are simple and credible. The Washington Treaty declared that an attack upon the territory of any member state would be regarded as an attack on all. To wage war on one is to wage war on all.

    The sombre significance of that Article 5 was underlined by three factors in particular.

    First, it was evident that the world’s first – and at that time the world’s only – nuclear power, the United States, was fully committed, and that was demonstrated by the presence in Europe of hundreds of thousands of GIs. Any adversary would calculate that, if American sons were placed in peril, then the American people would support a call to war, even in far off Europe.

    Second, two other member states became nuclear powers, and throughout the history of the Alliance, the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent has remained committed to NATO, that is it has been committed to the defence of the territory of our allies in Europe, offering to all of them the protection of the British nuclear umbrella.

    Third, NATO members in general were willing to find the money to maintain conventional forces at effective levels, and to commit them to the Alliance. Therefore any aggressor knew that the defence policy of NATO did not rest merely on the resort to the nuclear option. The credibility of the nuclear option might have been doubted despite the presence of US troops.

    The reason I describe the Alliance as the most successful in history is that its credibility has never been seriously doubted, and certainly it has never been put to the ultimate test.

    Of course there were many, indeed there were continual, attempts to probe the outer limits of the Alliance’s commitment to collective defence.

    The blockade of West Berlin for example, although it preceded NATO’s creation, provided the first opportunity to demonstrate western solidarity. The deployment by the Soviet Union of SS20 mobile nuclear missiles in the mid 1980s, which could clearly threaten Western Europe,represented one of the last such attempts to probe our determination by the Soviet Union.

    In the early 1980s, NATO allies sharply increased their defence spending. And that, added to other pressures on the Soviet system and on the Soviet economy, played a significant part in the collapse of that system.

    The New Era

    Hundreds of millions of Europeans emerged from the shadow of tyranny to the sunlight of democracy and freedom. And, though many had perished within the communist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe, in the cause of human rights and in the cause of free expression, NATO itself had not had to fire a shot.

    The boundary of liberty has been carried to the east and, with so many new democracies now in existence, we have greater security. Democracies rarely invade one another.

    It is our fervent hope that all the former tyrannies of the Warsaw Pact have taken an irrevocable step to become enduringly pluralistic, and permanent members of the family of liberal democratic nations.

    After a 40 year nightmare of a divided Europe and Cold War tension, naturally our citizens, and our politicians, are anxious to believe that the new order will offer us tranquillity and assurance. They would like to believe that the very worst dangers that the modern world can offer might be a Bosnia, or a Gulf War: conflicts fought far from Western European homes, with low levels of Allied casualties.

    It would be nice to be able to agree. But, at the risk of appearing to be a killjoy, I urge NATO not to be carried away by such thoughts. Much talk today is of NATO adaptation and restructuring, of reforms intended to equip the Alliance for the post-Cold War world and direct it towards new missions. But let us remember too that NATO has been so successful because its members committed themselves to hard defence, to maintaining the military capabilities at the top end of the spectrum of warfighting, the capabilities essential to meet threats to national survival.

    This is not the time for NATO to go soft, and certainly not to convert itself into an organisation mainly capable of peacekeeping operations.

    The Importance of Being Prepared for High Intensity Conflict

    Neither Bosnia nor the Gulf are reliable models for all likely future operations. There are lessons to be learnt from both, but there is also a danger of learning the wrong lessons.

    Of course Bosnia has been a great success for NATO, and of course it could have turned out differently and it could have proved dangerous. There were significant risks for our troops. We deployed into a cauldron of political instability and ethnic hatred, where all the factions were armed.

    In the event, however, we have not so far faced an all out attack on our forces. Our higher military capabilities successfully deterred the factions.

    We might have faced something much worse, but we were in any event not going to confront modern armed forces. There are many armies in the world which are more capable than the Bosnian factions.

    So we must not allow the Bosnian experience to dominate our plans for the future.

    Iraq’s capabilities in 1991 should not be our yardstick either. It is true that the Gulf conflict did demonstrate the need for first- rate military capabilities. It was precisely because the coalition had superiority in weaponry, and in intelligence and in command and control, that we prevailed with mercifully few allied casualties.

    But the sophistication of weapon systems is evolving fast. The most developed countries of America and Europe have lost their monopoly in modern weaponry. We need to be prepared.

    Future high intensity conflicts may be short and sharp. There will be no opportunity for us to generate conscript reserves or to manufacture new weaponry. Today’s equipment is too sophisticated. You cannot build it fast or quickly train people to use it. We must plan on the basis that what you start with is what you’ll get.

    Intelligence and Deployable Forces

    We do have the edge in one vital respect. Our intelligence systems give us control of the battlefield. That is why America gives such priority to that capability.

    We should also improve the deployability of our forces. Experience in Bosnia and Iraq shook a number of the countries that contributed forces as they realised how hollow those forces had become. Even quite simple deployments stretched their resources to breaking point.

    Rapid deployment can be the key to containment: to checking adventurism by dictators before it escalates into all-out conflict. It is therefore also a highly cost-effective deterrent.

    NATO is developing the Combined Joint Task Force Headquarters to plan for such missions. As you would expect in such an important new capability, those headquarters will require substantial investment in logistics and communications to make them effective.

    Britain is working on similar lines. We have established a Joint Rapid Deployment Force and a Permanent Joint Headquarters to give us the means of effective rapid response to a threat to our interests.

    Flexibility

    But each of us, each nation, must maintain our national commitments and invest in highly trained forces and the equipment that makes them capable.

