Blog

  • PRESS RELEASE : People First Zone at heart of plans to transform Glasgow city centre

    PRESS RELEASE : People First Zone at heart of plans to transform Glasgow city centre

    The press release issued by Glasgow City Council on 1 August 2022.

    A People First Zone where people would have priority over vehicles has been placed at the heart of plans to transform Glasgow city centre.

    The proposal for a People First Zone intends to create an area of high-quality public realm in the city centre that encourages walking, wheeling and cycling while still providing access for disabled drivers, pick up and drop off at key transport hubs and business deliveries.

    Proposed as part of an overall City Centre Transformation Plan (CCTP), the People First Zone would cover an area bounded by Hope Street, Cowcaddens Road, North Hanover Street, Glassford Street and Howard Street. The zone would also tie in with the proposed masterplans for the Buchanan Galleries and St Enoch Centre and is designed to ensure drivers can still access the multi-storey car parks that circle the city centre.

    Within the zone, crossing points would ensure pedestrians have less distance and more time to cross the road in an environment that is quieter and cleaner. Rebalancing how street space is used in the city centre would also allow for a growth in civic spaces, pocket parks, parklets and street cafes.

    The overall CCTP has now been laid out for consultation with views to be gathered from the public over the next six weeks. With a focus on creating a people-friendly city centre transport network, the CCTP is expected to support the economic vibrancy of the city centre, help Glasgow’s transition to net-zero, improve residents’ health, well-being and quality of life while also offering an enhanced experience for visitors.

    Councillor Susan Aitken, Leader of Glasgow City Council, believes the CCTP is crucial to the future of Glasgow city centre at a time when cities the world over are still grappling with transformation in shopping habits created by the internet and the impact of the covid pandemic.

    Councillor Aitken said: “We want our city centre to reach its true potential as a place where people want to live, work and visit.

    “Cities all around the world are still coming to terms with the effects of on-line shopping and the shock of covid. But cities everywhere are successfully transforming their centres to become more attractive, liveable spaces and Glasgow should be no different.

    “We can move away from an area which is car-dominated to one that is healthier for all who use it and which will contribute to our active travel and net-zero targets. Much less traffic, but better connectivity, would deliver real benefits for city businesses, as well as residents and visitors.”

    “This is a chance for Glaswegians to imagine a centre that is focused on the needs of people and is environmentally-friendly. The city centre would become an urban heart people want to spend time in, rather than just pass through. I urge people to share their views through this consultation as that will help shape our plans for the future of our city centre.”

    The public consultation on the draft CCTP will include an online survey to participate in at: connectingcommunities@glasgow.gov.uk and a number of online / in-person sessions for a range of city centre groups and organisations.

    The CCTP is an update of the existing City Centre Transport Strategy and will play a key role in ensuring that transport plans for the city centre help deliver the aims shared by other strategies to ensure that the area is attractive for residents, workers, students, businesses, visitors and investors. More detail on the draft CCTP is available at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/city-centre-transformation-plan.

    The CCTP has been supported by Sustrans funding, with other similarly supported transport strategies also under current development being the Active Travel Strategy and the Liveable Neighbourhoods Plan.

    Karen McGregor, Portfolio Director for Sustrans said: “The CCTP will be an absolute game-changer for walking, wheeling, and cycling in Glasgow, making our streets safer, cleaner and more enjoyable for everyone. The plan also neatly links in with a number of other high-profile projects we’re delivering in partnership with Glasgow City Council, including improved active travel routes from Govanhill in the south and from Woodside in the north, creating a truly active and accessible network across the city.”

    After consultation and engagement with a wide range of groups in 2020 and 2021, an emerging purpose for the City Centre Transformation Plan developed: the provision of a clear framework for transport decision-making in Glasgow city centre, with the following key aims:

    · The re-allocation of road space in the city centre for active travel and green infrastructure;

    · The delivery of improved public transport and support/encourage a shift to more sustainable modes, particularly walking, cycling and public transport, with a target of 80% of peak-time travel to the city centre being made by active travel and public transport by 2030;

    · Improved access for the mobility-impaired;

    · Seeking to achieve a 30% reduction in peak-hour private car traffic in the city centre by 2030;

    · The delivery of improvements for servicing (e.g. goods, deliveries and waste collection) to improve the vitality of Glasgow city centre;

    · Supporting a doubling of Glasgow city centre’s population by 2035; and

    · Supporting Glasgow’s aim to be carbon neutral by 2030.

    Further aims for the CCTP are a more accessible city centre, where people with limited or restricted mobility can enjoy safe and ready access; and a place where walking should be the main way of travelling around, and where more people choose to cycle into and around it. Other aims for the city centre include cleaner, greener and less congested streets; efficient, reliable and integrated public transport; and a place where goods are moved and delivered efficiently and sustainably.

    A number of confirmed and aspirational projects will help deliver the CCTP’s aims, including George Square and the wider Avenues and Avenues Plus programme; the People First Zone; the Low Emission Zone; the transformation of the Broomielaw and Clyde Waterfront; people-friendly streets; and the proposed Mitchell Plaza and Charing Cross scheme.

    The CCTP aligns with other key strategies such as the Connectivity Commission, the City Centre Strategic Development Framework, Glasgow’s Climate Plan, the City Centre Living Strategy Vision 2035 and the District Regeneration Frameworks.

