Category: Speeches

  • Sadiq Khan – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, to the Labour Party conference on 28th September 2011.

    Conference.

    It’s a privilege and a pleasure to be here today for the first time as your Shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

    This past 12 months the challenges of our criminal justice system have become all too apparent.

    The groups and campaigning organisations; I’ve met the prisons, young offenders institutions and courts; I’ve visited the judiciary and legal professionals I’ve listened to; and the victims whose experiences I’ve heard.

    Take Barry and Margaret Mizen who, following the tragic and unprovoked murder of their young son Jimmy, have channelled all their energies into working towards a safer community for young people across London through the Jimmy Mizen Foundation.

    I’m honoured to have Barry advising my policy review.

    And the probation officer in Preston with 30 years of experience who spoke of her frustration and disappointment at seeing several generations of the same family come into conflict with the law.

    These experiences have shaped my thinking and have reminded me of the progress we made in government but highlighted the hard work that still needs to be done.

    As you know, I shadow the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

    Someone once said that a downside of being in the Shadow Cabinet is that you begin to resemble the cabinet minister that you shadow!

    Well, so far, I don’t wear hush puppies.

    Don’t smoke cigars.

    And manage to stay awake during my leader’s speeches.

    Ken and I are very different.

    Unlike Ken, I’m not hopelessly out of touch on the issues of crime and justice.

    I grew up on a council estate in my South London constituency of Tooting.

    I know that often victims and criminals live side by side.

    And I understand how important it is for communities blighted by crime to gain important respite from persistent and serial offenders by the handing down of custodial sentences.

    Over the past year some of you may have agreed with the tone and sentiment of Ken Clarke’s verdict on our justice system.

    And I admit he can sometimes talk a good talk.

    After all, who could disagree in principle with a ‘rehabilitation revolution’?

    But, Conference, do not be hoodwinked.

    Because of Ken Clarke’s and this Government’s policies the Ministry of Justice faces a budget cut of a quarter risking the effective functioning of our justice system.

    Dedicated experienced professionals in our prison and probation service face uncertainty about the future of their crucial work.

    Even his own Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, said this month he’s found no evidence at all of a rehabilitation revolution!

    However, I’m not going to pretend that had we won the last election I wouldn’t have made cuts.

    I would’ve closed down some courts.

    We would’ve introduced a new scheme for contracting solicitors for criminal legal aid.

    I would’ve continued Labour’s work on payment by results!

    But let’s be clear, not only are the Coalition’s cuts deeper and faster than we would’ve made but Ken Clarke along with Teresa May has simply rolled over to the Treasury without even a whimper.

    Because of their timidity and complacency, communities up and down the country will pay the price for botched law and order policies.

    With no strategy for cutting crime, this Government’s policies on crime and justice are a shambles.

    The truth is the Tories cannot be trusted on law and order.

    Ken Clarke has not only fallen asleep on the job but he’s also dangerously out of touch.

    Remember his insensitive and offensive comments on rape?

    On Radio 5Live, and in response to the statement “rape is rape, with respect?”

    He said, and I quote: “No, it’s not”.

    Mr Clarke, let me tell you rape is rape.

    On our watch, we prioritised victims of rape.

    We strengthened the law on consent.

    Trained 500 more specialist rape prosecutors.

    Increased investment on centres offering help to victims of rape and sexual assaults.

    And, because of human rights legislation, rape victims are no longer put through the traumatic experience of being cross-examined in person by their alleged assailants.

    And remember this Government’s proposals for a 50% reduction in sentence for early guilty pleas?

    This would’ve meant that someone pleading guilty to rape being back on the streets after only 15 months.

    I believe we should all worry that this Coalition Government threatens to undermine our hard work.

    This Government inherited crime 43% lower than in 1997.

    We were the first government in history to leave office with crime lower than when we began.

    Leaving a justice system much better resourced be it the prison estate, probation services, youth justice or diversion and rehabilitation policies.

    More joined up than ever, building the necessary multi-agency, cross-government approach to tackling re-offending.

    Investing in prevention policies like Sure Start, parenting classes, early intervention projects, Educational Maintenance Allowance and much more.

    Record numbers of police and community support officers.

    And yes, being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.

    As relevant in 2011 as it was when Tony Blair first uttered it in 1993.

    But, Conference, I know all wasn’t rosy on our watch.

    Re-offending rates nudged down far too slowly.

    Too many in our justice system are repeat offenders.

    The public perceive non-custodial sentences as a soft option.

    And there’s the challenge of moving on from the overly-simplistic “prison works” versus “prison doesn’t work” debate.

    Of course, society should seek to prevent crimes taking place in the first place.

    That’s what we mean by being tough on the causes of crime.

    Recognising the complex and deep roots of criminality.

    In government we drew together agencies to work on improving education, health, housing, employment opportunities, seeking out and eradicating inequality.

    Sure Start through to EMA.

    All now threatened by this Government.

    But, it’s also about having enough police to catch those who still commit criminal acts.

    Yet under this government, police numbers are falling.

    Getting prevention right should make the job of Secretary of State for Justice easier!

    Less crime and less repeat crime would mean fewer people in our criminal justice system.

    But Conference, we shouldn’t forget that we must also punish those that commit crime.

    That’s what we mean by ‘tough on crime’.

    It’s an absolutely fundamental part of any justice system that for those committing serious and violent offences, custody is the only appropriate option.

    My own background has shown to me that we owe it to communities blighted by crime to give them respite from criminals through custodial sentences.

    We owe it to victims to punish criminals.

    But we also owe it to communities and victims to prevent offenders drifting back into criminality.

    And this isn’t about being easy on offenders it’s ultimately about making communities safer by preventing offenders from returning to crime.

    The National Audit Office estimate that the economic cost of offending by young people alone is £11billion a year.

    But the social impacts blighted communities, frightened residents, victims of crime are huge too.

    For Labour, we’ve an economic and a social imperative to reduce crime.

    It’s a win-win. We want to eradicate the economic and social costs, reform offenders, and support communities and victims dealing with the consequences of crime.

    Justice relies on the public having confidence in those in authority holding to account those responsible for criminal actions and victims need confidence they’ll be treated properly.

    During our time in government:

    We made progress with victims

    We introduced victim impact statements

    We increased investment in victims support

    We established a Victims Commissioner and did much more.

    Yet, all this is in danger of being undone by this Government.

    They’ve slashed resources to victim support services.

    Compensation for victims of overseas terrorism such as those affected by bombings in Mumbai and Bali has shamefully yet to materialise.

    They’ve refused to create the Office of Chief Coroner – a post that would provide an appeals system for families unhappy with a coroner’s decision on the death of a loved one.

    They are planning to slash the budget of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

    By restricting the definition of domestic violence, Ken Clarke has removed access to legal aid for some of the most vulnerable women in society posing a threat to women’s safety and that of any children in the family.

    And, in fact, this Government is cutting legal aid altogether for housing, debt, benefits and employment issues at a time when people need this the most.

    Advice deserts being created as law centres and CABs close down.

    And their changes to “no-win, no-fee” cases mean that people like Milly Dowler’s family and other victims of wrong doing by organisations wealthier and more powerful won’t be able to hold them to account.

    I want the Labour Party to build a justice system with victims at its heart.

    Giving the public, including victims, the confidence that the justice system is on their side.

    My policy review will be reporting next year on policies to strike the right balance between punishment and reform, setting out what works to protect the public, support victims, and stop crime.

    But, Conference, I am able to announce today that a future Labour Government will introduce a new Victims Law as called for by the Victims Commissioner, Louise Casey, enshrined in statute so that the rights of bereaved families of victims of homicide are honoured.

    Delivering effective justice, and treating victims with respect and dignity.

    Supporting victims through all stages of the process, including the deeply traumatic experience of when a case reaches court.

    Under Labour, victims will be at the heart of our criminal justice system.

    And I will work with victims groups to ensure we get this right.

    This summer’s riots show that we need a government that isn’t out of touch.

    Our country deserves better than knock down justice.

    We need to make the important decisions on crime and justice at the same time as making tough fiscal choices.

    But Ken Clarke and this Government are simply getting these choices wrong.

    It will be down to us to put it right.

    There’s only one party that can be trusted on law and order.

    That’s us – the Labour Party.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2011 Speech to Barnado's

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sadiq Khan, the then Shadow Justice Secretary, to Barnado’s on 8th September 2011.

    I would like to thank you all for coming here this morning and to thank Barnardos for organising this event.

    For almost 150 years Barnardos has been supporting our country’s most vulnerable children.

    The basic sentiment that informs Barnardos work on youth justice and youth offending – that, regardless of their background or behaviour, all children, even the most troubled, deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around – is perhaps more relevant now than ever.

    In recent weeks, following the riots which began in London and spread across the country, we have heard children described as ‘feral’, ‘out of control’ and a ‘drain on police time and our penal resources’. As Anne Marie [Carrie] has already pointed out on her blog last month – a 2008 Barnardos poll found that 54% of the public thought that British children were beginning to behave like animals. I’m afraid we can only imagine what that figure would be if the poll was carried out now.

    Although the riots were by no means exclusively perpetrated by young people, the ages of some of those involved were as shocking as the crimes themselves. And despite the fact that the vast majority of young people, including those in riot-hit areas, are law abiding citizens, there is no doubt that the unrest we saw in August will shape debates we have from now on on youth provision, youth services and – the issue I’m going to focus on today – youth justice.

    The fact that the majority of the public have supported tough sentences, even for young people involved, is understandable. Nothing can excuse or justify the actions of those – however young or old – who caused the unrest last month. People were scared in their homes, their places of work and on their streets and it is right that those who instilled that fear face the consequences of their actions.

    But punishment is just one function of our criminal justice system, which must also protect the public, reform offenders and try to prevent people entering it in the first place.

    For as much as people want perpetrators of the riots punished, they also want assurances, as far as is possible, that crimes of this sort – and others – won’t happen again.

    In the aftermath of the unrest people I have met, in my own community in south London and elsewhere, while unequivocal in their condemnation, have also expressed a deep desire to explain and understand why it happened. Particularly in relation to the involvement of young people:

    What led young people to take to the streets and commit these crimes?

    Why are so many young people being drawn into gangs?

    What caused this breakdown of respect for the law? For authority? For each other?

    What would deter them and what can reform them?

    The solution to the problem of all youth offending, not just rioting, lies in the answers to questions like these.

    We now have, I hope, an opportunity for a grown up debate on how to make our youth justice system work, for the young people within it and the communities it protects – by examining the root causes of youth offending, what preventative action can be taken, how to most appropriately punish and reform offenders and rehabilitate them back into our society.

    In seeking root causes, it is tempting but futile to make sweeping generalisations about the backgrounds of young people who commit crime. About their parents, their family make up, or their ethnicity.

    But we can look at the statistics. And they demonstrate the scale of the challenge we face:

    – Over 70% of children in custody have been involved with, or in the care of social services

    – 40% had been homeless before entering custody

    – More than a quarter of children in the youth justice system have been identified with special educational needs, almost half are under achieving in school and 90% of young men in prison were excluded from school

    – More than half of all offenders were convicted of their first crime before they reached 18 and a further 21% before their 24th birthday.

    It is this data that we need to focus on. And in government tackling this is what we meant when we said we would be tough on the causes of crime.

    We understood that the right way to halt the unrestrained rise in crime we saw in the 1980s and early 1990s and to cut the number of young people in custody was to stop them turning to crime in the first place.

    This meant several agencies working together to deliver a national strategy at a local level. So we tried to develop a joined up youth justice system, with the Home Office and later the MoJ, the Departments of Health and Education as well as the police and local government – all of this overseen by the Youth Justice Board.

    Via the YJB, we armed prevention professionals with the resources they needed to intervene early to try to stop at risk young people from turning to crime. They worked with local Youth Offending Teams to deal with young offenders through the Youth Justice System – from arrest to diversionary options or to charge. Through to sentencing and to the management of their reintegration back into their community.

    And we knew that early intervention can never be too early. That’s why we created schemes like Sure Start to support very young children and their families and why we developed targeted Family Intervention Projects to offer intensive, personalised support to parents and guardians to help provide the stability families need to bring up their children to be responsible citizens.

    And we continued to support young people in their passage to adulthood: with Youth Inclusion Programmes for young teenagers most at risk of offending and the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) to give older teenagers the option to stay in full time education.

    Of course when we left office last year things weren’t perfect. There was still more work to do, but we did make significant progress in preventing youth crime. Over the last parliament alone we saw a:

    – A 43% reduction in first time youth offenders

    – A 34% reduction overall in crimes committed by young people

    – And we’ve also witnessed the closure of some of the youth secure estate because of falling levels of youth crime

    So prevention is the key.

    But prevention doesn’t always work. Once a crime is committed by a young person and he or she is caught, there is still the matter of “what next?”

    For low level first offences committed by young people effective divergence mechanisms from the criminal justice system have been developed in recent years. Police can refer a low-level young offender to a triage programme instead of charging them if they admit their offence during police interview. Instead of going through the court system the young person will be sent to a Youth Offending Service office where an intervention plan to address their offending behaviour and make restorations to the victim will be drawn up and which they will be expected to follow. And if they don’t comply, they will be charged by the police. So there is a carrot and a stick.

    However, for more serious crimes committed by young people, charge by the police and entry into the youth justice system where a legal punishment is passed down will be necessary.

    Legal punishment of young people is, of course, controversial.

    There are abolitionists who feel punishment for young people is wrong in all instances. And there are those that militate in favour of draconian punishments. In the riots calls for flogging, live ammunition and the stocks were common place according to the polls and the popular press. These were dismissed as lamentable by lawmakers of all parties and of course rightly so.

    But public confidence in our justice system, including the youth justice system, does require some punishment for crimes committed to be inflicted on the perpetrator. And the debate about what is the most appropriate and proportionate punishment is best held in the centre, not at the fringes. I believe that most citizens – teachers, nurses, shopkeepers as well as politicians – have a balanced and moderate view of legal punishment and in government we did continue to develop and fund non-custodial forms to compliment custodial options.