    Our successes in Bosnia and the Gulf were hard-earned. They were made possible because we retained our hard defence capabilities. Our forces were trained and equipped for all forms of conflict, from low to high intensity warfare. Forces that have been trained for high intensity warfare can undertake other, lesser, military tasks if called upon. But forces that have been trained as a gendarmerie cannot fight a war.

    When Britain fought to recover the Falkland Islands, our armed services had not been trained to fight 8,000 miles from home. It was a far cry from the German plains or the North Atlantic. But they were ready and equipped for war, and they therefore adjusted successfully to a very different sort of conflict.

    And even in Bosnia I do not believe that our soldiers would be able to show the restraint required for peacekeeping if they had not experienced the demands for self-discipline and for trust which are imposed by training them for the most intense warfighting.

    The Threats to Peace

    We must assess very carefully the risks and challenges that we may face. Outside NATO, there are about 35 countries which are equipped with up-to-date tanks and artillery. Many have armies that are numbered in hundreds of thousands. Forty air forces outside NATO can be said to have modern offensive aircraft. Thirty countries have submarine forces.

    Twenty countries outside NATO possess ballistic missiles now. Crude technology in some cases, maybe. But it’s improving. Some NATO territory is already within the arc of threat from the Middle East.

    If North Korea exports its more advanced systems, other nations could be threatened.

    There is a risk that, despite our best efforts, stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will grow and they will spread. Over a dozen countries have either the capability either to deploy chemical or biological weapons, or they have development programmes already at an advanced stage. A few of those countries can already produce chemical or biological warheads for ballistic missiles.

    The likelihood of conflict is if anything increasing. We have seen how the end of superpower tension has emboldened others to push their territorial and ideological ambitions. We have seen overt aggression and we have seen the covert export of terrorism.

    Nor can we relax our vigilance in the nuclear field. The international community was surprised to discover the progress which Iraq had made with its nuclear weapons programme. We will need to sustain in Iraq an intrusive monitoring regime to prevent it from reviving that programme. We will need to monitor North Korea’s compliance with the commitments that it has entered into. And we have to be concerned about reports from Iran that it may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

    Russia’s Armed Forces are not those that we faced during the Cold War. They clearly have grave problems. But they are very large, with a considerable quantity of sophisticated weapons – both conventional and nuclear. Russian capability in strategic nuclear missile submarines has not diminished.

    That, alongside the reform process, is one of the factors that we must take into account in assessing the potential security needs of Europe.

    Our planning must take account of potential crisis points around the world. The last assessment I read had 53 entries, including the Balkans, the Transcaucasus, Algeria, Libya, Iraq. 17 of those potential troublespots are within 200 miles of NATO’s borders.

    There is no reason to believe that territorial or ethnic disputes are on the decline. Quite the contrary. And we must add to that potential disputes about natural resources: oil, minerals and even water.

    A common feature where such regional tensions exist is arms proliferation. Dictators impress and intimidate both their populations and their neighbours by acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The more responsible nations respond by matching them if they can, so as to build up their deterrence. And even where governments are currently well-disposed to us, we need to consider the potential impact of political instability.

    With the end of superpower tension and the spread of democracy there is the potential for a better world. But it has not become good overnight, and it is presently no less dangerous. For as the risk of global catastrophe has reduced, the risk of geographically limited conflict has increased.

    We cannot abolish extremism, greed and intolerance. But we can deter them. And we can stop them winning.

    Preserving what Matters in NATO

    NATO faces a bigger intellectual challenge today than ever before. It has to adapt, restructure, welcome France and Spain to its new military structures, embrace the new democracies, plan for new types of mission, build a relationship with Russia. It must do all of that and still maintain the integrity of the things that have made it successful. It has to change and not to change.

    Most importantly, it must remain an Atlantic alliance. I am confident that America will remain involved, but I’m not complacent.

    The United States recognises the importance to her own vital interests of European security. Warren Christopher gave a ringing affirmation of United State’s commitment in his speech in Stuttgart last month. Europe is a continent where dangerous things happen. It is crisscrossed by fault lines of ethnic and religious division. America keeps 100,000 troops in Europe. And neither Presidential candidate is proposing that they should be withdrawn.

    But the past differences between European countries and America over Bosnia were not healthy. Europe was criticised for not dealing effectively with the crisis. But I do not subscribe to the view that Europe failed because it did not have a European Security and Defence Identity.

    You can only have as much identity as you have capability. It is not a question of institutions, but of what European nations can – and will – take on.

    It is evident that Bosnia was too much for Europe alone. The NATO force has relied on the United States for nearly half its troops, much of its strategic transport into theatre, and nearly all its satellite- borne command and control. Those hard facts have injected a welcome realism into the debate about identity and reinforced the importance of the US commitment to our continent.

    What Europe must do

    The proper European attitude to America should be to reinforce America’s involvement by building the European identity within NATO, and developing the ability of European nations to contribute more to the Alliance.

    But real defence budgets across Europe have fallen by almost a third since 1985. Money is not everything, but other things being equal, that means less capability. European nations typically spend a lower proportion of their GDP on defence than does America. Also there is not much sign that European countries recognise that the peace dividend, such as it is, can only be taken once. The cutting goes on and on.

    That has important consequences for the Alliance. The United States is pushing further and further ahead with investment in command and control, communications and intelligence, and long-range interdiction systems. A widening gap between America and her allies cannot be good for NATO. The United States generously provides intelligence to the Allies. Our responsibility is to ensure that we are in a position to use it effectively, passing that intelligence quickly to unit level commanders who need it.