    After the consultation, the CCTP will come back for final committee consideration in late 2022.

  • PRESS RELEASE : Glasgow continues trend in the reduction of Vacant and Derelict Land in the city

    PRESS RELEASE : Glasgow continues trend in the reduction of Vacant and Derelict Land in the city

    The press release issued by Glasgow City Council on 4 August 2022.

    A Glasgow City Council committee today learned about the continued fall in the amount of Vacant and Derelict Land (VDL) in the city and approved the acceptance of the 2022/23 Vacant and Derelict Land Fund (VDLF) award to the city from the Scottish Government.

    The committee also received an update on the council’s applications to Scottish Government’s Vacant and derelict Land Investment Programme (VDLIP), and to accept two VDLIP offers of grant.

    The total level of vacant and derelict land in Glasgow in 2021 stood at 880 hectares, a reduction of 6% (59 hectares, equivalent to 80 full-sized football pitches) on the 2020 figure. The number of vacant and derelict sites fell from 675 to 644.

    New housing saw the development of 20 hectares of previously VDL sites – notably from public sector housing-led regeneration projects such as Transformational Regeneration Areas (TRAs) or the Affordable Housing Supply Programme – with other new uses including retail, recreation, greenspace, and leisure.

    The VDLF is a ring-fenced budget allocated to five local authorities, including Glasgow, for the purpose of bringing vacant land into beneficial use in accordance with council and Scottish Government objectives. Glasgow and the four other local authorities have consistently had the highest concentration of urban vacant and derelict land of any areas in Scotland, and Glasgow received an allocation from the VDLF of £2.159million for 2022/23.

    The Scottish Government’s objectives for the 2022/23 VDLF Programme are: tackling long-term (more than 15 years) Vacant and Derelict Land; stimulate economic growth and job creation; developing a diverse sustainable environment with a focus on either permanent or temporary greenspace; and supporting communities to flourish and tackle inequalities. The council has put forward seven projects in Glasgow for consideration of funding support, which together have the potential to transform at least 25 hectares of VDL into productive use.

    In December 2020, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Land Commission jointly announced the £50million, five-year Vacant and Derelict Land Investment Programme (VDLIP) – open to local authorities to apply under a competitive bid system – and assessed through the following criteria: sustained place-based approaches; urban green spaces; community-led regeneration; and low-carbon developments and renewables.

    From the latest round of VDLIP funding, two Glasgow projects were successful: Hamiltonhill Green Infrastructure – redevelopment of a long-term derelict school site as part of a housing-led Green Infrastructure masterplan with Queens Cross Housing Association. £924,911 award (profiled over 2022/23); and Ruchazie Greening and Growing – to transform two former primary school sites into attractive, usable community spaces, with Seven Lochs Wetland Park. £670,000 award (£185,000 in 2022/23; £240,000 in 2023/24; £245,000 in 2024/25).

    In May, the Scottish Government opened the 2023/24 round for Stage 1 VDLIP applications, with a closing date of 24 June. The council, working with local organisations, submitted 12 bids to this round. Shortlisting is expected in August, with Stage 2 submissions required by October and funding awards notified in November/December.

    Councillor Kenny McLean, Convener for Land Use at Glasgow City Council, said: “The continued reduction in vacant and derelict land in the city is a real success story for Glasgow. The new uses being made at the – now productive – sites across the city undoubtedly bring us economic, environmental and social benefits, and highlight the progress being made in regenerating many different areas. The grant support for the projects in Hamiltonhill and Ruchazie will continue this progress, benefiting local people and organisations.”

  • PRESS RELEASE : Council given update on Glasgow’s Affordable Housing Supply Programme

    PRESS RELEASE : Council given update on Glasgow’s Affordable Housing Supply Programme

    The press release issued by Glasgow City Council on 4 August 2022.

    Glasgow City Council was today given an update on the delivery of the city’s Affordable Housing Supply Programme (AHSP), and how it will bring thousands of new affordable homes to Glasgow over the next four years.

    The council will allocate almost £104million to housing associations and private developers to build new affordable homes in the city in 2022/23.

    Glasgow’s AHSP takes into account the priorities identified within Glasgow’s Housing Strategy 2017-2022, and the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) 2022-2027.

    The environment around homebuilding is currently very challenging, with Brexit, the pandemic, and the war in Ukraine impacting costs, particularly in fuel and energy, as well as in the labour market and the supply chain.

    Despite these challenges, 879 new affordable homes were completed through the AHSP in 2021/22, with work on 795 beginning, and approval given for 531. Just over £3million was spent on medical adaptations for housing association homes.

    The council today approved the budget for the 2022/23 financial year, with a target of 919 completed new affordable homes, work beginning on 665, and approval expected for 691. It is expected that a similar sum will be spent on medical adaptations over this period.

    Councillor Kenny McLean, Convener for Housing at Glasgow City Council,said: “The Affordable Housing Supply Programme is absolutely essential to the building of new affordable homes in Glasgow, benefiting thousands of people and families. The approval of the budget for this financial year means that more of these homes can be built, improving the quality of life for all of those living in them, and contributing to the regeneration of communities all across the city.”