    Although we successfully brought the numbers of children requiring a custodial sentence more in line with international norms by providing productive alternatives for young offenders, custody is sometimes the only appropriate course of action.

    But children given a custodial sentence in the secure estate are still just that: children.

    It is only too clear to me when I visit Youth Offending Institutions and Secure Training Centres that I am dealing with children, even if their physical size makes them seem more grown up. They often have incomplete moral vocabulary, stunted emotional intelligence and a limited understanding of how the actions that led to their detention harmed victims and violated the covenants that allow our society to function.

    So, when we do detain children, as well as addressing offender behaviour, it is right to invest in their education, their emotional development and general wellbeing. It is tragic to me when I see a young person who thrives under the stability offered to them in the secure estate, en gaged in healthy relationships, perhaps getting qualifications they would never have considered outside at hugely increased costs. And it reinforces to me that every crime committed by a child represents missed opportunities by multiple state agencies and the family, the community as well as the individual. That is why a joined-up approach between all these actors is necessary.

    And in this sense, we shouldn’t view crime as transactional between two parties – the offender and the victim. Crime creates social volatility and affects everyone. It damages the communities and the society as a whole, particularly when committed by young people. It is right that the state, representing the people, recognises the duty to incapacitate, punish, reform and deter. But we must find the best ways do this – by looking at what works.

    Community punishments are a valuable part of our youth justice system. They can sometimes be more effective in reforming young offenders and in reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. We believe that tough community sentences for young offenders should be expanded and their funding guaranteed.

    But youth justice projects are being squeezed or forced to shut down in the face of cuts to local authority budgets, NOMS, the YJB and YOTs. YOTs are taking hits of up to 60 per cent to non-statutory functions like prevention initiatives including working with gangs. As a result Intensive Intervention Projects are closing down or reducing their services. Already East Sussex, Gateshead, Haringey, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Peterborough, Southampton and Trafford have discontinued their projects!

    This is drastically restricting the options available to magistrates and judges to pass down non-custodial community sentences. If they don’t have the confidence in the availability and efficacy of community punishment they will be forced to resort to the secure estate. We’re already hearing from magistrates that cuts to YOT budgets in just the last year are impacting their sentencing options.

    It is economically misguided to diminish YOT and community justice budgets and is undermining the Government’s plan to reduce detention numbers.

    Strategically incoherent and a false economy seems to sum up the current approach.

    According to the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour, it can cost up for £193,000 per year to hold a young person in a secure training centre. And for some it is the best option. But it is a very costly alternative to a community disposal for those for whom it is not necessary or proportionate.

    Forcing magistrates and judges into that position because of short term cuts will not result in long term savings and is hugely detrimental to the future life chances of the children placed into custody and the communities who will be the victims of further crimes due to the reoffending of these young people.

    I’m proud that we reversed the unconstrained increase in youth detention by investing to tackle the causes of crime.

    The number of under 18 year olds imprisoned has reduced by a third over the last three years. And during the same period we also saw a reduction in crime. But this took time. It took investment. And it took a concerted joined-up effort.

    I’m glad that the institutional innovations of Labour – Youth Offending Teams and the Youth Justice Board – both exist (for the time being anyway) and are able to do their valuable work in providing pre-sentencing support and advice, and where necessary, working to ensure young people in the secure estate are treated as children and that the secure estate recognises their particular needs and vulnerabilities as far as possible.

    I’ll admit, It’s not perfect. For example, we don’t do enough on sharing best practice. We don’t do enough on exploring which interventions work best by leveraging the work of criminologists and experts in the field to plan as rationally as possible.

    And while we need to be careful not to inflate the scale of the problem of gangs, it is clear that there are areas where territorial gangs are proving to be a key driver of local criminality. This is where politicians need to listen to and work with the organisations engaging with young people in gangs who know what works to get them out.

    Again, there is best practice out there – both overseas and domestically – into how best we tackle the gang problem, involving early interventions and targeting resources

    But you don’t have to go far back to remember the problems that existed in the youth justice system prior to 1997. A system that was broken. A system that was still, to a great extent, predicated on Willy Whitelaw’s “short, sharp shock”.

    The innovations of the last Labour government – intensive family intervention, a focus on education, recognition of a child’s unique needs – were a repudiation of the past and a genuine and heartfelt attempt to build a brighter future.

    When this government unveiled their approach to youth justice there was excitement in the sector – that this may genuinely be something new from the Conservatives on crime reduction and a continuation of the progress we started.

    But the Government plans to roll the YJB back into the Ministry of Justice which could risk unravelling some of the progress we’ve seen. Legitimate concerns that rationalisation of functions with NOMS will lead to the erosion of the child-centric approach the YJB began are being dismissed by this government, despite the House of Lords already voting to keep the YJB independent.

    Independence, to a degree, insulates the Youth Justice Board from the worst ravages of populist rhetoric. Not entirely, but sufficiently to give them greater latitude than would be afforded a politician and a greater emphasis on what actually works to cut youth crime.

    And why are they letting a public body with a proven track record of reducing crime go up in the smoke of the bonfire of the quangos? The decision was not based on a review of performance. As with everything, the decision seems largely based on costs, not value.

    But cutting the YJB won’t save much money – around £100,000 over three years – and threatens, through undermining a joined-up youth justice system, to actually increase costs over the long term through higher criminality and the attendant costs to individuals and the state.

    The system is not just under assault in that sense though. There are also deep concerns about funding the secure estate. The rate of detainee deaths in custody this year is far higher than in past years. The secure estate is having to absorb big cuts in budgets. And anything less than an obsessive focus on ensuring safety is not compromised is, to my mind, a severe abrogation of duty. We will continue to press the Prisons Minister on the matter of deaths of young people in custody and will work with the government and any other agencies to do what we can to ensure the secure estate is safe for detainees.

    Basic safety and protection of well being, both physical and mental, should be the least we expect when it comes to treatment of young people who come into conflict with the law.

    We also have a duty to prevent the all too frequent transition from youth offender to adult offender.

    Although we were able to reduce it somewhat in government; the stubbornly high rates of reoffending amongst young people need to be urgently addressed.

    We don’t only have a moral duty to try to rehabilitate young people and offer them a second chance at responsible citizenship. It is also an economic imperative.

    The National Audit Office has estimated the cost to the UK economy of offending by young people as £11bn per year. If we are to bring this cost down, not to mention the unquantifiable emotional costs to victims of crime, we must invest in rehabilitation.

    And when we’re dealing with young people, this does not just mean giving them the practical educational skills they will need to play a productive part in public life. It must also involve fostering an understanding about the consequences their actions have not only for their own lives but for the victims of their crimes. An understanding often lacking for many young offenders.

    Restorative justice programmes that make young offenders take responsibility for their crimes can indeed be transformative justice. It can help develop the moral vocabulary, emotional intelligence and offer a level of reparation for the victim that punishment alone can’t always deliver.

    Where restorative justice has been used, in Northern Ireland it has produced lower reconviction rates and higher satisfaction rates for victims. A 2010 Prison Reform Trust report shows almost a 50 per cent reduction in the reoffending rates of young offenders that took part in Northern Ireland’s restorative justice programme.

    It is of course not appropriate for every crime or every young offender. A fifteen year old that kills or rapes as part of a gang initiation needs to be dealt with differently. But it is a mechanism that merits further emphasis within our youth justice system and something Labour would be committed to expanding where victims feel it would help.

    So I can announce this morning that Labour will be seeking to amend the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill so that courts have an explicit duty to consider making an order to participate in a restorative justice course. And if the government is true to its word that it wants to replicate Northern Ireland’s restorative justice programme, then supporting our amendment would be a positive step.

    But their record to date makes me doubtful of their commitment.

    It is not only the preventative innovations of the last government that are at risk – the Sure Start centres and youth clubs which are closing, family Intervention Projects being put at risk by ring fenced funding being removed, the EMA being scrapped, Youth Offending Teams being disbanded – rehabilitative measures are also taking a hit. My fear is that it will not only be young people whose lives will be wasted to crime that will suffer, but also communities up and down the country battling anti-social behaviour and youth offending.

    The intolerable outbreak of crime we saw on the streets of our cities this summer shined a light on our youth justice system and the underlying reasons why young people sometimes feel they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain from crime.

    We need to look carefully at what this light has uncovered – from the shadowy world of gangs to opportunities for work and training that young people need.

    That is precisely why we’re reaching out – to experts, practitioners and young people themselves – for solutions.

    I am chairing an extensive policy review looking at all aspects of criminal justice policy. My review will be analysing the evidence of what works to prevent young people from committing criminal acts in the first place and how we can best reform the ones that do. We will scratch below the surface to deal with the complex issues we know play a part – including deprivation, gang culture and exclusion. And how our youth justice system can be made to work for the young people within it.

    I will need your help. The work of organisations like Barnardos and many others represented here today should inform youth justice policy so it is genuinely child-centric, evidence based and effective. We will also need to look at what lessons from the successes we’ve seen in youth justice can be transferred to the adult criminal justice system.

    Youth crime went down in recent year s and youth custody levels fell. So there is something distinctive about the youth justice system which shows we can reduce crime and imprisonment at the same time. Unlike the adult penal system.

    The relationship between custody and crime is never simple, but I don’t think it’s immodest to say that an important factor was the investments Labour made, in money and in effort, to prevent and deter youth crime.

    Casting simplistic assertions about a ‘feral underclass’ as Ken Clarke has about those involved in riots is lazy. This kind of language absolves people from responsibility for their actions, implying that somehow they had no self control or no choice. Instead we will be looking at how we can make young people responsible citizens who understand the consequences of their actions and have the opportunities and the means to stay away from crime. But at the same time, have a youth justice system that effectively punishes and reforms those who do commit offences.

    It is a moral and economic imperative to stop young lives being wasted to crime. The vast majority of young people want to play a productive, not destructive role in society. It is all our responsibility to make that happen and to help reform those who are struggling to do so – for everyone’s sake.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sadiq Khan to the 2010 Labour Party conference.

    Good Morning Conference,

    This week, we have elected a new leader and we have asked him to lead us on a journey of change, so we can reconnect with the British people, win back the voters we lost and return to power.

    To do that, and set out the right vision for the future, we have to learn the lessons of the past.

    We must take pride in our achievements.

    And we must be humble about our mistakes.

    And we must learn from them.

    So let me first tell you what I am proud of:

    And it’s not being the first ministerial appointment to be announced on twitter.

    As we all are, I am proud of our great achievements – the minimum wage, tax credits, the hundreds of thousands of pensioners taken out of poverty.

    The progress on equality that allowed me to become the first MP of Muslim faith to attend cabinet.

    Amidst all these successes, it would be easy for some to overlook the progress we made for transport.

    But not for me.

    Because my dad was a bus-driver.

    And there was no escape at the in-laws either.

    My wife’s dad worked f or London Underground.

    Most people feel nagged by their parents from time to time, but very rarely is it about the future of bus regulation.

    But talking shop with my family made sure that I never forgot the shambles of a transport system we inherited from the Tories in 1997.

    So I am proud of the progress we made.

    Embracing market solutions where they are right, but never forgetting the important role government can play.

    Time and again challenging the conventional wisdom to stand up for those that rely on our transport network – passengers, motorists, businesses and business people.

    Rejecting the ideology that drove the Tory rail privatisation by replacing Railtrack with a body that prioritises safety, not shareholders.

    Recognising that access to public transport is more, not less important, in impoverished neighbourhoods and so giving local authorities more control over bus routes.

    Opening Britain’s first high speed rail line.

    Cutting deaths on the roads.

    Nationwide free bus travel for over 60s and disabled people.

    Giving millions of people more freedom and quality of life.

    And in London, we saw what Labour leadership can mean – upgrades to the tube, electronic ticketing, bus services transformed, the congestion charge, and a deal for Crossrail, a scheme which will contribute billions to Britain’s economy.

    All reasons I’ll be proud to campaign once again for Ken Livingstone to become Mayor of London.

    We showed the importance of strong regulation, but also that the public sector and the private sector can work together to deliver investment to improve our roads and buses and railways.

    It is an approach that was right in the past and will be right in the future.

    But this week cannot just be about learning from where we got things right.

    We also need to learn from where we got things wrong.

    Because to tackle the great challenges to the transport system of the future – rising passenger numbers, growing congestion, the spectre of climate change.

    We need to have a clear view about what we need to do differently.

    So there are places where we need to change.

    We made great strides on ensuring bus services for all communities.

    But we could have done more to give local councillors more control and we need to recognise that and move on.

    We made great strides on getting children and adults to cycle more.

    But we did wait too long to promote cycling as a mainstream form of transport.

    As Andrew Adonis reminded us last year… for us “on your bike” is a transport option not an insult to the unemployed.

    And we made great strides on tackling carbon emissions.

    We have set out some of the most detailed plans in the world, not just on how to cut emissions but also how to support greener motoring, create jobs and ensure that it is in the UK that we manufacture the clean cars of the future.

    But we didn’t always get the answers right and we need to recognise that and move on.

    Part of moving on means working with this government when they make good decisions, where we agree with them we should support them.

    But where they put our transport system at risk we should say so as well.

    So we hear that they doubt:

    The value of investment in new trains.

    The value of supporting bus companies to provide services in deprived areas.

    The value of our plans for high speed rail.

    Of course, we will support responsible cuts when times are hard, but right wing ideological cuts are wrong, unacceptable and we will expose them.

    Under David Cameron, much of what we gained is at risk.

    Passengers will not pay more for less.

    And that will mean one thing.

    People who currently use public transport returning to the roads.

    Bad for motorists, bad for businesses, bad for the economy.

    Conference, of course there would have been cuts under a Labour Government.

    Some schemes would have had to be postponed or even scrapped.