    We must take into account the risk of ballistic missiles spreading over the next few years. The threat for our NATO allies may grow. And none of us will want to deploy forces within range of hostile ballistic missiles without affording them the best possible protection.

    We are working on how best to deal with that threat. Of course, ballistic missile defence is not the answer to all problems. There are many weapons other than ballistic missiles which we need to guard against. But we need ballistic missile defence, and we need to develop it jointly in NATO, with Europeans and Americans deciding together how best to respond to threats to our shared security interests.

    All those things are big issues. I hope I may be forgiven, even in Brussels, for doubting the relevance to them of the matters that are proposed for discussion at the EU’s Inter-Governmental Conference. I am encouraged by signs of increasing realism. By the dawning recognition that defence is a business where deeds count, not words. I hope that the unrealistic talk we’ve heard of EU defence guarantees has now been set aside. The decision that we have taken at Berlin to build the European Defence Identity within NATO was a victory for common sense.

    We will have only one military structure in future, bringing together European and North American defence capabilities in the organisation that was created for that purpose – which is NATO.

    The arrangements that we have put in place will give the Europeans a credible military instrument for use on those missions where NATO, for whatever reason, decides not to take the lead.

    But I am depressed by continuing pressure for institutional change. The pressure to subordinate the WEU to the European Union, which puts at risk what was achieved at Berlin. There is pressure too for an EU common defence policy – though nobody has defined what that means – and for an EU common defence.

    Those who want that, have already the most convincing common defence in history – in the Atlantic Alliance. We have benefited from that for nearly fifty years: and it does not need to be recreated now.

    Britain will continue to play a constructive part in the Inter- Governmental Conference, at Dublin and beyond. But we will oppose anything that weakens NATO, and thus weakens Europe’s security.

    Equipment

    There is one area where Europe can certainly do better. We have a duty to spend our money wisely. To buy the defence systems most relevant to tomorrow’s needs, and to avoid money being wasted on unnecessary duplication.

    We have to improve our track record on armaments collaboration. I firmly believe that no country has a better record in this than Britain. We have proved to be a reliable partner. We participated in the Tornado aircraft project; the most successful European collaborative project ever. Nearly a thousand Tornados are flying today.

    We are participating in Europe’s two largest current projects; Eurofighter and the Horizon frigate. We have 25 collaborative projects with France; and 22 such projects with Germany.

    We spend more than a billion dollars a year on collaborative projects. But there is still fragmentation, overmanning, short production runs, and national protectionism. Organisationally we have got to do better than we have done on Eurofighter, where the delays are endangering that excellent aircraft’s competitiveness, and its prospects for exports.

    European industry should, therefore, think about a how to restructure itself so that more equipment can be produced collaboratively, allowing longer production runs in Europe. But such projects require proper commercial structures and firm management grip. We have to improve on the stops and starts of past experience.

    NATO Enlargement

    The Common Foreign and Security Policy speaks of building peace and security. But it is equally committed to securing our common values. To developing and consolidating democracy and the rule of law, and the respect for human rights and for the fundamental freedoms.

    Those are areas where the European Union can and should make a real contribution. In its aid and assistance programmes. In its economic and trade relations. In increasing co-operation in the fight against international crime and in the work towards building democratic systems founded on the principles of liberal democracy.

    The European Union’s most important task is to make a success of its enlargement to the East. Healing the historic divisions which have scarred our continent.

    Such efforts are complementary to the adaptation of NATO, since its enlargement is also a part of the process of building security in Europe, and consolidating the gains of democracy.

    There is much gnashing of teeth about NATO enlargement by those who fear they will not be amongst the first new members of NATO, and by those who would rather not see enlargement happen at all.

    But enlargement is not a new phenomenon. Nor will the next stage of enlargement close the door to future applicants.

    Britain, the historic home of parliamentary democracy, is one of the most committed advocates of enlargement of NATO. And we shall be keen to ensure that the Alliance holds to its timetable.

    Enlargement will be discussed by NATO Ministers in December. Decisions will be taken at a Summit next year to invite a number of countries to begin accession negotiations. And I hope NATO will be able to welcome its first new members in 1999, the year of its 50th anniversary.

    Those are decisions for the applicant countries and for NATO alone.

    Russia

    But we recognise that Russia is fundamental to the equilibrium in Europe. NATO and Russia must build a strategic partnership, founded on substance. We need to build a new security architecture with Russia. No-one can describe exactly what the building is going to look like when finished. And for the moment Russians, even Russian Defence Ministers, have many other things on their mind.

    But each journey begins with a step, and there are steps that we should take now. The Russian cooperation with IFOR in Bosnia has required us to establish liaison arrangements through an exchange of officers. Those arrangements can be made permanent and indeed they can be broadened.

    We have not yet succeeded in exploiting the opportunities for joint work with Russia offered by Partnership for Peace. We should plan together for joint military missions in future. We should make it the norm for NATO to consult Russia on changes in which Russia could have an interest. And we should discuss together cooperation on countering terrorism, countering drug trafficking, fighting organised crime and weapons proliferation.

    If enough of substance emerges from all that it could be formalised in a Charter between Russia and NATO, and it could be accompanied by a revised CFE Treaty to meet the new strategic realities.

    Partnership for Peace

    In parallel, we must enhance Partnership for Peace with other nations.

    The Partnership has proved more successful, more quickly, than we could ever have expected. It is now a permanent element of the European security structure architecture.