    The Scottish Government issued the council with Resource Planning Assumptions (RPAs) for the 2022/23 – 2025/26 period, providing certainty that allows plans to be put in place for how affordable housing in Glasgow will be delivered in that time. The RPAs are as follows: 2022/23 (£103.934million); 2023/24 (£103.638million); 2024/25 (£104.001million); and 2025/26 (£105.724million).

  • PRESS RELEASE : Support for Eligible Households and Businesses to Comply with Glasgow’s LEZ

    PRESS RELEASE : Support for Eligible Households and Businesses to Comply with Glasgow’s LEZ

    The press release issued by Glasgow City Council on 11 August 2022.

    Ahead of enforcement of Glasgow’s Low Emission Zone (LEZ) next year, we’re encouraging drivers and fleet operators to check their vehicles for emissions compliance and to explore the grant support that is available to help eligible households and businesses prepare.

    Glasgow’s LEZ is an essential measure to protect public health by tackling stubbornly high levels of air pollution in our city centre. The emission standards required to drive into the zone will apply to all vehicles (except for motorbikes and mopeds) from 1 June 2023, with a penalty charge payable for non-compliance. Some vehicle types or uses are exempt however such as vehicles for disabled persons and blue badge holders. Fully electric vehicles comply with LEZ requirements in Scotland.

    Those living within the LEZ boundary area will have additional time to prepare, with the enforcement start date for vehicles registered to a residential address within the zone, deferred until 1 June 2024.

    LEZ Emissions Requirements:

    Emission standards for LEZs in Scotland have been set nationally – these are:

    • Euro 4 for petrol vehicles
    • Euro 6 for diesel vehicles
    • Euro IV for heavy duty petrol vehicles such as buses/coaches and HGVs
    • Euro VI for heavy duty diesel vehicles such as buses/coaches and HGVs

    For practical purposes, it is generally the case that diesel engine vehicles registered after September 2015, and petrol vehicles registered from 2006 onwards will meet the required LEZ standards. You may be able to find Euro standard information on the inside of your vehicle’s driver or passenger door. For newer vehicles, the Euro standard may be listed on the V5C registration document. If you are in any doubt, you can contact the vehicle manufacturer to check.

    Transport Scotland are working on an online tool that will enable motorists to check if their vehicle meets LEZ emission standards by entering their registration number. Until this is ready, they have prepared a basic online vehicle checker. Whilst the results are not a guarantee or proof that a vehicle can enter a LEZ in Scotland, they can give an indication in the meantime.

    LEZ Grant Funding:

    Administered by Energy Saving Trust – a range of grants funded by Transport Scotland are currently available to help you achieve LEZ compliance. These grants offer practical support to low-income households, sole traders, and micro-businesses – including those operating specialist vehicles.

    Eligible households living within a 20km radius of a Low Emission Zone, may be able to apply for a £2,000 grant towards the disposal of a non-compliant vehicle and in addition, up to £1,000 towards alternative sustainable travel options. Find out more about the support available for households here.

    Micro-businesses and sole traders may also be eligible for a £2,000 grant towards the disposal of a non-compliant vehicle under the Low Emission Zone Support Fund for businesses, and up to £1,000 towards the purchase of a cargo or electric cargo bike.

    Sole traders and micro businesses operating taxis, vans and specialist vehicles may be interested in the Low Emission Zone Retrofit Fund, which offers up to 80% funding towards the installation of retrofit solutions to make vehicles LEZ compliant based on emission standards. Please note, not all vehicle types or makes and models have a solution available. Please visit Energy Saving Trust’s website for more information.

    E-Bike and Electric Vehicle Loans:

    If you do not meet the eligibility criteria for any of the grants highlighted above, you may be interested in options to purchase an e-bike or electric vehicle:

    eBike Loan
    eBike Business Loan
    Used Electric Vehicle Loan
    Switched On Taxis Loan
    Low Carbon Transport Business Loan
    Check out Energy Saving Trust’s website for full details of the grants and loans available and eligibility requirements.

    Bus Emission Abatement Retroft (BEAR):

    Administered by Transport Scotland, the Bus Emission Abatement Retrofit (BEAR) scheme supports bus and coach operators with the financial costs associated with engine and exhaust retrofitting to reduce emissions and improve air quality. The latest round of BEAR funding has made a further £5 million available for 2022/23 to licensed bus and coach operators, local authorities and community transport operators.

  • PRESS RELEASE : New QR Codes Launched for People Involved in Begging

    PRESS RELEASE : New QR Codes Launched for People Involved in Begging

    The press release issued by Glasgow City Council on 11 August 2022.

    Glasgow’s Best Bar None venues are helping people involved in begging by promoting the city’s alternative giving scheme.

    Nineteen venues have agreed to display new QR codes which will enable people to donate to Street Change Glasgow by scanning them with their mobile phones.

    The new QR codes have begun popping up in Best Bar None venues around the city this week. Money donated via them will go to Street Change Glasgow which is managed by Simon Community Scotland to help people involved in begging improve their lives.

    The city’s alternative giving scheme has already raised more than £12,500 via cashless donation points since it was launched by partners including Glasgow City Council and Glasgow’s Health & Social Care Partnership in March 2020.