    I can’t stand here and tell you that every local transport project would have been funded.

    But I can tell you this:

    We would not fall into the trap of short-termism, making cuts now which would still be holding our country back in twenty years time.

    We would not reduce transport policy to economy, but always remember that it is essential to fairness that people in all parts of our society can afford to get to where they need to be.

    We would stand up for ambition and for optimism.

    And, because you don’t get real change by tinkering around the edges.

    That means being prepared to make radical change as a party.

    To help build a fairer and more prosperous society.

    Tony Blair told us that we are at our best when at our boldest.

    Two days ago, our new leader Ed Miliband told us we are at our best when we are restless reformers.

    And of course, they are both right.

    We must not let being in opposition stifle our ambition, nor austerity smother our hopes.

    We’ll win the next General Election if we show people a vision of a better fairer Britain that they can believe in.

    Not just a vision for the next 5 years – but for the Britain that we want to leave behind for the generations to come.

    Conference, I believe that we have that vision in us and we’ve shown the world this week that we’re coming back, bolder than ever.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2005 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 5 March 2005 to the party’s Spring Conference.

    Conference,

    We Liberal Democrats are ready for a General Election.

    And we are looking forward to it.

    We have a strong message and a powerful case to put forward.

    In so many ways the story of this parliament, now coming to an end, has been the way the Liberal Democrats have emerged as the real opposition to Tony Blair’s Labour Government.

    The Real Opposition to an illegal war in Iraq.

    The Real Opposition to Labour’s authoritarian instincts.

    The Real Opposition against student top-up fees, against poverty pensions, against the Council Tax, against false choice in our public services.

    We have been principled.
    We have stood up for the people of Britain.
    We have not wavered when the going got tough.

    We have shown our resolve as a national opposition party.
    As a result we have grown in strength and in support.

    At this General Election – we will be the Real Alternative.
    We will be the party that people turn to.
    People want a credible, principled political party which offers a different vision of what Britain can be.

    They want a real alternative to Labour.
    At this General Election the Liberal Democrats will be that Real Alternative.

    The main issue currently before parliament – is an issue and a set of principles alongside it which go to the very heart of our democracy.

    And it shows just how important it is to have a real alternative in Britain.

    I am talking of course of the proposed control orders being introduced by the Home Secretary.

    The Liberal Democrats – for the past three years – have been principled and persistent critics of the situation at Belmarsh Prison.

    For us it is utterly unacceptable for individuals to be incarcerated – facing indefinite detention – without charge and without trial.

    That it is not the Liberal Democrat way.
    And that is not the British way.

    And that’s why the Law Lords declared the Government’s policy illegal.

    So the government were duty-bound to respond.
    And respond they did with their ill-fated proposals for house arrest.

    3 weeks ago, at Prime Minister’s Questions, I raised with Tony Blair our central concern.

    It must be a judge – never a politician – who decides whether someone is to be locked up.

    Mark Oaten and I sustained that key concern at the Downing Street discussions which then followed.

    And we welcomed the degree of undoubted movement on the Government’s part which had taken place in the intervening period.

    Welcome movement – but by no means enough.

    Fundamental objections remained.

    And those concerns still remain.

    Now, as this legislation is before the House of Lords, let us be crystal clear about the ongoing Liberal Democrat position.

    There is an onus here on the politicians – irrespective of party – to seek a consensus where responding responsibly to what I acknowledge is both the threat and the reality of international terrorism.

    We are willing to try and find a solution which delivers proper security with a respect for human rights.
    We are not however about to set off down a path which leads inexorably to a surrender of principles.
    Anything but.

    That is the spirit in which we have engaged on these matters.
    We have a real alternative which will maintain our security and protect our liberties:-
    And these will continue to be our guiding principles.

    1. Prosecution should always be the first option.

    2. Decisions over detention must be judicial and not in the first instance political.

    3. The standard of proof must be of the highest possible order.

    4. Defendants must have access to defence lawyers and to see the evidence against them.

    A sensible Government would have come up with proposals based on these principles in the first place.

    Without these safeguards Liberal Democrats in Parliament will not support this Bill.

    All too often with this government, when presented with a genuine problem the instinctive response is an authoritarian one.
    Undermining trial by jury, house arrest, compulsory Identity Cards

    That is not the Liberal Democrat way.
    That is not the British way.

    This issue is not the only one where our party has been well tested in this parliament.

    Take of course the issue of Iraq.

    With regard to the war itself, our views of course are well known.
    We took that stand in Parliament against the war.
    The Conservatives backed Tony Blair.

    Tony Blair took us to war in Iraq on the basis of the supposed threat of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

    Mere weeks before the war the Prime Minister was still telling Parliament “I detest his regime?but even now, he could save it.”

    Now, because it has been shown that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the Prime Minister says that the removal of Saddam justifies the war in itself.
    Not what he was saying just before it.

    And today – if he is so confident of his case – why will he not allow the Attorney General’s legal advice to be published?

    The Prime Minister wants us to move on – but we cannot until we know the full facts.

    He should publish – and if necessary be damned.

    Of course Britain should honour its legal and moral responsibilities with regard to the situation in Iraq.
    But we need to focus on a proper exit strategy – as we warned at the outset.
    That should mean a phased withdrawal of British troops to coincide with the end of the United Nations mandate this year.

    It is vital to apply your principles with consistency – at home and abroad.

    And nowhere is that responsibility more required of politicians than when it comes to discussion of the issues concerning immigration and asylum.

    I believe the duty here for politicians is to begin with a straightforward statement of personal belief.

    And this is mine.

    I believe that our country is a richer, more vibrant society precisely because it is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society.

    Let that be the starting point for any debate over immigration and asylum.

    And let us not confuse the two in people’s minds either.

    On immigration we have no problem over identifying quotas for skilled shortages in our society.

    But we would do so on the basis of an independent evaluation of the needs of the British economy – not the prejudices of politicians.

    Where would the National Health Service be without the numbers of migrant workers – doctors and nurses – on our wards?

    On asylum, let us not go down the route of declaring artificial limits.

    This country has a proud history of opening its doors to generations of people fleeing personal persecution, civil unrest and war.

    We must never surrender that track record.

    So my message here is clear.

    Where immigration and asylum issues are concerned, the challenge is for the politicians to make the systems work in the best long-term interests of the country.

    But never to pander and play to people’s fears.

    In recent weeks, much of the political debate has centred on what the parties plan to put in their election manifestos – and rightly so.

    But if you take the big issues of this Parliament – Iraq, the Hutton and Butler inquiries, anti-terrorist legislation, top up fees, foundation hospitals – these were scarcely mentioned during the campaign four years ago.
    They largely fall into the category – which Harold McMillan once described as ‘events, dear boy, events.’

    Manifestos will obviously matter, but voters will simultaneously be making a more fundamental judgement;
    They will be assessing how the different parties might deal with those ‘events’ in the next four years;
    And seeking solutions which reflect their personal hopes and fears.

    How will they judge the Conservatives?
    Their record in this parliament has been pathetic.
    They have flip-flopped over the big issues of the day.
    Iraq, Hutton, Butler, top-up fees, ID cards?I could go on.
    When called upon to make a judgement – in the heat of the moment – the Conservatives have consistently made the wrong one – then tried to back-track when they see political advantage.
    Poor judgement and opportunism.
    You won’t win elections like that because people won’t trust you with Government.

    And Labour?
    What a squandering of the good will which greeted Tony Blair in 1997!
    What an abuse of public trust!
    Will voters really forgive being misled on Iraq?
    Or the broken promises on tax?
    Or top up fees?
    Or the instinctive authoritarianism?

    And what about the dismal failure to take a lead on Europe?

    Which leaves us – the Liberal Democrats.  The Real Alternative.

    Throughout the course of this parliament, week on week, issue after issue, we have acted in accordance with our principles.

    We argue sincerely for what we believe is in the best interests of our country.

    For us politics isn’t about gimmicky pledge cards with vacuous statements.
    It’s about real solutions to real problems.
    It’s about being straightforward about how you will deliver.
    And it’s about being straightforward also about how much it will all cost.

    Throughout this parliament, I have insisted that our balance sheet must add up.

    And on tax, we seek to be both bold and fair.

    Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world.
    We have world class businesses and a world class workforce.
    So why are 2 million of our pensioners living below the poverty line?
    And why are the poorest in our society paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest?

    There is another way – that is what being the real alternative is all about.

    Being bold doesn’t mean making promises we can’t keep.

    Boldness requires us to make the case for taxation.  Why? Because people know you can’t get something for nothing.
    And boldness means making the case for tax reform, so that it is fair.

    At the last election Labour promised not to put up income tax. What did they do? They raised National Insurance.

    The Conservatives are currently suggesting that they can cut income tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, council tax, savings tax, small business tax, environmental taxes AND increase public spending all at the same time.
    Oh – and cut the national debt while they are at it.
    No one really believes them. Candy floss economics.

    And even if you do look at the small print of their plans it shows the tax burden will actually rise under the Conservatives – by £24 billion.
    So much for straight-talking there.
    In contrast, what we propose is credible.

    Anyone who earns over £100,000 would pay 50p in the pound on every pound earned above £100,000.
    According to government figures, that would raise £5.2 billion a year.
    What would we use that sum for?
    1. We would abolish top-up and tuition fees
    2. We would provide free personal care for the elderly, just as we have delivered in Scotland
    3. We would scrap the Council tax and hold down the rate of local taxes.

    Now this is targeted taxation for targeted spending commitments.

    And for those who predict gloom and doom, the end of civilisation as we know it – remind them, this is still a lower rate of top tax than was the case for the majority of the period that Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister of this country.

    And, strange to record, the sun kept rising in the east and setting in the west.

    What’s more, this tax change will affect just 1% of the wealthiest income tax payers in the country.
    So by definition 99% of people will not be paying more.
    But the benefits will be for 100% of people.
    Now that is a real alternative.

    As for tax reform – a fair tax system is one which is based on the principle of people’s ability to pay.

    Council tax is fundamentally unfair.  It bears no relationship to earnings and means that the poorest in our society pay more from their income than do the richest.  That cannot be right.

    So we would scrap the Council Tax and replace it with a local income tax.
    We would do it through the Inland Revenue which is cheaper to administer.
    As confirmed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies last week about half of people would pay less.  A quarter would be unaffected.  And a quarter would pay a bit more.
    A typical family would be £450 a year better off.
    And over half of all pensioners, would pay no local tax at all.
    Now that is the real alternative.

    Being in Government is all about priorities.
    What you choose to spend tax payer’s money on – and what you choose not too.

    Being the real alternative means spending public money differently.

    We would raise £5 billion a year by scrapping departments like the DTI and ODPM and transferring key functions elsewhere.
    We would scrap the next stage of Eurofighter, the baby bonds and the compulsory Identity Cards scheme.
    Now these are tough choices.
    But look at what we would deliver with that money

    10,000 more police of the streets – cutting crime and the fear of crime.

    A Citizen’s Pension for the over 75s – Over £100 a month extra on the basic state pension, millions of pensioners off means testing, and an end to the scandalous discrimination in the pensions system against women.

    An end to the hidden NHS waiting lists – quick diagnosis so treatment is not delayed.

    Free eye tests and dental checks.

    Lower class sizes for our youngest children – because children taught well in their early years have a far better chance of successful and rewarding lives.

    Now that is the Real Alternative –
    Costed, affordable polices to make Britain better, fairer, safer.
    The balance sheet is balanced; the costs add up.
    It’s a matter of priority.
    And I think it’s a good deal.
    And what’s more – I think the people of Britain will think it is a good deal.

    All of this will be underpinned by a Green thread running through our manifesto.

    The environment is central to our vision.

    A Britain in which sustainable living is a reality so that we minimise the impact of the way we live on the world around us.

    A Britain that looks beyond the Kyoto treaty to the next stage of the battle to limit climate change; standing up to the conspiracy theorists and those in denial over the threat of global warming.

    You know – a month ago I challenged Tony Blair and Michael Howard about just this issue because I think the seriousness of the threat transcends party colours.

    I wanted the three parties to come together to agree that the science is real and the threat is real.

    To pledge ourselves to pursue new and stronger international goals on climate change.

    And to make sure Britain has its own house in order by agreeing a series of long-term baseline targets for our own environment.

    Sensible, consensual politics to deal with a long-term threat that faces all of us now, and the generations to come.

    But such an initiative simply does not fit in with Tony Blair or Michael Howard’s idea of politics.

    So again at this election, the Liberal Democrats will be the Real Alternative on the environment.

    So far this campaign has had all the hallmarks of the kind of spin that turns people off.

    Take the latest row over cancelled hospital operations.

    The slanging match between Labour and the Conservatives – as they both scrabble for headlines – demeans our politics.

    What people want are positive solutions to sustain and strengthen our National Health Service.
    Right now they deserve better than they are getting.

    What they seek is good schools and hospitals – run efficiently.
    They want proper public provision for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.
    They want straight talk from politicians and fairness.
    They don’t want to be patronised with token promises.

    And they don’t want politicians always interfering.
    People want to get on with their own lives.
    They want to take their own decisions in and about their own neighbourhoods and communities.

    So this election will be about more than just manifesto promises.

    Our party has been the real opposition in this parliament.
    If you voted Conservative in 2001, yet opposed the war in Iraq.
    If you don’t want compulsory Identity Cards cards.
    If you are suffering under the Council Tax.
    If you are worried about the environment.
    What good did it do you voting Conservative?
    Your vote was wasted.

    Because today, the Conservatives are out of the race in Scotland and Wales, and most of urban Britain.
    While they are fading, we are growing.

    The challenge for our party throughout this period, and my aim as your leader, has been to show that the Liberal Democrats are credible; that we are the real alternative.

    When people grow tired of the old parties they turn to us to see what we can do.
    This is what has been happening in Liverpool and Newcastle – big cities run by the Liberal Democrats.
    And Liberal Democrat Ministers in Scotland.