    We can build on that success. We should strengthen PfP’s political dimension, allowing consultations between individual Partners and NATO on a much wider range of issues than today.

    We should also broaden its military dimension. NATO should prepare with Partners for more challenging military tasks, including peace enforcement. We need to be rigorous in ensuring that we get value and that we learn lessons from the exercises that we mount together. We should now avoid things which are largely “window – dressing”, and put the emphasis on work that produces a broad improvement in Partners’ performance and in our ability to achieve results together.

    We should allow Partners more input into NATO’s work and allow them to move towards participation in NATO’s integrated defence planning process, the process that lies at the heart of the Alliance.

    CONCLUSION

    The fact that we can talk of such relationships – of a new relationship with Russia – emphasises how different the world has become.

    But history shows that our optimism has a habit of getting the better of us. Periods of war or of tension, are followed sooner or later by complacency. We allow our guard to slip. Catastrophe ensues; but a slightly higher investment in defence and an unambiguous commitment to political willpower could have prevented that from happening.

    If in the coming years we were able to escape that descent into unreadiness and sloth, we would have exceeded the achievement of most preceding generations.

    The Alliance has unmatched capabilities. They have secured for us 50 years of peace. And, today, hard defence must remain at NATO’s core.

  • Michael Portillo – 1996 Speech on Security in Europe and Asia

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Portillo, at the Australian Defence Force Academy on 9th September 1996.

    Rudyard Kipling, that most prolific of writers on Asia, once wrote:

    “East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet”.

    Such a view could not be further from the UK’s position. The Asia-Pacific region is increasingly important both politically and in terms of global trade. One third of the world’s population lives here. It produces one quarter of the world’s gross product. Over the last decade the Western Pacific share of world trade has risen from 16% to nearly a quarter. The exports of the South East Asian countries have risen by over 200% since 1990. It has become a cliché to speak of the 21st century as being the Pacific century.

    The UK is highly conscious of these trends and we have worked hard to engage ourselves in this strategic evolution. Contrastingly, some of our key interests and links are very long standing. We retain strong historic and Commonwealth ties in the area, not least with Australia, and are determined to maintain and enhance them. Another constant in the region is the relationship with the United States, particularly in the security context. I shall say more about that later.

    As in the rest of the world, disturbing security challenges face this region. Ethnic and territorial disputes, often fed by extremism. Creeping proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    Earlier this year the situation between Taiwan and China threatened to escalate beyond the capacity of international community’s control. The stand- off between North and South Korea continues. The overlapping claims to islands in the South China Sea are another potential flashpoint.

    Britain, like others, aims to contribute to the stability of the region. Confidence building is central to that stability. The countries of the region need to develop their dialogue with one another. This is above all true for China.

    We wish to see a peaceful, stable Korean peninsula. We strongly support the US initiative announced on 16 April for four party talks. And we fully support the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation, and were the first European country to make a financial contribution.

    Security is a much broader concept than defence. Security begins with democracies, since democratic countries rarely go to war with each other. We aim to develop ties between peoples and between their governments across the range of activities: in aid and assistance programmes; in trade relations; and in assistance provided to others in the resolution of conflicts and disputes, or the building of democratic systems based on the principles of liberal democracy and the rule of law.

    Military activities have a narrower focus but have a role to play in underpinning some of these efforts, with programmes to provide military training, personnel exchanges and higher level staff contacts.

    Regional confidence and stability can be bolstered by the implementation of, and strict adherence to, multilateral arms control and non-proliferation agreements. We are very grateful for the very positive role that Australia has played in working for chemical and toxic weapons bans and towards securing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    We hope that the countries of Asia will support it and become early partners to that Treaty.

    Increased transparency in defence matters can help to break down suspicions that countries sometimes have about their neighbours’ intentions. Some have expressed concern about a new arms race starting in this region. Publishing Defence White Papers helps to allay some of those concerns. The more detailed and credible the White Paper is, the better. Australia has given a very positive lead.

    The signing of the border agreement between Russia and China and three Central Asian states in April this year is another example of the kind of steps that help countries feel more secure.

    We see a significant role for the ASEAN Regional Forum in contributing to security contacts in the region. It is progressing faster than many expected. Its membership is unique and, with the welcome inclusion of India, it now covers all the major powers in the area.

    I will not list exhaustively the defence arrangements in the region that we consider essential to increasing stability. But I will mention three:

    The US presence and engagement, which are fundamental to the region’s security. We strongly welcome their continued determination to play this key role.

    Second, the UK is firmly and enthusiastically committed to the Five Power Defence Arrangements.

    And thirdly, we welcome the recently established security agreement between Australia and Indonesia. I look forward to hearing more about that during my visit.

    In considering the security issues facing the Pacific region, there are some similarities to the scene in Europe. Similarities both of opportunity and of threat. The key opportunities are presented by the end of the Cold War. In Europe, the political landscape continues to be remodelled. In some areas, the dismantling of what stood before has had tragic results, as in Bosnia. But elsewhere, the picture is much more encouraging. Every day liberal democracy and the rule of law are consolidated in central and eastern Europe. Economic reforms are starting to bear fruit. Already we see growth of around 5% in some of the leading nations.

    The end of the global confrontation between totalitarian communism and liberal democracy has unshackled human potential. Cambodia and Vietnam, as much as Romania and Bulgaria, are now enjoying an end to the straitjacket of opposing political blocks. In such openings there are opportunities for trading nations like Britain and Australia.