    Previous donations were made via cashless tap points at locations including Glasgow Central Station. The QR codes will replace those as a new, easy and convenient way to donate to the alternative giving scheme for vulnerable people.

    Oliver McLean, General Manager of Howlin Wolf in Bath Street explained why he was keen to display Street Change Glasgow QR codes in the venue.

    He said: “When I heard about the alternative giving scheme it really resonated with me. I think it will help humanise people involved in begging for the general public. We’re keen to help raise awareness of it to help raise money for vulnerable people. We’ll be displaying QR codes in the lobby, in wall frames in the toilets and on the back of our menus so that people can donate.”

    Lorraine McGrath, Chief Executive, Simon Community Scotland, said: “We are extremely proud to be relaunching Street Change Glasgow, now that the world is opening up again. We are particularly excited to launch the QR code element of the campaign. We thank the venues participating in the Best Bar None scheme for partnering with us and displaying QR code posters, making it even easier for everyone to be part of making a difference.

    “Donating to Street Change Glasgow directly provides life’s necessities without delay for those in crisis, to help them be safe and feel valued and connect with support to move away from such a harmful and damaging existence. The cost of living crisis is driving more people to desperation and it is now more critical than ever that we reach and engage with everyone who finds themselves street begging, to simply meet their basic needs.”

    Street Change Glasgow forms part of Glasgow’s Begging Strategy which won the Best Social and Community Contribution category at the Association of Town & City Management Industry Awards 2022.

    Councillor Allan Casey, Glasgow’s Convener for Homelessness and Addictions Services, was involved in creating the begging strategy and setting up SCG along with a wide range of partners.

    He said: “I’m delighted that so many Best Bar None venues have responded so positively to the new QR codes and volunteered to display them in their venues. It is great to get the codes into bars and entertainment venues and I hope that more businesses, including shops, come forward to support the alternative giving scheme in this way.

    “The new QR codes are a quick and easy way to donate in the knowledge that your money will be used to improve a vulnerable person’s life.”

    BBN Glasgow venues which have signed up to support Street Change Glasgow by displaying scan to donate QR codes include the Howlin’ Wolf, Denholms Bar, The Ferry, The Amethyst Glasgow, Piper Whisky Bar, The Hengler’s Circus, The Counting House, MacSorleys, The Old Schoolhouse, The Old Plane Tree, Dukes Bar, Bag o Nails, No.16 – Hope Street, 26 Hope Street, The National Piping Centre & the Pipers’ Tryst Hotel, McNabbs, The Cathouse and The Garage.

    As well as the QR codes, donations to Street Change Glasgow can also be made via the Street Change Glasgow website www.streetchangeglasgow.com

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech to the Compassionate Conservatism Conference

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech to the Compassionate Conservatism Conference

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, to the Compassionate Conservatism Conference held on 15 September 2003.

    Thank you all for coming to this ground-breaking conference.

    I’d particularly like to welcome people from some of the voluntary and charitable organisations that I – and members of the shadow cabinet – have been meeting over recent times. Thanks for being here today and for helping us to understand the nature of poverty in Britain and around the world.

    This is one of the most important conferences I’ve addressed since I became Conservative leader. One hundred and fifty Conservatives in their teens, twenties and thirties at a two-day conference on social justice. A third of the shadow cabinet – including most of its senior members – here to talk about the Conservative Party’s commitment to build one nation.

    I made that commitment after my first visit to Glasgow’s Easterhouse estate in February last year. Some dismissed my commitment as a publicity stunt. Some will dismiss this conference as a two-day publicity stunt. And in this in this age of spin, perhaps that’s understandable. But the people of Easterhouse and Gallowgate, of Hackney and Handsworth, of the many other hard-pressed communities all over this country have had a profound impact upon me.

    They have led me to refocus the Conservative Party on the challenges that most face these communities but which worry and threaten everyone. Britain’s left-behind communities are often thought of as Labour’s strongholds. Their heartlands. But there’s little heart in the way Labour neglects and forgets these communities.

    Communities suffering under the weight of drugs, crime, community breakdown and the other social challenges that the wealth and technology of our times have not defeated.

    The burdens of want and fear are blighting the lives of more and more people in this country. Casting a shadow over the lives of the many and dominating the lives of the few. In recent months Conservatives have announced policies on schools, policing, drug rehab and social entrepreneurship that will help people who find life a daily struggle.

    People whose struggle is greater because of this Labour government. Greater because of the humiliating complexity of Labour’s benefits system. Because of the taxes Labour have loaded onto the backs of the poorest workers. Because of Labour’s appeasement in the war on crime and drugs. Because of Labour’s pursuit of total politics rather than practical delivery.

    We won’t identify all of the answers to today’s social challenges over the next two days or even over the next few years. Problems that have grown over a generation will need the idealism, imagination and unfailing commitment of a new generation.

    Your generation.

    Today’s social challenges – the challenge of poverty in the twenty-first century – needs you.

    In your youth…

    In your idealism…

    In your creativity…

    You, in your solidarity with people for whom life is a struggle…

    You are the future of this Party.

    These challenges are your challenges.

    They’re the challenges of the many, not the few.