    Up and down the country the Liberal Democrats exercise real power and real responsibility.

    As we enter this general election people now have a much clearer idea of what we’re about.

    They do see in us a real alternative on offer.

    And a real alternative that’s on their side.

    Where the big issues are concerned.

    Axing the council tax.

    Abolishing student tuition fees.

    Guaranteeing free personal care for the elderly.

    Tackling pension unfairness – especially for women.

    Pursuing positive engagement in Europe – and the wider world.

    With real action to promote the environment.

    Two years ago one million people took to the streets of Britain to try to make politicians listen –
    They wanted to send a message to Tony Blair – don’t go to war in Iraq.
    When I am told that people in Britain don’t care about politics,
    I think about the people I marched alongside that day.

    People of a different political persuasion from me and people of no political persuasion.

    They were fed up with the way the Prime Minister was behaving;
    Fed up with the way both the old parties – Labour and the Tories – were standing shoulder to shoulder in defence of George Bush.

    What they needed was a real alternative;
    A party which was listening to their concerns;
    A party which was prepared to stand up and say so;
    The party which said no to the Prime Minister.

    I am proud that we were the real alternative then.
    I am proud that we have continued to stand apart from the other two parties on important issues of principle.
    I am proud that when it comes to tackling unfairness in this country,
    the Liberal Democrats put that top of the agenda.

    We enter this election as a truly independent political party.
    We will campaign through this election as an independent political party.
    And we will emerge in the next House of Commons as an independent political party.

    That way we will do best – by ourselves and by the country.

    More votes, more seats – beyond that no glass ceilings to our ambitions.

    Now that’s the real alternative in this election.

    And it’s called the Liberal Democrats.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2004 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 23 September 2004 to the Liberal Democrat Party Conference.

    It’s three party British politics.  That’s been the real lesson of this year.  Take those local elections.  Big Liberal Democrat gains.

    Taking on and trouncing Labour in places like Cardiff and Cambridge, Liverpool and Newcastle;

    Making big gains from them in Leeds and Manchester as well.

    While in most of these places the Conservatives just simply disappeared.

    You know it is telling indeed that the voters did not think it worthwhile electing a single Conservative councillor in a place like Oxford.

    And if you take Scotland and Wales into account and they’re scarcely a national UK political party any longer.

    And Liberal Democrats continued making gains from the Conservatives in places like Portsmouth, St Albans and Watford.

    In his first speech as the new Liberal Democrat Leader in Newcastle – after thirty years of one party Labour rule – this is what Peter Arnold had to say: –  “For Newcastle Liberal Democrats, one of the most important success criteria will be the extent to which we are able to give the city back to the people…We will be doing things differently, by making sure the Council is less politically partisan and more inclusive. We will be offering Opposition Groups the opportunity to adopt a more positive role in the council’s affairs.”

    Now there’s the difference for you – in a nutshell.

    As that onetime Liberal, Winston Churchill, put it: “In victory – magnanimity.”  That’s the breath of fresh air that we bring to British politics – and to local communities with it.  That’s why we’re on the move.  And that’s why we pushed Labour into third place for the first time ever in a national election.  Add to those the European elections results.

    We stuck firmly to our reforming pro-European principles.

    And the outcome?

    Two more Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament.

    Fiona Hall in the North East.  And Saj Karim in the North West.  Saj – our first ever elected Liberal Democrat parliamentarian from an ethnic minority community.  And about time too.  But not unique for long.  In Leicester South – just as in Brent East last year – we leapfrogged the Conservatives – we came from third place to take on Labour and win.  Congratulations, Parmjit Gill.  And never forget we came within an ace of doing the same in Birmingham Hodge Hill as well.  Well done, Nicola Davies.  So fantastic results. Each and every one.  And when you leave Bournemouth make sure that your next stop is Hartlepool.

    That’s where I’m heading next.

    Immediately after this speech.

    Lembit Opik is flying me there.

    I kid you not.

    Greater love hath no man for our party than he is prepared to place his life in Lembit’s safe keeping in the skies above us.

    So I expect to see you all there in Hartlepool.

    Well, I really do hope to see you all there in Hartlepool!

    We are the challengers.

    The Conservatives have already conceded they aren’t in the Hartlepool race.

    And it’s a simple statement of fact that the Conservatives are now out of the race in most of urban Britain.

    And that the only effective challenge to Labour is coming from the Liberal Democrats.

    People know we’ve done it before – and we can do it again in Hartlepool.

    If we go out there and make our case – make no mistake.

    We CAN do it.

    ******

    I want to talk to you today about the future.

    The future of two things.  The future of our party.  And also the future of our country.  We want the two increasingly to go hand in hand.

    We know we can make the political weather – tuition fees, the council tax.

    And we know we’re capable of much more yet.

    But our success also poses certain questions – and rightly so.

    Are these people up to it?

    Are those Liberal Democrats ready for the task in hand?

    Can we be sure we know what they stand for?

    Well we stand for three things above all else.

    Freedom. Fairness. Trust.   Those are our watchwords.

    Those are the core principles against which our policies must be measured.

    And they are the principles which match the increasingly liberal instincts of 21st century Britain.  A Britain now of many faiths, many colours, many languages; A variety of family structures; Far greater life expectancy.

    And working patterns our grandparents would scarcely recognise. Social mobility and fast communications; High aspirations and far less deference; Openness and tolerance about sexual orientation.  A Britain where the individual counts for so much

    But still a Britain where a sense of community matters.

    In so many ways that’s a liberal Britain.

    It’s our task now to turn these instinctively liberal attitudes into positive votes for the party of British liberal democracy.

    And it is also a Britain in which the way we are governed is being transformed.

    We have a Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, both elected by fairer votes – involving proportional representation.

    And -on November 4th people in the North East will have a referendum for a regional assembly. We’re out campaigning hard for that – and I’ll be back on that campaign trail again shortly.

    Devolution is at its best when it gets things done. And it’s getting things done that show people what we value and what we stand for.

    It’s been a big responsibility for us, in Wales, where we helped bring much needed stability to the Assembly at a crucial moment – and better policies as a result.

    Reduced class sizes; more environmental initiatives; free school milk;

    Free admission to art galleries and museums, recognising that the legacy and the vitality of Celtic culture demands the decision-makers to understand not just the price of things but also the value of things.

    As a result – people know more about what we stand for. And they’re voting accordingly.

    Impressive gains this year in Cardiff, Bridgend and Swansea – and so many other places across the country.

    And in Wales we carry on pushing for an extension to the law making powers of the Assembly – that has to be the next logical and necessary step forward.

    And in Scotland where the partnership there has been delivering on many of our top priorities;

    Free personal care for the elderly – delivered.

    Abolishing tuition fees – delivered.

    Fair votes for local government elections – being delivered.

    But it doesn’t stop there.

    Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland have set the new agenda for devolution.

    A Scottish agenda that deals with long-term challenges – like poor health; the environment; the need to improve education, the foundation for an enterprising country.

    New legislation announced by Jim Wallace just this month to provide free eye and dental checks for all.

    And a new Environment Bill announced by Ross Finnie so that a green thread runs through the heart of Scottish government, one where every policy will be audited for its environmental impact.

    Liberal Democrats getting things done.

    And demonstrating how our approach – every time – is rooted in freedom, fairness and trust.

    I’ve done a lot of travelling across Britain this year.  And with it a lot of listening.  I listened to the students on campus in Plymouth, worried about their steadily deepening debts and how on earth they would ever escape them.

    I listened to the young mother in a Leicester shop, troubled that teachers are not getting the time to teach her children properly.

    I listened to the Asian grandmother in Huddersfield, who told me about being genuinely afraid, for the first time in over thirty years in her local community, because of the growth of mindless racism among an unrepresentative few.

    And then the high street traders in Birmingham, utterly sick and tired of senseless vandalism against their properties.

    And their local customers, equally scared about street violence and the threat of crime as it affects them personally.

    The pensioners in Exeter – bitter about their dwindling resources, confused about losing their pension books, unhappy about the level of pensions themselves and angry about seemingly never-ending council tax rises.  And to the doctor in Norwich, expressing his sheer frustration at the remote, command and control from London which characterises so much of this government’s mismanagement of our National Health Service.  And then the school pupils in Cardiff, thinking aloud about pollution and climate change – uncertain about the environment they would inherit.

    This is our Britain today; these are typical of people’s concerns.

    Well, if you seek to lead, first you must listen.

    People have a huge desire to be listened to; for politicians to take the time to understand their problems.

    And address those problems with solutions.

    It is we Liberal Democrats that are now providing the answers.

    For students – when the pupil aspires to become the student, we would encourage and enable them – by stopping tuition fees and axing top-up fees – one of the most socially retrograde acts of this government, when what Britain needs is a university system affordable to all.

    For parents – we will equip children for life – because children well cared for and well taught in their early years have a far better chance of success.

    So we will reduce class sizes for the youngest children and give teachers time to teach and children time to learn by abolishing unnecessary tests and red tape.

    And we would ensure that every child, in every classroom, in every school is taught by a qualified teacher in the relevant subject.

    That’s what the Liberal Democrats stand for.

    ******

    For those in fear of racism – first, a real lead from politicians – celebrating the fact that our country is better, it’s richer and more diverse, precisely because it is a multicultural society.  And that we have been prepared to stand out and if necessary alone in having no truck with short-term, knee-jerk responses to complex social issues.  That we won’t pander to the lowest common denominator over asylum and immigration. But we’ll reform the systems – to make them fairer and faster.  And that we respect people’s genuine religious and cultural identities at community level.

    That’s what the Liberal Democrats stand for.

    ******

    On Crime – 10,000 more police on the streets and cutting the time spent on paperwork, so they can spend more time tackling drug dealers, muggers and yobs.

    Use prison as an opportunity to educate in the basics – numeracy, literacy – so that when they get out people will be far better able to find work and far less likely to reoffend.  And for the victims of crime open up the courts so that they can confront the offenders – and speed up the system of compensation as well.

    That’s what the Liberal Democrats stand for.

    ******

    For pensioners – we will continue – to make and win the case for axing the unjust, unfair, increasingly unworkable council tax.  And its replacement by a fair, local income tax – based on people’s ability to pay.

    We’ll stop the scandal of elderly people having to pay for their personal care – and probably losing the family home in the process.  We would deliver free long-term care for the elderly.  And all pensioners over 75 – the war generation – should be entitled to a pension which lifts them above mean-testing – £100 extra a month.  No-one should be demeaned in their old age anymore.  And this specific pledge to women, who have long been discriminated against because of the way the pension system works.

    For the first time you will be treated equally.

    For the first time you will have a pension in your own right.

    That’s what the Liberal Democrats stand for.

    ******

    On health – We would put patients first and free doctors and nurses from Whitehall meddling.  Liberal Democrats would hack away the red tape, abolish the absurd targets and free our frustrated doctors and nurses.

    Let the local community and the local doctors and local nurses make the decisions. They are far better placed to get them right.   And more emphasis than ever before should be placed on prevention of ill health and promotion of healthy lifestyles.  We truly need a health and not just a sickness service.

    That’s what the Liberal Democrats stand for.

    ******

    On the environment – our determination to make the environment count at every level of Government means thinking green in every area.

    Yes, it’s big picture stuff – from the food chain to climate change, energy to trade, aviation to sustainable international development.

    Britain can’t do this alone.  The Prime Minister is right to use our presidency of the EU and the G8 next year to press for consensus.

    But if we can lead by example, if we can achieve our Kyoto targets ahead of time, we can encourage other countries to sign up.

    If we can deliver 20% of our electricity needs through renewable energy by 2020, that would be leading by example.

    Take air travel – which is fast become the world’s biggest polluter.

    We should be shifting taxes on aviation away from the passenger and onto the plane itself which does the polluting.

    Now that would be leading by example too, encouraging better fuel efficiency and therefore less pollution.

    But quality of life actually begins at home – it’s in your street, around your community.

    And our approach to the environment must begin there too.

    The green thread that should run through all aspects of government, should run through all aspects of our lives also.

    So more park and ride schemes for our towns and cities – cutting pollution in our streets.  More local recycling initiatives – showing how all of us can make that difference within our own homes.

    Cutting waste – reusing – improving.

    That’s what the Liberal Democrats stand for.  Freedom. Fairness. Trust.  Because that’s what these – and many more – policies are rooted in.  Policies designed to create more freedom.

    Based on social fairness.

    Not bogus, false choices – designed to distract.

    But real, quality local choice – designed to deliver.

    And it’s all underpinned by economic fairness as well.

    This is crucial to our credibility and critical to our success.

    From the outset, I have insisted that we have the most watertight set of tax and expenditure proposals possible.   We want to tax more fairly and spend more wisely.  Isn’t it a disgrace that after 7 years of a supposedly Labour government the poorest 20% contribute more of their income in tax than do the richest 20%?  We don’t want the politics of economic envy. But we do want the politics of social equity.

    What does that mean?  It means asking the top 1% of income earners to pay a top marginal rate of tax of 50p for every pound earned above £100,000.

    That pays for our immediate commitments to:

    * Scrap tuition and top-up fees for students;

    * Introduce free personal care for elderly and disabled people;

    * And keep down the level of local taxes.  But spending on our priorities does not mean higher taxes across the board.  It means looking hard as well at how much Government spends and getting value for money for taxpayers.

    And we’ve already found further large savings – at least £5bn a year – by cutting back on big, centralised government and redirecting money to priority spending:

    * Dropping plans for identity cards;

    * Scrapping some government departments and relocating others away from high-cost central London;

    * Doing less, better and more efficiently – and concentrating more on what really matters.

    It is this approach which gives us the credibility to pledge.

    * Axing the £1bn Child Trust Fund, the so called baby bonds scheme, and spending the money now when children need it most, not the state stashing it away until 2022;

    * 10,000 more police on the streets – cutting crime and the fear of crime;

    * Making sure that by 2011 Britain finally fulfils its UN obligations by boosting the overseas aid budget to 0.7% of GNP;

    * £25 more on pensions every week for those aged 75 and over with a million pensioners taken off means testing.