    But those opportunities go hand in hand with responsibilities. Neither of our countries has shrunk from them.

    We were both involved along with military personnel from 32 other nations in Cambodia under the auspices of the United Nations Transition Authority between 1991 and 1993. The operation, led by Australian Lieutenant General John Sanderson, remains a fine example of international peacekeeping.

    We are clear that the continued engagement of the United States underpins security in both of our regions. The United States’ commitment is demonstrated by some 100,000 troops stationed across Europe and by the 100,000 or so in Asia. Britain and Australia have long been two of the United States’ staunchest allies.

    The intimate intelligence links between the 3 countries – perhaps the best sign of trust between nations – and the close relationship between our navies bear the best testament to this. The US engagement is not philanthropy: America has vital strategic interests in both Europe and the Asia/Pacific region. But we must all work to keep that relationship relevant and robust.

    In Europe, that means being part of a militarily effective and credible Atlantic Alliance. NATO is the most effective defensive alliance in history. In Bosnia, it has proved itself capable of meeting the challenges of the future. The integration of some 14 non-NATO nations into the peace implementation force – IFOR – demonstrates NATO’s ability to adapt.

    IFOR and co-operation under the terms of the Partnership for Peace arrangement between NATO and 27 PfP countries in Europe have demonstrated the potential for meaningful co-operation in security.

    For some of those 27 countries, partnership will lead to membership. NATO will enlarge. The allies have a responsibility to respond to those democratic, sovereign states who wish to join. In some aspects, that will simply mean returning to the historical family ties interrupted by the accident of the Cold War.

    NATO will also change. Its military structures are already reduced from the days of the Cold War.

    We are changing those structures still, so as to be able to cope better with the new more complex challenges to security. The campaign in Bosnia has shown the way. It has demonstrated not only what may need to be done but also that tackling security requires the widest possible coalition. In that sense the operation in Bosnia will have significant implications, especially for relations with Russia.

    There can be no European or Asian security without taking Russia into account. Our links with Russia are increasing. Of course, we must expect to experience for some time the aftershocks of the collapse of the Soviet empire. Chechnya is an example. But nonetheless, I believe that reform and democracy are becoming entrenched. July’s Presidential elections in Russia was a clear milestone.

    Our relationship with Russia must balance forthrightness and understanding We must be forthright about human rights and compliance with treaty commitments.

    But at the same time we must understand the peaks and troughs that will inevitably occur on Russia’s path to reform. And we must understand Russia’s real security concerns and perspectives.

    I also mentioned threats. The removal of the Cold War shadow has exposed disturbing new challenges. We see ethnic, religious and territorial disputes, often fed by extremism and by the creeping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These are problems for civilised governments everywhere. North Korea and Iraq are just some of the obvious culprits. At the same time a number of longer-running problems also pose at least potential threats to security.

    The tradition in the Pacific region is not of multilateral security organisations like NATO, but a web of bilateral relationships. However, I believe that part of the solution will be the development of broader security dialogues within and between our regions.

    There is potentially a major role for the Organisation for Security and Co- operation in Europe and the ASEAN Regional Forum.

    We need by all means to increase contact with China, a unique player in the strategic game. It stands alone in terms of size, economic and military potential and, arguably, its unreconstructed vision of its own future.

    What contribution can a European power make to security in this region? And why should it do so?

    Britain’s interests are global – much more so than many of our European neighbours. We are more dependent than they on world trade and investment – Britain is the world’s fifth largest trading nation and its third largest overseas investor. We export more per head of population than Japan or the USA. Inward investment provides almost 25% of the UK’s net output, with around 40% of our manufactured exports now being produced in Britain by foreign-owned firms. Incidentally, Australia is currently the third largest foreign investor in the UK.

    Our economic relationship with the Asia-Pacific region is growing strongly. We are the biggest European investor in the region and by far the biggest European recipient of investment from it. We are the leading exporter of invisibles and number two in visibles. British visible exports to the region have increased by 70% since 1990 and now account for over a third of British exports outside the European Union. We fully expect our interests in the Asia- Pacific region to continue to grow strongly.

    Apart from our global trading interests, there are Britons living and working all over the world. There are around 6 million UK nationals in the Asia- Pacific region. For a country with a population of around 50 million at home, that represents a powerful interest.

    Stability and freedom of trade worldwide are important considerations for the UK and directs our thinking in defence terms.

    Our specific security links and responsibilities in the region are Hong Kong, the Five Power Defence Arrangements and Brunei. We also regularly train with our many friends in the region, and make periodic naval deployments to the area. The next – OCEAN WAVE 97 – will depart from the UK early next year. We shall transfer sovereignty in Hong Kong to China on 30 June next year. But our wider interest in regional security will not diminish. Our overall approach will remain very much the same.

    The Five Power Defence Arrangements will be the focus of our military presence in the region. The Arrangements are increasingly valuable as the scope of their trading and exercises develops. I am delighted that in the near future the Headquarters of the Integrated Air Defence System will be installed with the latest state of the art command, control and communications equipment.

    I will see our Forces operating together when I visit the Five Power Defence Arrangements exercise – EXERCISE STARFISH – off Malaysia later this week. But I am particularly pleased that we shall be holding a combined joint air and maritime exercise, EXERCISE FLYING FISH, next year. We will be sending a sizeable contribution to this. It will include a Carrier, HMS ILLUSTRIOUS, which will act as the command platform for the maritime element of the exercise; 2 Frigates; a Destroyer; a nuclear powered Submarine; 5 Tornado F3s; 5 Tornado GR1s; an E3D AWACS Sentry; and 2 Nimrod Maritime Patrol Aircraft. That represents a sizeable commitment and contains some of our latest and most effective equipment.