    The battle to overcome these challenges – in all their enormity – is the future of this Party.”That is why I have brought the issues and you together, in this conference, as a foundational act. We live in a world where poverty challenges our moral conscience and our security. It is a staggering thought that over the next twelve months, over ten million children around the world will die as a result of malnutrition.
    War, disease, terrorism and many forms of hardship and danger will feed on each other – claiming the lives of still more millions. And of those who do not die, the majority live in conditions that would be intolerable to anyone in this country.

    Against that background, there are those who say that poverty in Britain simply does not exist. But it does. Many people do not enjoy the opportunities and freedoms that most of us take for granted. I think of children growing up in homes where it’s still hard to make ends meet. I think of pensioners in communities ruled by criminal gangs. Poverty is real today for those children and pensioners. When I left Easterhouse, I committed the Conservative Party to a new mission with these words:

    A nation that leaves its vulnerable behind, diminishes its own future.

    Britain will never be all that it should be until opportunity and security mean something to people in Easterhouse.

    To make this country theirs as much as it is ours. That is a mission fit for the new century.”

    That is why there are two inseparable parts to our Fair Deal. No one held back and no one left behind. Opportunity and security. Aspiration and compassion.

    Talk is one thing, action is another. But, of course, action is the privilege of government, and so I want to spend some time on what this Government has done about poverty. To give credit where it’s due, Labour has not been inactive. They talk big on poverty and they spend big too. I‘m sure Labour politicians care about poverty but, sadly, something has gone terribly wrong with their policies. And we need to understand why if we are to avoid making the same mistakes. If we are to build an effective and distinctive Conservative programme of social justice.

    How you tackle poverty depends on how you define it. Currently the following definition is in use, ‘You’re poor if you live in a household with less than 60% of the median household income’. Now there are all sorts of problems with that definition. Above all the definition is exclusively financial and says nothing about the non-financial needs of every human being. It’s also interesting to note that Labour – the party of equality – has presided over growing inequality. According to the Government’s own statistics, Britain is more unequal under Tony Blair than at any time under Margaret Thatcher or John Major. Even under their own figures – Labour have failed.

    Ministers would say that they have focused on households with children – and that, according to their definition of poverty – and their figures – they have made real progress in this area. But they have missed their targets on child poverty and show little prospect of ever achieving them. The Labour MP Frank Field – as well as David Willetts – have shown that what progress has been made has been achieved by “picking off the easy ones.”

    In other words, the main effect of Labour’s policy is to shift some families from just below the poverty line to just above it. Now this helps ministers meet their targets, but it doesn’t do much to help those in the deepest need.

    Earlier this month a Save the Children report confirmed Frank Field’s analysis. The report’s authors were concerned with children in severe and persistent poverty – equivalent to household incomes of less than 40% of the average. Over one million children live in such households. The researchers were surprised to find that many, if not most, of these households are not on permanent benefits.

    An earlier report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies came to much the same conclusions: One in ten children, the report concluded, live in households on very low incomes – but almost half did not receive any of the main means-tested benefits. So it’s clear: Labour’s child poverty targets are being missed – and the limited progress that has been made has been achieved by focusing on the easiest cases. Those children deepest in poverty are those least likely to be helped.

    But we shouldn’t be surprised. The targets culture always encourages government to focus on the easy cases in order to fake success. The complexity of Labour’s benefits system may delight Gordon Brown but it is a nightmare for vulnerable families. They cannot cope with the humiliating bureaucracy that Labour has manufactured. The stigma of means-testing means that many families and pensioners who need help do not ask for it. The perversity of the whole system means that people who try to do the right thing are often punished.

    Save money and you’ll lose it. Seek work and, if you can’t master the complexity of the benefits system, you’ll find yourself out of pocket. The system is fundamentally flawed. Even the Government knows that something has gone terribly wrong with its policies. Let me read you this from a Cabinet Office report. It sounds as though it was written by Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appleby, but it’s real:

    It is possible the efficacy limits of some key policy instruments are being reached.

    For example, the take-up of some means tested fiscal measures remain low and further means-tested support of in-work incomes could undermine the incentives of households to enhance their own earnings.

    Now, let me translate the gibberish into English:

    Our policy isn’t working.

    People aren’t getting the help they were promised.

    And if we carry on like this we’re going to trap even more people in poverty.

    Let’s not forget that we have reached these “efficacy limits” under the most favourable economic conditions. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have enjoyed a golden legacy of record tax receipts. Which they have spent wasted. This compares to the record of Conservatives in Kent. Kent Conservatives have invested the good economic times of recent years to help families build free and independent lives through a range of innovative support programmes.

    Labour’s policies have left the poor even more dependent on the state for their incomes and the kind of public services they receive. Worse still – Gordon Brown has spread dependency up the income scale. And when times get harder, as they always do, that dependency will remain. But it will be harder for a weaker economy to afford. And that, in the end, will be Labour’s legacy to the poor. Dependence not independence.

    We can’t blame this Government for inventing the flaws in the system. They have pumped more money into these flaws than any government in history, but there is nothing new about the dependency culture. Or about means testing. Nothing new about the poverty trap.

    Since the war, unimaginable sums of money have been funnelled through the benefits system. Undreamt of wealth has opened up healthcare, education, transport and culture to all sections of society. And yet social mobility is less today than it was in the 1950s. After five decades of state-led welfare a child born at the bottom of the pile is more, not less, likely to stay there.