    The figures add up; the balance sheet is balanced.

    Freedom. Fairness. Trust.  It is trust that has to underpin everything else.  And it’s winning public trust that is going to be the biggest challenge of all.  Over the course of this parliament one issue more than any other has helped define just what the Liberal Democrats stand for in the minds of millions of our fellow citizens.  You know what I’m talking about.  And the people know exactly what we’ve been talking about.  From the outset we have provided rational, principled and consistent opposition to the war in Iraq.

    We’ve done it without exaggeration. We’ve done it without name-calling. We’ve done it – quite simply – because we believed it was the right thing to do.

    Now I believe the vast majority of people have made their minds up – one way or the other.

    Donald Rumsfeld promised shock and awe.

    What we got was shock and then steadily increasing horror.

    The Prime Minister promised action on the Middle East Road Map.

    What we got was little progress and more violence.

    There’s a sullen, and increasingly angry mood on the issue. And understandably so.

    Not least when Kofi Annan declares the war illegal.

    When the Iraq Survey Group is expected to conclude that the WMD were not there.

    When the Foreign Office warned of the likely disastrous consequences.

    And when it appears the Government told the Bush administration, a full year before the war started, that it would not budge in its support for their policy of regime change – and yet the Prime Minister told our Parliament and our people that it was all about weapons of mass destruction.

    There is a fundamental question that the Prime Minister has consistently failed to answer.

    I asked him this in the House of Commons in the run up to war, and again as recently as the 20th of July this year during the debate on the Butler Report.

    “Did he advise President Bush privately – long before the United Nations route was formally abandoned – that if the President decided to prosecute an invasion of Iraq, the British would be in active military support, come what may?

    “If he did advise the President to that effect, when did such an exchange take place?”

    When Parliament next convenes, the Prime Minister must take the first opportunity to come to the Despatch Box and make a full statement.

    It’s time we got an answer.

    And if the Prime Minister still refuses, the people can make a judgement.

    There is the ultimate verdict of the general election itself.  Lord Hutton did not provide the answer.  Nor did Lord Butler.  The decision to decline to participate in Lord Butler’s enquiry was a tough one at the time.

    But it was the correct decision as events have proved.  And at the end of the day that is what trust in political leadership has to be all about.  What trust today in what our leaders told us at the time about Iraq?  And what kind of corrosive effect does that have on politics generally?  Yet the tragic experience of Iraq should have the opposite effect.  And I believe it can.  It should galvanise people to participate, to make their views known through the ballot box.  It should strengthen all of our resolves to rededicate ourselves to the rebuilding of effective international institutions, to the repairing of shattered alliances among long-standing friends.

    But within our own country – one lesson must be learned.  This country is still crying out for an effective political system that responds to them and listens to the people.  More openness. More accountability. Politicians taking responsibility for their decisions.

    Never again must this country be led into war on the basis of questionable intelligence.  Never again must this country be sold an incomplete and false prospectus as a basis for unilateral military action without the sanction of the United Nations.  Never again must Britain find itself on such a basis so distanced from principal partners within Europe.

    Never again should our troops find themselves without proper and adequate equipment in a war zone.  Never again should such supreme Prime Ministerial power be allowed to progress without sufficient checks and balances.  And without the proper operation of collective Cabinet government itself.

    And never again should a so-called “official opposition” be entitled to that name when it so pathetically fails to fulfil its most basic parliamentary function and duty – the provision of constructive and effective questioning of the executive of the day.

    Never again.

    But we should not just look back in anger.

    There is every sign that we need to look forward with increasing anxiety.

    And that is why the Prime Minister should also take that opportunity to give a cast iron guarantee that the United Kingdom will not support unilateral military action against Iran.

    You know some commentators will tell you that our recent victories are just the fall out from Iraq.

    That the Lib Dems are just the protest vote.

    Well, let’s face it. There has been a lot for people to protest about.

    But we are being seen more and more as a party which does win elections, which does exercise responsible representation, which has become increasingly comfortable with the duties and the disciplines of power.

    Some also say that you can’t go chasing left-wing voters and right-wing voters at one and the same time – while remaining consistent and true to your principles.

    It is a deeply flawed analysis – based on a fundamental misreading of today’s Britain.

    Why? Because for the vast majority of people who live their lives in an increasingly inter-dependent world, facing increasingly complex issues, for them the old-fashioned nostrums of right and left no longer apply.

    They’re looking for solution-based politics. Politics which address their everyday needs.

    There is a shift in the way people view politics, one that transcends any single issue.

    Iraq has been part of this, but by no means is it the whole story.

    I come across it, day in and day out.

    People see that the Labour and Conservative agendas are converging.

    Where as ours is about having the freedom to make the most of our lives.

    It’s about what is fair – taxation based on ability to pay and delivery for all not the few.

    And that you have to be able to trust your political leaders and your political parties to deliver.

    There’s a deep-rooted sense in our country that somehow all is not quite right.

    That somehow all is not as we’re being told it is.

    An underlying sense of doubt.

    Made worse by the fact that people just don’t trust this Government.

    This Government flags up the big, long-term difficult issues – pension provision, funding local services, global warming – but then puts off serious discussion and decisions until safely beyond another general election.

    But people don’t identify with the Conservatives – because that party just doesn’t connect with them.

    They hark back to a Britain that is no more.

    They’re out of touch with the Britain of today.

    No wonder they fall back on hard-core instincts – and increasingly belongs to all our yesterdays.

    In huge swathes of the country it’s the Conservatives who are now firmly established – as the third party.

    In so much of the country a vote for the Conservatives is now a wasted vote.

    The third party – on their third leader in as many years – and a third leader who’s just had his third reshuffle in less than a year.

    Well, they say variety is the spice of life. For the Conservatives it looks to me much more like the kiss of death.

    They belong to the past. We’re working for the future.

    We are moving from a party of protest to a party of power.

    3 party politics is here – and here to stay.

    You know, at times this past year I’ve felt rather nostalgic.  21 years as a Member of Parliament.  You learn quite a lot after more than two decades doing any job. Direct personal experience does teach along the way.

    That’s why, whenever I’m asked to speculate – an occupational hazard – I always suggest to people not to waste time on the crystal ball, but instead learn from the history book.

    It’s really quite simple.

    For the country to believe in a political party – first that party has to believe in itself.

    We’re at our best, we perform best, we persuade best – when we spend our time talking positively about what it is that we have to offer.

    And we’re far more likely to achieve that from a position of principled party independence – not one distracted by noises off.  So when people ask me “Where does your party stand?” my starting point is not the crystal ball.  Instead, it’s crystal clear.  No nods, no winks, no deals, no stitch ups.

    If, on polling day at next general election, more people vote Liberal Democrat – then the next day and in the next parliament what you will get are more Liberal Democrats working for more liberal democracy.

    Not something else.

    But working all out for better public policies from Parliament.

    Prepared to work with others on issues of principle – like Europe.

    But not prepared to surrender our essential political independence along the way.

    That’s our Liberal Democrat pledge to the people.

    So there is a fundamental choice before us all at the next General Election.  The British people have probably not more than 225 days left to choose between two essentially conservative parties – and the real alternative which is the Liberal Democrats.

    225 days.

    Then a stark choice. A serious choice.  And we, increasingly, are the winning choice.  Because all that we say and all that we do is based on those fundamentals.  Freedom. Fairness. Trust.

    That’s us.

    That’s what we want from our politics.

    That’s what we stand for.

    That’s what we want our country to stand for.

    At home – and abroad.

    That’s Liberal Democracy.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2005 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, to the 2005 Liberal Democrat Conference in Blackpool on 22nd September 2005.

    Splits,

    Plots,

    Rival camps,

    Backbiting,

    Leadership speculation.

    How I wish I could be a fly on the wall here at the Tory party conference in two weeks time.

    Some things just don’t change do they.

    The Conservatives are having yet another leadership election.

    Their fourth in seven years.

    I can see their conference slogan already.

    “We’re not sure what we’re thinking”.

    Meanwhile, back in Labourland, the jockeying goes on as ever between the Blairites and the Brownites.

    Tony Blair – desperate to protect his legacy.

    Gordon Brown – desperate to end it.

    The Prime Minister was delighted he had a hand in bringing the Olympics to London.

    It’s said on hearing the news he punched the air.

    He’s getting more like John Prescott everyday.

    But at least he’s not yet claimed credit for the Ashes.

    Even he has learned the lesson that you can’t win with a team of eleven spinners!

    Now, at the general election it was crucially important to see our liberal tradition again confirmed as the growing force in politics.

    Our championing of the individual and the community over the vested interests of the state.

    Our defence of human rights and fundamental civil liberties.

    Our innate sense of fairness.

    Our commitment to social justice.

    Our environmentalism.

    It is my determination that we, as a party, continue to make that fundamental restatement of liberal values in the politics of our country.

    LIBERALISM TESTED

    It’s remarkable the pace of events since that General Election.

    Some events of the most immediate and terrible seriousness – like the awful consequences of the hurricane in the United States.

    The continuing nightmare in Iraq.

    And of course, terrorism – here at home.

    Above all, the London bombings in July have made it critical for those liberal values to be re-asserted.

    The terrorist seeks to smash the most fundamental liberty of all – the right to lead our everyday lives on the basic assumption of safety.

    There can be no compromise with such a mentality.

    It is the Government’s fundamental duty to ensure the security of every individual citizen.

    And the responsibility of politicians is to frame laws which give effect to that principle.

    But the response must always be proportionate to the threat.

    That has always been our party’s approach.

    It long predates those appalling attacks in London in July.

    The Government’s reaction to those tube bombings has been mixed – but so typical.

    At first it was measured.

    Then it was muddled.

    Spin and counterspin.

    When what we really needed was leadership and clarity.

    This is no time for a turf war between No. 10 and the Home Office.

    And it is no time either for the Prime Minister to play politics with the leaders of the opposition.

    I believe when the country feels threatened it is important that we are seen to be working together to find an appropriate structure for dealing with terrorists in our midst.

    But I won’t play a walk-on part.

    This process can’t be all show and no substance.

    We now have the details of what the Government is proposing.

    And I want to make it clear.

    We shall not accept what is on offer.

    There can be no consensus on detaining people for three months without charge.

    That’s a prison sentence by any other name.

    This party will oppose any blanket extension of custody powers.

    This proposal undermines our most basic rights and eats into our most cherished freedoms.

    If we undermine the foundations of our legal system then we let the terrorists win.

    There is always a temptation for governments.

    See a problem and announce a quick fix.

    Labour’s gut reaction is to chase a headline.

    Where as I said earlier, leadership has to be about judgement.

    New law must be law which works – not a raft of unnecessary measures which simply sound tough.

    That is why we will oppose the unworkable offence of ‘glorifying terrorism’.

    It is a badly drafted proposal that frankly won’t stand up in court.

    The Government says ‘but we all know what we are talking about’.

    What complacency.

    That is no way to make laws.

    You can’t be vague when framing legislation.

    In fact the bill already contains a better solution that will serve the same purpose – that of the incitement to commit terrorist acts.

    It is my belief that how this administration deals with the ongoing threat of terrorism will be one of the defining aspects of this parliament.

    Ours will be a distinct voice in this debate.

    And just as we Liberal Democrats opposed the flawed logic of that war in Iraq – we will oppose the flawed Government claim that we have to surrender our fundamental rights in order to improve our security.

    And I will take no lessons from the Conservatives on these matters.

    They have only been consistent in their inconsistencies.

    There is just one party which has been tested again and again and stuck firmly to its principles on these touchstone issues.

    It’s our party, the Liberal Democrats.

    That is not to say we will oppose for opposition’s sake.

    Some aspects of the Government’s proposals are good.

    We agree it should be an offence to plan terrorist acts.

    We agree it should be an offence to provide training to terrorists.

    We agree it should be an offence to incite terrorism.

    But even if we can get our domestic response to terrorism right, we will not succeed unless, and until, we get our foreign policy right.

    Along with President Bush, Tony Blair’s so-called ‘war on terror’ has been so badly implemented that it has actually boosted the terror threat not diminished it.

    When they should have been concentrating on bringing a proper peace to Afghanistan – Bush and Blair waged war in Iraq.

    It is our stance on the war in Iraq which has defined the Liberal Democrats for so many people.

    And however hard this Government tries – it cannot ‘ move on’.

    It cannot move on, when the Prime Minister remains in denial.

    It can’t move on when people are dying every day.

    And it cannot move on when our British troops are still there in the firing line.

    It is absurd for this Government to pretend that what has happened in Iraq has no impact beyond its borders.

    The reality is that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake.

    And given all the warnings that I – and this party – made at the time – the failure to plan properly for the aftermath is unforgivable.

    The invasion of Iraq has created a volatile, fragmented country now facing the threat of civil war.

    The terrorists have been given a new lease of life.

    Thousands have been killed in Iraq since the elections there.

    The UN mandate is running out.

    So hard choices must now be made.

    Parliament must play a central part in those choices.

    The Government must confront the fact that the presence of British and American forces in Iraq is a part of the problem.

    After this week’s events in Basra we cannot sustain the myth that Iraqis see coalition troops as liberators.

    What they see is an occupation.

    The Government must wake up and admit its responsibility.

    The Prime Minster’s pride should not get in the way of finding a solution for the people of Iraq.

    His blind support for George Bush is continuing to cost lives –

    Iraqi citizens and coalition soldiers.

    It’s time he laid before parliament a proper, structured exit strategy for the phased withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.

    They have served there with distinction, courage and skill.

    But Prime Minister, what people are asking now is “when can our troops come home?”

    A LIBERAL BRITAIN

    Just as we showed over Iraq, we have achieved the most when we have stuck to our liberal values.

    Now, more than ever, we must avoid getting distracted by noises off about whether we are left or right.