    We aim to make a major contribution to military training in the region; in 1995/1996 alone we committed over £1.5 million in the form of courses in the United Kingdom and loan service personnel.

    We have Defence memoranda of understanding with many countries in the region, including all the countries of ASEAN bar Vietnam. I spoke earlier about the ASEAN Regional Forum. As you know, we do not consider its membership to be quite complete. We believe that Britain has an important contribution to make. We already participate through our membership of the European Union. But we are keen to contribute more through a national seat. Three of the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council are already members of the ASEAN Regional Forum, and we would like to see all five.

    Britain has a range of multilateral experience – through NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Co- operation in Europe – to offer to the ASEAN Regional Forum. Like Australia, we have extensive experience of peacekeeping. We are particularly encouraged by, and grateful for, the Australian government’s support of our request to join the Forum.

    Perhaps Britain’s experience of confidence-building measures in Europe, our involvement in conflict prevention globally and our long-standing ties in the Asia-Pacific region could contribute too.

    I cannot let this opportunity go by without saying a few words about the value we place upon the strong bilateral defence relationship between Britain and Australia.

    The ties between our Armed forces are long standing. Men and women from our armed forces have served together in both World Wars and share a common ethos, history and understanding.

    The ties remain close at all levels. The contacts between our senior staff are frequent and open. We regularly have exchanges of personnel on training courses. We have extremely valuable intelligence links.

    Britain and Australia, with the United States, should take the lead in promoting interoperability in the region.

    In conclusion, there will be many challenges to face over the coming months and years, both in Europe and Asia-Pacific. Contrary to Kipling’s belief, however, East and West are now inextricably intertwined. It is a time of great opportunity. Britain and Australia have a common interest in pursuing regional peace and security, working together, both bilaterally and in international fora, to find solutions to tomorrow’s problems.

  • James Plaskitt – 2007 Speech on Public Perceptions of Welfare

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Plaskitt, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Work and Pensions, on 7th February 2007 to the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation Benefits Conference in Harrogate.

    Good Morning. I am delighted to be invited back to speak at your conference today. This is actually my fifth speech to one of your conferences and my second visit to your Harrogate venue.

    So you might be thinking why does he keep coming back?  Hasn’t he said it all before?   Well actually no he hasn’t. But some things do bear repeating. Coming back allows me to thank you again personally for all the work you have done in recent years to turn the HB service round. And it allows me to set out just what an important role I think you have in helping us shape a new approach to welfare.

    There are many local authorities who are setting the pace already. I can see from your agenda that you will be hearing from Stockport and East Riding later on.

    I understand that Stockport and East Riding were joint winners of the IRRV benefits team of the year in 2006.

    Both authorities have shown that they can provide an excellent service through effective management, streamlined processes, and genuine innovation. They have achieved something to be proud of.

    I want to develop some ideas on shaping a modern welfare state later in my speech today.

    But first I want to talk to you about security.

    Security in the Housing Benefit system. Security in welfare delivery.

    And how we can all contribute to building a better system – where you have the right tools for the job, where customers act more responsibly, and where the public recognise we are running highly effective and efficient services.

    So I want to turn to our attention to tackling fraud and error in Housing Benefit. This is very much a live issue – I am sure many of you will have seen the latest figures we released only a week ago.

    Some of these figures show significant improvements. An overall reduction in fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker’s Allowance is welcome news.

    As is the success you have had in reducing levels of fraud in Housing Benefit – now half of previous levels at the lowest ever recorded figure of 1.4% of expenditure.

    But, yes – you’ve guessed it, there is still a lot to be done here. Customer error has increased by nearly two thirds and now it accounts for more than both fraud and official error combined.

    I know there are many reasons for this. A fundamental issue is that customers are simply not reporting changes in their circumstances as they used to do. And, as I understand it, there are three major contributing factors to this:

    First, there is evidence that some customers are confused by different reporting regimes in different benefits.

    For example, the arrangements for reporting changes in both Pension Credit and tax credits are different from Housing Benefit.

    Of course, both Pension Credit and tax credits are major welfare reforms this Government pioneered in order to direct more support to those who need it most.

    Those over pension age who deserve a long and dignified retirement. And those people who are getting on in work to provide better lives for themselves and their families.

    But it has meant that some Housing Benefit customers are now less clear about their responsibilities. We need to put this right and that is what I intend to see happen.

    Second, we abolished benefit periods. This was undoubtedly the right decision. Not all customers should be required to restate and re-verify their circumstances annually.

    This was overly intrusive for the vast majority of genuine customers, and administratively both complex and costly. But it may have contributed to a culture amongst some of not reporting changes at the right time.

    Third, the risk-based reviews we introduced to replace benefit periods have not reduced error as much as we expected.

    This is why we are introducing a more holistic performance measure in April that focuses on reductions – so the measure will be more about overall outcomes than specific tasks and activities.

    You may be aware that my Department launched an overall strategy for tackling error recently, which followed a similar strategy for reducing fraud.

    And I know that Housing Benefit has its own particular challenges. So today I’m presenting to you our action plan for tackling fraud and error in HB document aims to build on the overarching DWP strategies and puts them into the local authority context.

    The principles are the same but the details are specific to Housing and Council Tax Benefits.

    It will be no surprise to you that a central element of the strategy is to reduce customer error.