    This is what Patricia Hewitt, a serving member of Tony Blair’s Cabinet, said to the Fabian Society back in June:

    “Today [historians] would still be horrified by the gulf in health, education and life chances between the child growing up in an impoverished council estate – with a secondary school where only 10 or 15 kids in a class of 100 can expect to get five GCSEs – and the child of the leafy suburbs heading confidently for university and a professional career.”

    What she is describing is the final failure of socialism. The final failure of the know-all, centralised state. The state that Mr Blair runs from Downing Street.

    A failure all the more dramatic if one looks beyond purely financial measures of poverty.

    This is not a tactic for avoiding the issue of benefit levels. Families with young children, pensioners, people with serious disabilities, the sick, those looking for work – Conservatives will always ensure a fair income for these deserving causes. But we also know that there is no conceivable increase in benefits that would change some of the fundamental facts of poverty. A few extra pounds can make a big difference to a tight budget. But it won’t buy you security when you’re too frightened to let your kids play outside. Or peace, when your home is a noise-polluted tower block. Or friends, when vital support networks have been smashed by the breakdown of family and community. Or self-respect, when you’re trapped in dependency. Or ambition, when your child’s school descends into chaos.

    Surely, if the fight against poverty is to mean anything, then it has to be as much about peace, community and self-respect as it is about money.

    And it also has to be about turning round the public services on which we all depend, but on which the poor depend most of all.

    I have devoted the greater part of this speech to the problems dogging the fight against poverty. Governments have a role to play in fighting poverty and the next Conservative government will take its responsibilities seriously. But government cannot solve the problem of poverty on its own. Securing a fair deal for everyone is a shared task. A task for government, businesses, families and communities. Conservatives have, therefore, a project.

    A mission to replace the welfare state with a welfare society. It was William Beveridge who said –
    The making of a good society depends not on the state but on the citizens, acting individually or in free association with one another…

    The happiness or unhappiness of the society in which we live depends upon ourselves as citizens, not on the instrument of political power which we call the state.”

    Beveridge was never in favour of a monolithic welfare state and issued a prophetic warning against any policy which, in his words, caused “the whole field of security against misfortune, once the domain of voluntary Mutual Aid, [to be] divided between the State and private business conducted for gain.”

    The post-war Labour Government ignored that warning.

    That was a mistake of historic proportions – the consequences of which we still live with today. We must not live with it tomorrow. We can begin to build a welfare society.

    Let me give you a practical example of what I mean. In July, I visited Tabernacle, an inner-city school, mainly serving the African and Caribbean Community. Because the parents were fed up with the way the state system had failed their children they got together and started their own school. A school under the inspired leadership of Paulette and Derrick Wilson. Standards of discipline and academic achievement are high. The teachers love teaching there.

    The pupils love learning there. And the parents, many of modest means, make the necessary sacrifices. And yet this school is under threat.

    The Government is set to impose a crippling regime of inspection fees that would force the school to close.

    Conservatives oppose this disgraceful attack on high quality inner-city education. Our policy is not only to systematically reduce the regulatory burden on schools like Tabernacle, but to actively support their foundation and expansion. Our State Scholarships policy will give every parent the right to send their child to a school that’s right for them and consistent with the family’s values. It will support schools like the Tabernacle and create more of them. We are determined that no child should be left behind in a failing school.

    Tabernacle School is just one example of what voluntary action can achieve for our nation. Indeed, there isn’t a single social challenge to which someone, somewhere hasn’t found an answer. Social entrepreneurs are at work in every area of public policy. And we’ll be hearing from some of these trailblazing projects over the next two days. Projects which have inspired our green paper, Sixty Million Citizens, which contains sixteen proposals aimed at unlocking the full potential of Britain’s civil society.

    In a moment, Greg Clark, our Director of Policy, will explain how Conservatives would open up our public services to this spirit of social renewal. But I believe that the same principle – of Government enabling people to find their own solutions – can apply to the social security system too.

    David Willetts, the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, will be here tomorrow to talk about his latest thinking in this area. Thinking informed by the One Nation Hearings he and other members of the shadow cabinet have held in disadvantaged parts of Britain.

    Also speaking will be Sir Sandy Bruce Lockhart, the Leader of Kent County Council, and Simon Milton, the leader of Westminster City Council – both of whom are proving that Conservatives can take on the dependency culture and win for the most vulnerable people in their communities. I thank both of them for their work.

    No serious discussion of social justice can ignore the injustice faced by communities plagued by crime. We often hear about poverty as a cause of crime. It’s time we heard more about crime as a cause of poverty. People in social housing are twice as likely to be burgled as homeowners. Residents of flats are twice as likely to have a vehicle stolen than those in detached homes. The unemployed are twice as likely to suffer violent crime as those in work. There can be no end to poverty without a start to security.

    That is why the next Conservative Government will recruit 40,000 extra police officers to take back the streets for law-abiding people who, today, are afraid to walk them. Our plan for a ten-fold increase in the number of drug rehabilitation places – to 20,000 – will give young people the chance to escape from a life of addiction and crime. I’m delighted that the Shadow Home Secretary, Oliver Letwin, will be here this evening to tell you more about our law and order policies.