    Viewing British politics through the prism of left vs. right is completely the wrong vantage point and it leads to quite a misleading view.

    Why?

    Because all experience shows that the vast majority of people no longer see their choices in old-fashioned left-right terms.

    It is no longer possible to categorise most issues like that.

    Just look at the things we have been discussing at conference this very week.

    Meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals and controlling the flow of small arms to regions of conflict.

    Maintaining both our security and our civil liberties.

    Getting rid of the obsession with central control and target setting.

    Race relations.

    School discipline.

    These don’t fall neatly into the old left/right axis.

    Our solutions are liberal solutions based on our liberal principles.

    Proposals to make the Post Office network viable and give Royal Mail the commercial freedom to compete.

    Not left – not right – but liberal.

    Proposals to reform the European Union budget.

    Not left – not right – but liberal.

    Proposals on tackling anti-social behaviour – solutions that Liberal Democrats in power up and down the country are already implementing.

    Not left – not right – but liberal solutions that actually work.

    Colleagues, we must not allow ourselves to be led by the media and define our debate in their terms.

    This left/right, either/or mindset is out of date and out of time.

    It is Liberal Democrat solutions that this country needs.

    Our take on things.

    Not the false interpretation of others, many of whom don’t wish us to succeed.

    And let me say this clearly and firmly.

    There is absolutely no contradiction between economic liberalism and financial discipline on the one hand, and fairness and social justice on the other.

    I find it deeply ironic that as we approach the centenary of the greatest reforming Liberal Government ever that some people still believe you cannot reconcile the two.

    Those who argue that somehow this party must choose one or the other would have received short shrift from Asquith and Lloyd George.

    They would have found that argument utterly ludicrous.

    We must display the liberal values that lie behind a particular stance on an issue, or a particular approach to a policy area.

    In doing so we achieve lasting political credibility.

    And it’s bringing results.

    We run cities – Liverpool, Newcastle, Durham, Cambridge, York.

    We run County Councils like Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.

    London boroughs like Islington and Southwark.

    Today we have MPs in almost every major city – Manchester, Leeds, London, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh.

    At the election we doubled our representation in Wales.

    And in Scotland the result gave us more seats and more votes than any party except Labour.

    The SNP down to third and the Tories a poor fourth.

    When you look at our record in Government in Scotland it demonstrates how successful we are at implementing our policies that spring from those liberal values.

    In Jenny Willott, Julia Goldsworthy and Jo Swinson we have the youngest MPs in Wales, England and Scotland – all women elected to parliament as Liberal Democrats.

    A LIBERAL IDENTITY

    So the political framework in Britain is changing.

    And we are an integral part of that process.

    But I believe the changes go deeper than that.

    A debate has now been joined about Britishness, about our sense of national identity.

    And what’s so telling are the morose tones of so many when they address the issue.

    They talk of a disconnected country; a society ill at ease with itself; a crisis in our national identity.

    Profound questions are being raised over race and faith as well; concerns which go to the heart of our multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-cultural society.

    Concerns which cannot adequately be addressed if politicians merely fall back on simplistic responses to complex questions, or speak in emotive or pejorative terms about what it should mean to be British today.

    I am far more an optimist.

    Perhaps it’s because I’ve been born, educated and brought up, and always considered home to be the Highlands.

    I think of myself as a highlander first.

    But with it a Scot – and with that I’m British.

    And through that a citizen of Europe.

    When England play Scotland at rugby, or much more rarely now, in football – I have not doubt who I want to win.

    But I cheered England through the Ashes.

    I got caught up in the national mood.

    I’m clear about my identity.

    And in that, I am no different to tens of millions of British citizens.

    We have recognise the complexity of our country – from city to city, community to community.

    We have to recognise that the best way to tackle the tensions in our society is community by community.

    We need stronger local politics.

    And that requires a changed mindset among politicians and civil servants alike.

    The truth is the gentleman in Whitehall does not know best.

    If he had then many of the present difficulties might have been addressed more successfully and much sooner.

    The same is true for our public services.

    Labour’s obsession with authoritarian central control – with this culture of target setting and micromanaging – distorts community priorities.

    It means that local people are making do with inadequate and badly structured services.

    Yet they feel they don’t have the power to make real change in their communities.

    That is why I am determined that in our policy review we will look at new and innovative ways of devolving power – of raising more money locally – to be spent locally – on what local people really want.

    Ours is the liberal conscience and the liberal voice.

    It’s vital and authentic.

    Because to a far greater extent than any of the others we are a political party that is instinctively decentralist.

    Community solutions are the first and best approach.

    And why?

    Because we trust people.

    THE HEALTH OF BRITISH DEMOCRACY

    But what trust can people have in our electoral system in return.

    Let’s be clear about one unarguable conclusion of this year’s general election.

    Ask yourself – how many votes did it take to elect a Liberal Democrat MP?

    Well it was 96,000.

    And to elect a Labour MP? The equivalent figure? Just 26,000.

    People have every right to feel cheated by a system in which 4 out of 5 eligible voters did not vote Labour, yet people woke up the next morning to find a majority Labour government.

    After all the other arguments collapsed over Iraq, Tony Blair fell back into saying that it was essential to help establish democracy.

    He might have had a bit more credibility if he set an example here at home.

    Because what kind of democracy was it that delivered back in May?

    A democracy which returns an outright majority on little more than a third of the popular vote.

    How can we any longer call something like that “the popular vote”?

    How “popular” was the Government – even among those who did vote Labour?

    That’s Blairite democracy for you.

    This Prime Minister has got to realise – he may have a working majority, but he cannot claim any moral mandate.

    This argument – about Westminster voting reform – just won’t go away.

    And we’re not going to let it go away.

    Even with the odds stacked against us, the truth is, at this election, Labour became just as worried about the Liberal Democrats as they ever were about the Tories.

    And in that they were undoubtedly correct.

    We represent a change to the status quo.

    An end to their comfortable two party system.

    We threaten directly their arrogance in power.

    And I say to all those who held their nose last May and voted Labour without conviction – don’t get fooled again.

    But you know what I reject most of all is the idea of British politics being a desultory contest between two essentially conservative parties.

    One calls itself Conservative.

    The other conducts itself as conservative.

    I don’t care if one is led by a Davis or a Clarke.

    I don’t care if the other is led by a Blair or a Brown.

    What people don’t want, don’t deserve and don’t demand is yet another conservative party in British politics.

    Small c or capital c.

    That part of the pitch is already overcrowded.

    And I can assure all of you – I did not enter public life with the ambition of leading yet another conservative party in British politics.

    I’m happy to leave it to others to compete over a law of diminishing returns.

    One where the level of Labour support is on the slide.

    And the Conservatives cannot break through a losing glass ceiling.

    At the next general election you could well be looking at a situation where it is understood that the Conservatives cannot win –

    But that Labour can certainly lose.

    That’s our opportunity.

    That’s our challenge.

    AMBITION FOR BRITAIN

    When this Labour Government falls – which one day it surely will – the party that is ready for the challenge of government will be ours.

    I will lead this party into the next election as the clear alternative to a discredited Labour Government.

    It’s my ambition to lead the first government in the liberal tradition in the 21st Century.

    Because, it is my ambition to restore to government in Britain the fairness, the decency and the tolerance that should be the hallmarks of our democracy and our society.

    I want a Britain that tackles poverty – and with it the poverty of ambition.

    I want a Britain in which every one of our children has the opportunities I had growing up – and more besides!

    A Britain in which ambition and opportunity is not diminished by the circumstances of birth.

    I want a Britain which pays its debt to our older generation.

    Which looks after them when they are ill and in need.

    Which provides our pensioners with dignity, security and peace of mind.

    I want a society that tackles crime – but really does tackle the causes of crime.

    I want a Britain where older people again feel safe to answer their doors.

    Where parents can let their children walk to school – or play in the park – without the incessant worry.

    Where our streets and town centres are free from fear at night.

    And I want a system of prison, punishment and rehabilitation that produces people fit for work not just fit for re-offending.

    I want a Britain with first class public services, so that people can be treated well in a local hospital, and they don’t have to shop around for a decent school – they are there on the doorstep.

    I want a Britain that has a vibrant growing economy – that rewards success, not penalises it.

    That encourages innovation and entrepreneurs, setting them free from over-regulation and the dead hand of government.

    Only in that way can we hope to generate the revenue to afford the world-class services we need as a country.

    I want my child to grow up in a Britain in which the environment is protected.

    I want him to enjoy our natural landscape every bit as much as I do.

    To breathe clean air.

    It will be our children and their children who will feel the full consequences of climate change.

    We have got to get serious about this.

    I’m sick and tired of hearing Tony Blair make excuse after excuse for George Bush.

    We need action and we need it now.

    I want a Britain that is pro-European and proud of it.

    That lives up to its responsibilities on the international stage – that values international law – that is genuinely outward looking and emphatically internationalist.

    Because, I want a Britain that is respected around the world.

    These are the ambitions that brought me into politics in the first place 25 years ago.

    These are the things that have driven me over those years – and still drive me.

    They are what I want the Liberal Democrats to achieve.

    Not for me, not for us, but for Britain.

    A Liberal Democrat Britain.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2002 Speech to the TUC

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, to the 2002 TUC annual conference.

    It gives me great pleasure to be the first leader of the Liberal Democrats to be invited to address Congress, although it’s by no means the first time that I’ve been in attendance.

    This is, of course, a day of commemoration. I have my own indelible memory of visiting Ground Zero not long after September 11th. I had the privilege of meeting the members of the emergency services who had been there that day, risked their lives and seen so many of their colleagues and others forfeit theirs. It was a day which saw unimaginable horror but also unimaginable courage which will never be forgotten.

    Two years ago, John Monks became the first TUC General Secretary to address a Liberal Democrat annual conference. So this speech, if you like, is a return match. A significant proportion of trades union members now regularly vote Liberal Democrat. So good, constructive dialogue is important and I’m grateful to the TUC for keeping us well briefed on issues of mutual concern.

    The fruits of our cooperation have been seen at Westminster. We’ve continued our long campaign alongside the nurses’ unions against the disgracefully low pay which has led so many people to leave that vital profession.

    We’ve supported the teachers in their attempts to reduce the bureaucracy which has demoralized their profession so much.

    In industry, we backed the demands which were successfully made by a number of unions for more flexible working. That’s especially important to women.

    And we’ve also campaigned alongside you for Britain to adopt the European directive on Information and Consultation. Personally I thought it was a scandal that, when Vauxhall decided to shut a plant down, the first the workforce heard about it was on the radio.

    We’re strongly in favour too of tougher action on health and safety.

    And we share your anxieties about company pensions. Some employers have arbitrarily curtailed pension entitlements in an outrageous way. Liberal Democrats believe that members of pension schemes should have much clearer rights and much better legal protection.

    Such attention to detail is extremely important. But so is the big picture. There’s an emerging consensus between us – from Europe to environmental responsibility, from employee rights to worker participation, from public services to the welfare state.

    I’m a lifelong believer in trade unionism. When I was given a job as a shelf-stacker as a teenager, I immediately joined the shop-workers union USDAW. And from my first days as an MP – facing the onslaught of Thatcherism – I was convinced that strong trades unions were healthy for society.

    And that strength derived from being accountable to and representative of their individual members. And such strength gave greater legitimacy to the vital role of modern, progressive trades unionism in the national agenda of democratic governance .

    In those days we were way behind too much of continental Europe in this respect.

    So I was delighted when Jacques Delors as Commission President addressed this Congress. That was a real turning-point. Remember how infuriated Mrs. Thatcher was? Satisfaction enough in itself for many of us.

    But there was also great long-term benefit to all the progressive forces across the British body politic. It began to help shift the rhetoric – and the real agenda followed on.

    There’s a pleasing sense of historical continuity here. The earliest trades union members were Liberals; Liberals in government pioneered the state pension; it was a Liberal, Beveridge, drawing on the work of the trade unions, who went on to lay down the intellectual foundations of the welfare state, enacted by the Attlee government.

    Our party is strongly attached to the ideal of freedom. But that doesn’t mean simply leaving everything to the market.

    As Beveridge said himself: ‘Liberty means more than freedom from the arbitrary power of Governments. It means freedom from economic servitude to Want and Squalor and other social evils.’

    We Liberal Democrats believe in dialogue. We believe in cooperation with both sides of industry and between both sides of industry. And we believe in the language of cooperation. We reject the language of confrontation.

    Of course we’re not going to agree automatically with everything you say.

    But we’ll listen. You won’t catch Liberal Democrats describing trade unionists as wreckers.

    And I believe that the momentum of public opinion is swinging towards both of us –

    Liberal Democrats and trade unionists alike.

    When John addressed our conference two years ago he spoke tellingly about different approaches to capitalism. He rejected – and we do too – what he called ‘the deregulated wild-west devil take the hindmost style of the US.’

    Two years on and the American model is looking distinctly shop-soiled and tarnished.

    Slowly, but surely, the more socially-orientated European approach is coming to be appreciated. Not least when it involves a degree of social and environmental responsibility.

    Consider these words:-

    ‘In business, the warts on the face of capitalism – every Enron story, every bit of creative accounting, every shoddy or overpriced product, every little exploitation of an employee or a supplier, every unjustified increase in executive remuneration, every bit of damage to the environment – each one of these has a cumulative, corrosive effect.

    ‘A company that simply dances to the fickle tunes of the financial markets does itself no good – nor the wider interests of business, nor the cause of capitalism.’

    Karl Marx? Arthur Scargill? Tony Benn?

    No, in fact I’m quoting from this year’s personal valedictory address by the retiring President of the CBI, Sir Iain Vallance. Incidentally, Sir Iain has subsequently

    joined the Liberal Democrats.

    It seems that Sir Edward Heath’s ‘unacceptable face of capitalism’ is still with us.

    But it’s not mission impossible to transform its appearance.