    I can feel some of you tensing up!

    It is not a matter of asking you to do more of the same. I am not seeking to do that. But clearly, we need to get to those root causes of the problems as I have identified them and deal with them head on.

    That is why the strategy identifies four areas we should tackle, and sets out an action plan for achieving specific goals.

    First, we must ensure that you have direct access to all of the information we have available. It is why for example we are working hard to get you online access to tax credits data as an upmost priority.

    Second, I firmly believe that we can radically reduce customers’ genuine errors by encouraging them to take more responsibility for reporting changes in their circumstances.

    Indeed, the vast majority of our customers want to keep their benefit levels right – and it is our job to make sure they know what they need to tell us, and when they need to tell us. And, it is essential that we back this up fully by detecting mistakes when this doesn’t happen.

    Last month, I launched an important ‘Something to Declare – Nothing to Declare’ campaign targeted at customer compliance in Peterborough. With promising early results.

    Third, we need to improve the efficiency of IT and business processes to the fullest extent that we can. We won’t be able to do everything overnight, but we can – and we will -make significant improvements as rapidly as we can. For example establishing secure e-mail links to support data-matching.

    But the fourth point is, I believe, most important. It is about empowerment. We want to build on your evident commitment to reduce fraud and error. And move away from the prescriptive measures that frankly I have never been comfortable with, such as asking you to review 50% of your caseload each year.

    From next April, we will implement the new performance measure that will allow you to choose the most appropriate activities to reduce fraud and error in your authority.

    This is fully in line with our overall approach – to set fewer targets and to focus on outcomes built on the needs of the citizen.

    We will introduce a simpler, less burdensome performance framework for local government from April 2008, which responds to concerns I know you have raised with us in the past.

    Our fraud and error action plan sets out a framework for a more secure delivery of Housing and Council Tax Benefit. And I have no doubt this is something we can deliver.

    Essentially what we should be aiming for here is the same level of success we have seen in improving processing times.

    And I really believe that this is a success that we don’t celebrate enough. There have been some quite staggering improvements over the last four or so years.

    For example, since 2002/03, you have improved the average time to process new Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit claims by three weeks – 21 days!

    The poorest performers have made the greatest improvements, with the bottom 15% improving the average time to process new claims from 99 days in 2002/03 to 54 days in 2005/06.

    In 2002/03, the average time to process a new claim was 56 days; and the number of authorities taking over 48 days was 169!  That was over 40 per cent of authorities.

    But by 2005/06 the average time to process a claim had improved 36 days; and the number of authorities taking over 48 days had reduced to just 40.

    I recently saw something of this for myself when I visited the London Borough of Hackney.

    In 2001, Hackney took 234 days to process new claims; in the first half this financial year they took just 28 days.

    This is a clear example of what can be achieved by local authorities through political will, good management, and the commitment of staff.

    I am pleased that we have been able to give support to Hackney through our Performance Standards Fund and the free consultancy provided by the Department’s Performance Development Team.

    And in Liverpool City Council, Housing Benefit claims were being processed in an average of 95 days in 2002 – but by the second quarter of this year this had been reduced to just 33 days.

    Lambeth too have seen substantial reductions in processing times from 89 to 37 days.

    And if I may just give an example of an authority who have shown consistently good service, Guildford Council have been processing Housing Benefit claims in an average of under 30 days for a number of years.

    And these are just a few cases. I could name many authorities who are represented here today, and forgive me if I don’t do so!  All across the country we have seen, time after time, authorities who have turned their Housing Benefit service around.

    So you have already proved beyond doubt that you can make substantial and lasting change. Well I am asking you to do the same thing again in reducing the amount of error in the system.

    I know we in the Department need to play a full and active role in supporting you in doing this. And I hope this new action plan assures you that we have every intention of providing you with this support.

    I am certain we can join together to deliver a faster, more secure and more streamlined service for the customer.

    And I think that, as well as building partnerships across government and voluntary bodies, we will undoubtedly see more sharing of services between and within local authorities. This is key to the way we need to work in future.

    Some of you may have read the report by Sir David Varney that the Chancellor published towards the end of last year. I certainly recommend that you have a look at it.

    It is all about joining-up services for the benefit of the citizen – and many of the best examples Sir David quotes are from local authorities.

    It sets out a vision we can all share for a more integrated approach to public services. And I firmly believe we need a new approach.

    We should not expect the customer to navigate their way around our services – we should do it for them.

    Customers should have to give information to us only once, not repeat it to countless different organisations.

    In DWP we have accepted the challenge David Varney set for us. We are beginning now to consider how we can develop a new way for customers to report changes in their circumstances to just one place and then pass it to others who need it.

    Service transformation is about delivering efficiencies by improving performance, reducing waste and duplication, more intelligent use of front-line e-services, and business process improvements.

    It is about looking for new, and better, ways of working. It is about not being afraid to try out new ideas.

    And I know many local authorities have, or are seeking to find ways of exploiting new technology and of finding ways of meeting the needs of a modern society.

    I look forward to hearing more about of these ideas, of shared solutions to common problems in the coming months.

    This matters so much because it has such a central role in helping us meet our objectives for reforming welfare in its entirety.

    Providing a safety net so that people have enough money to pay their rent is a fundamental pillar to ensuring everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home.

    And, more than this, I believe Housing Benefit can encourage and empower people to live independent lives, and to contribute to the transformation of the welfare state.

    It will do this if we can make it a more active and responsive benefit. And a secure benefit.