    Crime is not the only cause of poverty. Drugs and family instability can also damage a child’s chances in life. Labour is too embarrassed to face up to these issues. They hide behind a screen of political correctness. Conservatives must not be afraid to talk about these and other causes of poverty. We must be intolerant of discrimination. We will have the opportunity to talk about the face of poverty within Britain throughout this conference. And the fact that deeper exists beyond the shores of our country. If there is a pressing need for a new approach to poverty at home, then there is a desperate need for a new approach to third world poverty. Statist, and superstatist, solutions have not worked.

    But as we’ll hear from Caroline Spelman, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, Conservative solutions do have a chance. Through our emphasis on free trader for third world producers. On fighting corruption and promoting good governance. On trusting local agencies and local people as the only people capable of delivering sustainable development. In particular, Conservatives will put greater trust in the extraordinary work of Britain’s aid agencies and fair-trade enterprises – including CaféDirect and Traidcraft – both of which are kindly with us today.

    On my first visit to Easterhouse, someone shouted out:

    “What are you doing here? This is a Labour area.”

    “Yes,” I said, “and look around you.”

    There will be others that say:

    “Why are you talking about poverty? That’s a Labour issue.”

    And to them I’ll say “yes, and look around you.”

    Labour think they have a monopoly on compassion. And this monopoly – like all monopolies – has hurt the people it dominates. Poverty is too important an issue to leave to Labour. It’s too important to leave to any one political party.

    Labour is failing because it thinks poverty is only about money. Yet, as I’ve shown, even on its own measure, Labour is failing. Defeating poverty is about more than spending money. It’s about living in a secure neighbourhood. But today – under Labour – violent crime is rising. It’s about fighting the drug menace that blights our children’s lives. Yet, today, families desperate to get their children off drugs find that there aren’t enough rehabilitation places available.

    It’s about order and structure in schools. Yet Labour have taken disciplinary powers away from headteachers. Most of all it’s about giving people control over their own lives. But over recent years Labour’s massive centralised state has increased dependency and left far too many people and communities unable to take key decisions about how they lead their lives.

    That’s why a future Conservative government will be different. We’ll protect the incomes of vulnerable people but we’ll do much more. 40,000 extra police officers will reclaim the streets from criminals and drug pushers. 20,000 drug rehabilitation places will give young people a second chance in life. Our State Scholarships scheme will give parents in the inner cities the means to send their children to better schools. Our proposals on the voluntary sector will greatly increase the opportunities available to community-based social entrepreneurs. These and other policies will make a real difference to the hard-pressed communities that I’ve visited throughout my time as Conservative leader.

    I don’t expect to storm the Labour heartlands at the next election. But unless Conservatives can show that we will govern for the whole nation, we will neither win nor deserve to. That is why our fair deal is for everyone. No one held back. No one left behind.

  • Oliver Letwin – 2003 Speech to the British Sikh Federation

    Oliver Letwin – 2003 Speech to the British Sikh Federation

    The speech made by Oliver Letwin to the British Sikh Federation on 15 September 2003.

    Some months ago, I was visited by a senior delegation of British Sikhs, many of whom are here this afternoon.

    I was astonished to learn that as far as the Commission for Racial Equality was concerned, the Sikhs almost do not exist.

    Why? Because the CRE code of practice advising Public Authorities on the monitoring of ethnic groups does not monitor Sikhs as a separate ethnic group.

    Not only does this lack of recognition not give dignity to the Sikh population in the UK that it deserves, but it also means that the Code is meant to ensure equal treatment and enables Sikhs to be properly assessed and mentored by health, police authorities and other agencies.

    The Sikhs’ omission from the Code is astonishing given that there are 600,000 Sikhs in Britain today, probably the largest ethnic group in the country.

    The CRE oppose ethnic monitoring of the Sikhs because the code reflects the 2001 census, which included Sikhs as a religious grouping not an ethnic grouping. Yet the CRE code strenuously monitors other smaller ethnic groups.

    As you have pointed out, given that none of the existing categories fit Sikhs, the exclusion of Sikhs would mean that a distinct ethnic group – that constitutes 1.5% of the British population – would be rendered `invisible’ from a statistical standpoint. But if statistics ignore real people, what is the point of them?

    Whatever the Government or the CRE think, I don’t think that the 10,000 people here today are invisible or the other 590,000 Sikhs in the country are either.

    Last year we helped organise a Sikh lobby to Parliament on this issue and sent a petition to Tony Blair. We are determined to pursue this issue and it will be top of my agenda when I meet Trevor Phillips, the new Director of the CRE, next month. I and Dominic Grieve, the Conservative Shadow Community Cohesion Minister, look forward to working with you to continue the campaign at Westminster for proper recognition of Sikhs when Parliament returns after the Party Conference.

    But you too will need to continue to campaign vigorously and as a united force.

    That is why it is excellent news that the Convention today has announced the creation of a new national Sikh organisation, the Sikh Federation. It is good that you have decided to work with the mainstream parties. As a cohesive organisation you will have a better chance of achieving not just proper recognition of Sikhs, but a host of other objectives.

    Sikhs and Conservatives

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be here today for a number of reasons.

    Not just because it offers me the chance to see and experience 10,000 strong members of the Sikh community engaged and active.