    Of course we believe in markets. Nobody’s talking about a return to old fashioned state run bureaucracies. But the European approach to markets is preferable to the American model in almost every way. It treats workers decently. It protects their rights. It delivers quality public services. It’s better at long-term planning. And it makes for a stronger and more stable economy.

    It would be better still for Britain to join the euro – at the right exchange rate. We look to the Government to give a lead.

    But I’m not convinced that Ministers sufficiently grasp the broader merits of Europe.

    Take the public services. Britain has fallen woefully behind our European partners when it comes to the standard of our hospitals, schools and transport system.

    We Liberal Democrats – like you in the TUC – called for the Government to put in the investment needed much earlier and faster than they have.

    But now at last they’ve done what we asked them to do. So it’s become a question of how the money’s best spent.

    I don’t say that everything should be done through the public sector. I have no ideological hang-ups between public and private. What I do say is that there shouldn’t be an automatic American-style assumption that the private sector is always better.

    So let’s retain all our collective, critical faculties over the next few years over the funding and the delivery of the public services.

    I welcome the extra investment the Government has belatedly promised for public services.

    But I am concerned about the fairness and transparency by which the sums involved are being raised. I fear that Gordon Brown’s extra billions for the NHS will be squandered unless we reform the tax system to make sure the taxpayer gets value for money. That’s why I shall strongly support a proposal to be put to our party conference later this month to take health funding out of general taxation.

    Our proposal is to turn National Insurance into National Health Insurance. That would give people a cast-iron guarantee that the money raised for health is actually spent on the NHS – not sucked into the Treasury.

    Earmarking National Insurance – perhaps to be renamed the NHS Contribution – can easily be achieved because it raises almost exactly the amount of money that needs to be spent on the NHS. What’s more, it’s set to rise above inflation in years to come. This way, we’ll guarantee extra funding for health in the long-term, regardless of the Chancellor’s short-term calculations at budget time.

    Far too many decisions over public services are taken behind closed doors by the man – and, all too often, it still remains the man – in Whitehall. So the second part of our reform plan for health – and indeed for education too – is for a major shift in power away from Whitehall to each locality in Britain.

    I want to see far more decisions taken far closer to the patients, the passengers and the pupils. Far more power for locally and regionally elected politicians who understand best the needs of their areas. And far more say too for the dedicated staff at all levels in health and education.

    That way the extra resources stand a far better chance of getting through to the front line rather than being swallowed-up by bureaucrats in quango-land. The Liberal Democrats and the TUC are never going to be in each other’s pockets. From our financial point of view, chance would be a fine thing!

    But just as we have to build a party that’s in no-one else’s pocket, largely by digging into our own, so the progressive forces in our society can only stand to mutual benefit by a principled process of cooperation.

    Thank you for your invitation today. I hope that this contribution assists towards that highly desirable social and political aspiration.

  • Charles Kennedy – 1983 Maiden Speech

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Charles Kennedy to the House of Commons on 15th July 1983.

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for recognising me on this the occasion of my maiden speech. I think that the House, and especially the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), will agree that it is appropriate that I should deliver my maiden speech during a debate on the future of the younger generation. As fate would have it, I find myself the youngest Member of this distinguished House. I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) will find it interesting to witness a live specimen of today’s subject matter.

    Although the younger generation is a concern of the present and even more so of the future, as the new Member for the new constituency of Ross, Cromarty and Skye I find myself deeply aware and conscious of the past and of those who have preceded me in representing the old constituency of Ross and Cromarty. As many Liberal Members will be aware, it was represented from 1964 to 1970 by the late Alasdair Mackenzie, who was a distinguished and highly thought of Member of this place during his time in it.

    From 1970 until this election it was represented by the Conservative Member, Mr. Hamish Gray. I congratulate him on his peerage and movement to another place. I congratulate him equally on his appointment as Minister of State at the Scottish Office. As many know, there was considerable interest and, indeed, controversy not just in the Highlands but in Scotland generally about his appointment. I am optimistic and encouraged by what happened to Lord Gray, and I hope that it sets a trend by the Government. I hope that 3 million people, many of whom lost their jobs largely as a result of Government policies, will shortly be placed, as a result of Prime Ministerial decision, in much better jobs.

    One figure who is certainly not a name or force of the past but very much of the present, to the extent that he is sitting behind me, is my hon. Friend who was the hon. Member for Inverness—with the boundary changes parts of his constituency have been moved into Ross, Cromarty and Skye — and who is now the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston). I pay tribute to him and promise that I will try to follow in his footsteps with the diligence that he has shown to the parts of his former constituency that I have inherited.

    William Lyon Mackenzie King, who was Prime Minister of Canada, once said that the problem with that country was that it had too much geography and not enough history. The problem with my constituency is that it has more than its fair share of both. My constituency and the Highlands generally have had more than their fair share of a bad deal in recent years in their chances and opportunities, especially for the younger generation.

    A perennial problem that has faced the Scottish Highlands is that, time and again, too many of the more talented young people have had to move elsewhere—even abroad — through a lack of opportunities that should have been available. In the 1960s we believed that there was a golden opportunity for that part of the country. However, under the previous Conservative Government’s policies that golden opportunity has turned to dross, largely as a result of the Government’s economic approach and social disregard. The pulp mill in Fort William has been closed. In my constituency, the Invergordon smelter closed and, more recently, there have been lost opportunities with the abandonment of the gas-gathering project, although there are still strong signs that that project should go ahead.

    Despite their vast majority and the convincing lead, which they will have for the next four or five years, in the Division Lobbies, the Government must display greater sensitivity to the problems of the Highlands, and especially of its young people. I make that sincere plea on behalf of my constituents. The alliance will work constructively during this Parliament to assist and support, with any help that the Government can give, the Highlands and this group of its people. One example of a scheme that will provide job opportunities is the Ben Wyvis development. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland’s comments on financial commitment will be supported and that we shall see a more pragmatic and less doctrinaire approach from the Government to the traditional concerns of the Highlands, such as farming, fishing and forestry.

    In the few short weeks since I was elected the Forestry Commission has proposed to sell Ratagan forest in Glenelg. That is a product of the constraints that have been placed on the commission by the Government. There is considerable local opposition to the proposed sale, and I hope that the Government will rethink their attitude and take stock generally of the problems faced by the forestry, fishing and farming interests in the Highlands. Young people, hoping to enter those industries, have been discouraged. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East will agree that our subject for debate is extremely relevant to my constituency. It is fair to demand more pragmatism and constructive thinking of the Government.

    I have two basic observations, which I formulated during my election campaign, on the attitudes of young people. I know that other right hon. and hon. Members reached the same conclusions during the constituency campaigns. First, there is a yawning gap in outlook between those who have a job and those who have not. Some Ministers are fond of talking about a return to Victorian values. We must realise that those Victorian values are being expressed by some of the younger people in this society in shameful and disturbing disregard for other members of their generation who are not as fortunate as they are in having a job. That is disturbing for a Government of any political complexion. The yawning gulf is becoming wider as, each month, the unemployment total increases. I hope that the Government will take cognisance of that during this Parliament.

    My second observation is relevant to my party and the Liberal party. We have heard much from the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, and I do not doubt that we shall hear even more in future, about the iniquities of our electoral system. Under the present system many people are effectively disfranchised—the Whip will be pleased to know that I will not comment on that today. However, voluntary disfranchisement is also taking place. During my campaign people of my age and younger said consistently that they would not vote because their votes simply no longer matter and because no Government or Member of Parliament cared a whit about their problems and their striving for employment. That is disturbing for all of the parties and all hon. Members. Those who will contribute most to British democracy in the future are extricating themselves from the system already because they believe that it is no longer relevant. Part of the solution to that is electoral reform, but even more urgent is the need for a more tolerant, caring and compassionate Government. Sadly, we do not have that at the moment. I hope— I say this to the Minister in a constructive fashion—that we shall have it in due course.

    To involve young people and make sure that the system is more relevant to them in Scotland, we have a clear obligation to implement a policy of home rule. Lord Home said not so many years ago that there was a genuine grass roots desire in Scotland for more decisions to be taken by the Scots. If that were implemented and the Government made a compromise or concession on that issue, young people in Scotland, and in the Highlands as much as anywhere else, would feel more affected by and therefore more involved in our political institutions. Home rule was supported by voters across a broad spectrum of parties in Scotland, which received significantly more support than the Conservative party. It is a legitimate demand, which is backed up in the ballot box. I hope that if the Government care about the younger generation they will see it as a way forward and a means to improve young people’s involvement in our political institutions.

    The hon. Member for Eltham alluded to this. Throughout Britain over the past few years there has been a considerable decline in our fortunes. There has been a considerable decline in manufacturing, matched by a lost generation of younger people who are now unemployed and who, in terms of training and skill, might be fated to be classed as unemployable. The great sadness about the economic policy of the past four years is that when the recession bottoms out and when the world economy begins to pick up, we shall not have a skilled work force of the right age group to take advantage of it. That, coupled with the manufacturing decline and the rundown and closing down of industry, will mean that we shall lack the right blend of manpower and machinery to capitalise, as we should, on the improvements in our economic fortunes.

    Equally important is that there is surely a moral responsibility for any Government and any Parliament to try to represent legitimate interests. What interests could be more legitimate than the interests of the younger generation who represent the country’s future? Yet, despite the best-laid plans of mice and even Ministers on youth training and youth opportunities, there is not enough for young people. That undermines the moral basis of government. It undermines respect for and participation in the democratic process. As a result of both those present tendencies, there is a disturbing implication for the country’s social, political and economic future. I feel most strongly about that and I urge the Government sincerely to address their priorities to the matter during this Parliament.

    I hope that the Government will take heed because, if they do not, many Opposition Members will continue to remind them of it. I hope that, as the leader of my party said in his recent speech in the House, the Government will succeed in their objectives because that is in all our interests. It is from that constructive position that we approach the whole issue and from which I give my wholehearted support to the motion of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East.

  • Paul Kenny – 2012 Speech to TUC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Kenny to the 2012 TUC Conference on 9th September 2012.

    I am proud and honoured to address this 144th Congress of the TUC as President.

    This past year has flown by. A year in which our trade union movement, mobilised millions of people into campaigning for pensions justice.

    The biggest demonstration of civil and political defiance in living memory brought home to politicians and pundits that trade unionism was alive, well and kicking.

    The Prime Minister called last November’s demonstrations ‘a damp squib’.

    Sounds of laughter over his ill-advised refusal to acknowledge the two million plus people taking action could be heard from Glasgow to Gloucester, Cardiff to Carlisle.

    Predictions of our demise as a movement were again somewhat premature!

    One hundred years ago in Newport, the TUC held its 1912 conference. The President that year was Will Thorne, acknowledged as a founding figure of the Gas Workers Union which today has become the GMB.

    Thorne was from the new breed of trade unionism, gas workers, labourers, dockers and general workers whose struggles culminated in the formation of new unionism, which by 1912 had come of age.

    The TUC met in 1912 in good heart, membership was up by just under 350,000 to two million, a staggering increase in just a year. Membership at two million, and it was said in the years up to that milestone that trade unions were spent, a thing of the past, trade unions were a dying breed.

    Will Thorne, Ben Tillet and others did not buy into that defeatist propaganda of one hundred years ago and we reject those same attacks today.

    Two million became 12 million and today we stand above six million.

    The challenge to us, with all the physical, financial and organisational assets the movement possess, is to recreate the energy, vision and political will to define ourselves clearly again.

    This movement can be proud of what it has achieved for both the prosperity and people of our nation.

    Many things taken for granted in today’s society did not land courtesy of politicians’ slumbers.

    They came from the passion for social justice which has been at the forefront of our movement for the last hundred years and beyond.

    I have never been lucky enough to have worked for any employer who came in on a Monday morning and confessed they had been unable to sleep all weekend worrying about whether I had enough pay, holidays, sick pay, pension benefits, respect at work, dignity and rights to be treated fairly.

    These are the values our movement stands up for and it has been trade union collective bargaining and action which has secured work and social benefits which so many today rely on.

    It is easy to remember just a few short years ago how those trade union voices which called for equality in our society were rounded on.

    How trade union campaigns for gender, race and sexual orientation rights and an end to the discrimination endured by so many were attacked as political correctness and just plain loony left grandstanding.

    Who today would take anything other than pride for the changes in attitude and process achieved by those campaigns?

    But a word of caution, admiring what has been achieved must never slide into a failure of purpose over that which is still to be gained.

    It is also clear, as we know only too well, that hard won advances and rights through industrial and political actions have to be defended, particularly where such advances edge into the power of such vested interests as those employers and politicians who argue for a ‘no rights culture’ of exploitation, insecurity and social conflict.

    This year’s Congress badge is a simple message ‘Union and Proud’, because we should be. What working people have created by way of social change through their membership of trade unions is truly remarkable and deserves celebration.

    As trade unionists we are a particular type of human being, it is our values for fighting injustice, campaigning for others, and our vision of a society based on equality of opportunity, which drives our agenda.

    That is why so many in Government, the CBI or the IoD do not understand what makes us tick.

    Their values are based on individual wealth gathering and free market exploitation with some lip service to the deserving poor!

    Every essential requirement of a modern democracy is seen as a business opportunity to be exploited and ransacked, irrespective of the long-term costs to the economy or its citizens.

    The destruction of social housing, energy policy, rail and transport infrastructure, were all carried through for reasons of commercial exploitation and those basic tenets of a planned economy which require long-term planning and investment, swept away in favour of the quick buck.

    And see if you can guess who warned successive governments of the disasters of such moves.

    Who said PFI would be a financial disaster?

    Who said the culture of bankers’ bonuses was wrong and dangerous?

    Who said paying billions to the private landlords instead of building affordable social housing was nonsense?

    Who was it said that if you do not carry out maintenance on our railways, safety for passengers and staff would be compromised and, were we right?

    Who for years has demanded action over the tax avoidance and evasion schemes so beloved of certain politicians and the City?