    As you know, the Welfare Reform Bill will enable national implementation of the Local Housing Allowance for tenants in the private rented sector.

    I believe the Local Housing Allowance will be liberating – it offers more choice and it encourages more responsibility.

    I am pleased to have had the opportunity to visit some of the pathfinder authorities. To listen to what the staff have to say about the new scheme.

    And I have read with interest the evaluation reports we have published. Whilst of course there remain some concerns, there are real positives.

    Payments to tenants have remained at very high levels. Rent arrears have not rocketed, homelessness has not increased.

    The Local Housing Allowance is certainly a lever for getting people back into the financial mainstream and for providing support for people moving into work.

    I am very grateful to the 18 authorities who have already implemented the Local Housing Allowance. It is a groundbreaking reform and they have implemented it very successfully.

    Going on to implement the LHA nationally will be a huge task. All authorities will take on LHA at the same time, from April next year, starting with new customers and those existing tenants who move house or break their claim.

    A lot of thorough preparation will be needed.   Talking to stakeholders. Making as many payments as possible direct to bank accounts. We will help of course with guidance and funding. And we will build on the experience of the authorities who have led the way.

    I know the hard work will reap rewards. Because the Local Housing Allowance will really contribute to changing people’s lives by taking them out of benefit dependency.

    But this is not our only area of reform – there are other things we need to do as well.

    It is clear from our research that most people think that Housing Benefit is for people out of work.

    It is essential that we must change this perception. We will bury this myth and do all we can to promote access to Housing Benefit as an in-work benefit.

    This is why over the next few months we will develop and implement, a programme of work designed specifically to promote awareness of Housing Benefit as in-work support.

    This is where we have an opportunity to see partnership working at its very best – local authorities, Jobcentre Plus, and voluntary organisations working together to help people back into work.

    The Local Housing Allowance is clearly the way forward for the private rented sector. But the social sector is also crying out for reform.

    With 80% of those receiving Housing Benefit living in social housing – and a very high percentage of these people not in work – it is clear there’s a strong case for reforming Housing Benefit for social tenants.

    Of course, I realise there are significant differences between the private rental market and social housing – but we do need to find a way of enabling social tenants to exercise a greater degree of personal responsibility in managing their finances.

    And we will work with you, and with other expert organisations, to find the best ways of tackling worklessness in the social sector.

    I want to ensure that the same opportunities, the same rights, the same security is available to all of our customers, regardless of their tenure.

    I firmly believe that, as the Welfare Reform Bill completes its passage through Parliament, we are entering a new stage in the development of the welfare state in this country.

    Building on the secure foundations of Beveridge over fifty years ago, we now move towards welfare delivery that fits with a modern society.

    We face big changes and big challenges.

    There is increasing competition from the economies of China and India. All the developed economies of the world are facing unprecedented economic migration.

    In these circumstances, the modern, active welfare state we are building is crucial in tackling child poverty, supporting the family and promoting social justice.

    We need above all a thriving labour market in this country to meet the challenges of technological, social, economic and demographic change.

    So we have set ourselves the ambitious aspiration of achieving an 80% employment rate for people of working age.

    This means 2 million more of our people moving into the workforce – and many of them moving off benefit. Tall order?  Unrealistic?  I don’t think so. Its exactly what we’ve achieved over the last ten years. We can do it again over the next ten.

    We will do it by reforming Incapacity Benefit, by getting more lone parents into work, and by encouraging older people into work.

    With the new Employment and Support Allowance increased responsibility will be matched by increased support.

    The emphasis will be on what people are capable of doing, not what they are incapable of doing.

    And for older people, we are building a society where security in retirement is a right for pensioners now and in the future.

    In our paper Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system we havepublished proposals for pensions that will see us into the next fifty years.

    Clearly the world is changing – people are living longer, men and women work throughout their lives and social changes must be reflected in the way we, as a society, prepare for retirement.

    And I believe our plans for pensioners do just that by reforming the state pensions system, supporting people in saving for their retirement and really making a difference for future generations.

    In this country we have a tradition of providing for those people who need our support the most. That’s what a civilised society does.

    And it is only right that we continue with this tradition. But it is equally important that we develop a social security system that continues to do much more than this.

    To ensure that we have an active system that encourages people into work and then supports them in staying in work;

    – that we allow older people to work for as long as they want to but then to enjoy a long and fruitful retirement;

    – that we lay down secure foundations for the future and eradicate child poverty within a generation.

    And of course, to provide a secure and safe system that delivers the very best service to our customers. And a system that enjoys public confidence because we have all but eliminated fraud and error whatever the source.

    Where we utilise modern techniques and modern technology to be the very best in the world.

    And if we are to deliver a world-class system that can compete on the international stage, we all have a part to play.

    I want to see our striving to deliver this together. We can only deliver this vision if we all pull in the same direction.

    People are at the heart of any organisation. And if we work together, to strive to be the very best, I know we will succeed in achieving our common goals.

    Now I know you are all wrestling with this day in day out. Actually, so am I. Sometimes it all looks up-hill. More change. More challenges.

    Another gruelling day on the welfare assault course!

    I hear that – sometimes – when I’m out talking to staff on the frontline. But more often I come across other responses. People who see the opportunities. Understand the challenges – but want to rise to them.

    And people who understand that making it better still isn’t a chore. Its an obligation. And a source of some pride in what we can all achieve.

    That’s what you can feel when you know you’re getting welfare right.

    Thank you for helping us do that. And thanks for your continuing commitment.