    Who has led the charge for action on the scandal of over a million young people who are victims of this government’s economic experiments?

    On jobs, public services, welfare and so much more, it has been the trade union movement centre stage and sometimes the only voice.

    And who has been solid in demanding decent pensions for all?

    And our movement’s gains on health and safety in the workplace did not land from outer space.

    They arrived by way of a road built with the blood and broken bones of those thousands of victims of avoidable accidents, employer negligence and political indifference, which we continue to campaign against.

    Trade unions are often the only course of support a person has when it comes to defending themselves against bullying at work or when seeking training, parental leave or plain old fashioned respect.

    Trade unions are the largest collective body for good and social justice in the world and, if as a movement we do not stand for social justice, then we stand for nothing.

    Our challenge is to grow, to organise those industries and workers which in some cases we have avoided, perhaps because of the difficulty of the task.

    In the run up to the Pensions Day of Action, some unions discovered what some others had forgotten, people joined the union movement in their tens of thousands because we both spoke up for their interests and organised on a scale not seen for quite a while.

    This historic year for the TUC has culminated in the election of Frances O’Grady, the first woman to occupy the office of TUC General Secretary.

    Congratulations to Frances and best wishes for the future. But I hope that one day soon the election of a woman to leadership will create no more interest, comment or surprise, because it will have become far more frequent in all walks of life.

    And a brief word of thanks to Brendan Barber, history will show that a transformation took place under his time in office.

    Brendan leaves with the respect and thanks of us all for his contribution and help.

    The fact that he announced his retirement after spending twenty two hours in a plane with me, on route to Australia is merely coincidental.

    And a big thank you to all the staff at Congress House and in the regions for their wonderful dedicated work on our behalf. We truly have some very talented, principled, passionate people working for us all at the TUC and I for one am grateful for all they have done.

    To my own union, the GMB, thank you for giving me the support to carry out at least parts of the duties of President this past year.

    I end this address with a single message. Our trade union movement has so much to be proud about. We do not need to hide or apologise for who we are or for what we seek.

    Are trade unions, a vested interest?

    You had better believe it. We are.

    But for a better, more equal society.

  • Ruth Kelly – 2006 Speech on Sports Colleges

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Ruth Kelly, on Sports Colleges. The speech was made on 3rd February 2006 in Telford.

    Thank you for inviting me to address your conference.  I am really delighted to have been able to make it this year!

    Your conference – the Sports College movement – is nothing less than inspiring.  You are a community of schools: determined to move forward; determined to push the boundaries; and determined to strive for excellence.

    I want to acknowledge today, and pay tribute to, the contribution that Sports Colleges are making.  You are using physical education and sport to drive up whole school standards, improve attendance and behaviour and, of course, play a significant and valued role within our national school sport strategy.  A lot is asked of you.  And you continue to rise to that challenge.

    You have proved – time and again – that you are a dynamic movement, capable of changing as priorities alter, but your focus – your driving force – is a desire to bring out the potential of every child.  That is an ambition we share.

    Indeed, it is at the heart of your conference’s theme – ‘Every Child Matters’.  For me – and I know for you – it is about giving every child the best opportunities and ensuring the highest standards, irrespective of where they live and the nature of their backgrounds.

    And that ambition is also at the heart of our White Paper – Higher Standards, Better Schools for All. In it we set out our vision for the next phase of reform – a vision of strong, self-confident schools working collaboratively and in partnership with other organisations to raise standards and improve opportunities for children. As Sports Colleges you have a strong history of working with external partners and I want to explore with you, today, how we can take that even further.

    But first of all, I want to take a moment to look at the considerable achievements of the Sports College movement.  In particular, I want to offer my congratulations to the 14 schools whose successful designation for Sports College status was announced earlier this week.  I know that you are all represented here today.  The application process is tough and rightly so.  You can all feel justly proud of your success.  Very many congratulations – you have joined a winning team.

    In 2005 Sports Colleges achieved their best ever exam results.  That is a credit: to your movement; to those working in your schools; and to the young people you serve.  Overall, Sports Colleges out performed non-specialist schools by almost 3 percentage points.  And 2005 value added data suggests that Sports Colleges add considerable value between Key Stages 2 and 4 – you will know this already.  It shows that, on average, pupils in Sports Colleges achieved one grade more in a GCSE subject than pupils with similar prior attainments in all schools.

    Your successes are many, but there is, of course, more to be done.  I would like to see the gap between your results and the national average narrow even further.  I understand and accept the challenges many of your schools face.  Often your journey has been further, and the rate of improvement faster, than any other type of specialist school.

    Together, we must deepen the impact of the sports specialism and ensure an even greater focus on the basics of English and maths.  Excellence in sport should translate into excellence throughout the school, especially in these vital subjects.  Of course, there are already some outstanding achievements at GCSE among sports colleges:

    – Madeley Court School, here in Telford, achieved a huge 33 percentage points improvement on its GCSE results since last year;

    – And Brookfield Community School in Derbyshire achieved an excellent 19 percentage point’s improvement over the previous year when English and maths are included in the indicator.

    Of course your success isn’t just about sporting or educational excellence.  You’re also using your sport specialism to develop citizenship and leadership and prepare your young people for the many challenges of adult life.  Sport – through its rules and tactics – helps instil discipline and a sense of what is right and wrong.  That has a major impact on behaviour and I am sure there is much that other schools could learn from your approach.

    I also want to recognise the leading role that Sports Colleges are playing within the national school sport strategy.  A lot has been achieved in the three years since the strategy was launched.

    – Overall 69% of pupils in partnership schools – that’s 11% more than last year –  are spending at least 2 hours in a typical week on high quality PE and sport;

    – The biggest gains have been across the primary sector where take up has risen by 23% – in just one year – to 64%;

    – and while progress across the secondary sector has been more modest, it has reached the 75% target a whole year early.

    Participation in club sport, competitive school sport and sports volunteering and leadership are all increasing, year on year.  Our investment of £11.5 million over two years will ensure that all partnerships can employ high quality coaches to widen after-school activities even further.

    2006 will be a critical year for the national school sport strategy.  The first milestone within our Public Service Agreement target falls this year.  It is essential that we press on and ensure that at least 75% of school children spend a minimum of 2 hours each week on high quality physical education and sport.

    In the longer term, we should, and can, be even more ambitious.  That’s why we want to work with you to offer all children at least 4 hours of sport a week by 2010.  This will include the 2 hours of high quality provision at school.  But it will also include 2-3 hours outside of curriculum time, to be delivered by a range of school, community and club providers.

    So, with improving results, together with your contribution to the wider sports strategy, you are showing that you are ahead of the game, demonstrating what can be achieved, and just what Sports Colleges are capable of.

    And Sports Colleges are, I believe, showing too just what can be achieved when schools work in partnership with each other and with other organisations to raise standards. Of course, as Specialist Sports Colleges you all already have relationships with external partners or sponsors but many of you are taking these relationships a step further. I have been delighted to hear about the range of innovative partnerships you have been involved in with all sorts of partners – from Universities to businesses to leading sporting organisations – harnessing expertise and energy and turning it to the task of raising standards with considerable success.

    I wanted to share just a few of the interesting examples I have heard about:

    – Biddick School in Washington – the first school nationally to receive support from the Lawn Tennis Association in its bid to become a Sports College. Since 1997 the school has extended its relationship with the LTA to the benefit of students at the school and the wider community.

    And to quote an example of successful collaboration with business:

    – Holloway School in London has been working with the Microsoft Foundation and Arsenal. The school receives IT support, training and software from the Foundation.  Indeed, a number of Sports Colleges where IT was a key feature of their bid have been supported by the Microsoft Foundation in this way.

    There are also excellent examples of Sports Colleges working collaboratively with higher education institutions:

    – Hayesbrook Sports College – also a recently designated high performing & training school – has an innovative partnership with Brighton University.  They deliver modules for their teacher trainees (over 70 a year) at Hayesbrook School, with placements in all the West Kent Learning Federation schools. Recruitment of newly qualified teachers from Brighton to schools in the Federation has increased significantly.

    A number of schools have gone even further and have sponsors involved directly in the governing bodies of their schools – that brings invaluable business expertise and leadership directly into the running of these schools.

    – For example, HSBC Education Trust have part sponsored 16 Sports Colleges and a feature of the partnership between school and sponsor is that HSBC Education Trust provides a sponsor governor  – the  school benefits from business expertise and the sponsor inputs to the development of the school as a Sports College.

    Our White Paper will build on this excellent work and spread it wider into the education system.   Our task – and one which we all share – is to raise standards for every pupil, and particularly for disadvantaged groups.  That is the purpose of the White Paper.  At its heart is the premise that strong, self-confident schools with greater freedoms and the ability to harness the expertise and energy of external partners will provide the framework to create the next step change in standards.

    And I think we all agree that a step change is needed. We want all children to have the best opportunities and the highest standards. Standards in schools have risen enormously, and children and young people are achieving more. But we cannot be satisfied that 56% of children get 5 good GCSEs or the equivalent, especially when only 26% of children on free meals do so. And there is too much variation in schools – all children deserve good schools.

    I know there has been a lot of debate recently about the White Paper, particularly in relation to Trust schools, so I want to spend a few minutes clarifying some of what it is putting forward.

    Trust Schools are a key element of the White Paper proposals and one that I hope all schools will consider very seriously.  As we’ve just explored, through your specialist status and your leadership of school sport partnerships, you have a proven record of working with external partners and other schools to benefit young people.  Trust status will allow you to build on this further.

    Acquiring a Trust is a way for schools to raise standards, strengthen collaboration and draw on the expertise and energy of their partners – including universities, colleges, business foundations, other schools and the wider community. We know from your experience and that of other specialist schools that the external perspective has a real impact on pupils’ achievement.

    For the school I saw last week – Thorpe Bay in Southend – acquiring a Trust and working with external partners gives it the best chance it has had for years.  That’s a single school model.  But many schools might want partnerships with other schools in a Trust.  What is more important than the model is that there is a renewed energy, a shared ethos and support for the school leadership.

    Trusts build on the experience of the 75% of secondary schools that are now specialist, Voluntary Aided, Voluntary Controlled, or schools which have joined federations and experimented with new approaches to governance.  But they go further, because the Trust can appoint the majority of governors, if the school so agrees, and have even greater support from the school leadership team.

    And Trusts bring extra stability to relationships – putting existing partnerships on an even securer footing; broadening partnerships and spreading influence.

    There has been much ill informed comment about Trust schools though, and I want to take this opportunity to put to bed some of the myths:

    – No school will be forced to set up a Trust;

    – Trust schools will remain part of the maintained sector and part of the local family of schools;

    – They will operate under the same local fair funding system as other schools;

    – They will remain a full part of our capital spending programmes.

    – And Trust schools will work under exactly the same code of fair admission as other schools.  There will be no new selection by ability. They will also take part in the local admissions forum. I believe that admission forums have a key role to play in making sure that every child has the chance of a school place at a good school. And they will be an important influence in promoting admission arrangements that reduce social segregation and making sure that schools are discouraged from using any practices which could result in some parents being put off from applying for them – such as expensive uniforms or requesting a financial contribution.

    I would argue that Trusts are the natural extension of what so many sports colleges have been seeking to do. You already have a proven track record of successful delivery.  And you have always been prepared to tackle new challenges and explore new ways of working in your quest for improvement.

    The Trust School Prospectus – published earlier this year – sets out the potential of what they can achieve for pupils.  Copies of the prospectus are available at the national school sport strategy zone, here at the conference. Do, please, look closely at the Trust School Prospectus and consider how Trust school status can help you to improve things even further for all at your school.

    I’m almost out of time but before I finish I want to say quick word about the Olympics. Lord Coe will be taking the stage after me and I know we all share his vision of the Olympic Games providing inspiration to all our young people. We were all delighted by the success of London’s bid to stage the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.  It was amazing how the country got behind the bid and rejoiced in London’s success.

    The Sports College movement has helped breath life back into competitive school sport.  Through the work you lead in the network of school sport partnerships we have seen the amount and quality of inter school competition rise year on year.

    All children have the chance to participate in competitive sport through the National Curriculum.  Not only traditional sports like football and hockey, but less common disciplines for this country like handball or volleyball which can help inspire more youngsters to take up competitive sport regularly.  I know partnerships schools in Nottinghamshire have set up five new leagues which have enabled thousands more youngsters to play competitively.  Through these leagues they are learning valuable life skills – teamwork, leadership – how to win with grace and lose with dignity.

    Our new competition managers will help to widen access to competitive sport even further.  I know Dame Kelly Holmes was with you last night.  I am delighted that she has agreed to be our first national school sport champion.  As one of our best ever women Olympians she will be a powerful role model to help inspire and motivate our young people to take up sport or do even more of it.

    Sports Colleges are well positioned to help us ensure a lasting legacy.  The link between the Games and sport is an obvious one.  But we want to use the Games to inspire young people in other ways as well.  So, together with LOCOG (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) and others, we will be:

    – encouraging young people to make healthy living choices more generally;

    – supporting learning both in and outside the classroom;

    – increasing the number of people learning languages; and

    – broadening young people’s personal development and cultural understanding.

    Last year also saw the announcement that every School Sport Partnership will be able to appoint two Youth Ambassadors to act as community champions for the games.  This will be a great opportunity for them.  And in the run-up to the games we are establishing a national school sport festival to showcase sporting competition and talent.

    These are exciting times.  Sports Colleges have demonstrated time and again the ability, desire and passion to innovate and drive up standards.  The national school sport strategy, specialist status and our White Paper proposals allow us to move to the next level.

    There are genuinely tough challenges to be faced. I know that last term was particularly difficult for many heads and teachers in terms of implementing new policy.  The issues were well articulated to me by a group of Sports College heads I lunched with just before Christmas.  But the reforms are essential if we are to transform the life chances of every child in every school.

    I know you will, again, rise to the challenge. Thank you.