    Not just because I want to learn from the Co-ordinating Committee of the National Sikh Convention as to how to get so many people to turn up to a public meeting.

    We could use some of your skills at the Conservative Conference next month in Blackpool!

    But because I believe that there is much common ground that Sikhism and Conservatism share. Sikh values of family, community, service to others and self reliance resonate with much Conservative thought.

    Service to others

    In a recent speech in Brixton, London, I suggested that my task as Shadow Home Secretary was to try and build a set of foundations on which the neighbourly society can build. I said then that four building blocks were essential:

    · Firstly, a neighbourly society. This requires providing young people with exit routes from the conveyer belt to crime. We have to provide help for parents with young children facing difficulties. We have to offer serious rehabilitation for persistent offenders. We need to provide young drug addicts with serious abstinence based treatment;

    · Secondly, Neighbourhood Policing. We need real active and sustained neighbourhood policing so that the police can recapture the streets for the honest citizen. That is why we have pledged to increase police numbers by 40,000.

    · Thirdly, Active Citizens. We have to encourage a society which fosters the networks of support between individuals, families, neighbourhoods and community organisations. This kind of society depends on active citizens and flourishes from voluntary activity.

    · Lastly, A Tolerant Society. We need to establish a framework which recognises that neighbours of differing creeds and colours, backgrounds and aspirations, can agree to live together in harmony.

    The first two of these foundations – getting young people off the conveyer belt to crime and getting more police in our neighbourhoods will need commitment from Government.

    But the last two cannot be just done by politicians.

    Whatever social policies emanate from the politicians at Whitehall, whatever comes from local government, without the active participation of our active citizens in our neighbourhoods and communities very little will be achieved.

    Encouraging active citizens in our communities and ensuring harmonious race relations can in the end only be done by all of us working together.

    And this is where I see that the Sikh community has – and must have – a central role.

    I am told that central to Sikhism is what is termed as Sewa – service to others. Service to religion, family, community, voluntarism and charity are regarded as the requirement and duty of every Sikh. I understand that the Guru Nanak once wrote:

    “The essence of wisdom lies in the service of humanity.”

    I agree.

    I know that Sikhs run a host of community organisations dedicated to helping the needy, in the UK. In India, the Sikhs have a deserved reputation for running orphanages, widow’s homes, institutes for the destitute and the handicapped and a Blind School.

    But the work that you do in Britain, is not just important to Sikhs, it is essential for the well-being of every Briton in our country.

    I salute the way you are making miracles happen in our inner cities. I pay tribute to the determination of the Sikh community to transform the lives for many of our disadvantaged people.

    We strongly support your efforts to have Sikh faith schools. What better example could there be of community endeavour? What is more important than the education of our children?

    I am glad to be able to tell you today that Conservatives feel that every community – parents, teachers and faith communities should be able to establish excellent new schools in their neighbourhoods. If Sikh schools are able to attract parents and children – as they no doubt will – then they will be guaranteed the required funding.

    We believe that every school should have its own ethos and strongly support the creation of faith-based schools.

    Race

    But the Sikh community also have a role in the second of these foundations – helping to build a more tolerant and harmonious society.

    I mentioned earlier that the announcement of the establishment of the Sikh Federation is good news for Sikhs and good news for Britain.

    Similarly your other two announcements today concerning the establishment of the National Council of Gurdwaras and the new Sikh Advisory Group are both positive developments.

    You are showing a determination to act as a cohesive force. You are bringing the Sikh community together to ensure that you are best placed to work with the grain of political and social institutions in this country.

    The work that you do has never been more important.

    And I want to tell you why. Last week the British National Party won their 18th Council seat in the United Kingdom. They are now represented right across England.

    Make no mistake; the hate and extremism of the British National Party do not just threaten ethnic communities. They threaten us all.

    They threaten the democratic values all of us cherish.

    They threaten Britain’s proud status as a tolerant and liberal nation.

    I understand that since the atrocity of September 11 2001, many Sikhs have had to deal with racial abuse – and some have been victims of racial violence.

    My Party is determined to play its part in doing something about this and to try and curtail the BNP electoral success. We will be making an important announcement about this at our Party Conference next month.

    Conclusion

    Part of the reason for the success of the British National Party is because so many people feel let down by mainstream politics and politicians. So many promises made, so much promise unfulfilled.

    In a country in which a crime is committed every five seconds, where criminals have just a 3% chance of being convicted, where our asylum system is in chaos, it is no wonder that extremists are successfully exploiting popular discontent.

    There is a saying which states “nature abhors a vacuum”. We are living at a time when there is such a vacuum. There is a deep absence of trust and malaise in our political life. At best this leads to apathy and at worst the support for extremist and fringe groups that I talked about a moment ago.

    That is why this Sikh Convention today is so important. By organising this event today and coming here in such vast numbers. You are showing your commitment to public life and a determination to lead by example.

    I am told that the Guru Nanak said that:

    “Truth is higher than everything, but higher still is truthful living”.

    As I think of the loss of integrity in our public life, I can think of no better message to take back to Westminster:

    Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

  • Theresa May – 2003 Speech on One Nation Conservatism

    Theresa May – 2003 Speech on One Nation Conservatism

    The speech made by Theresa May, the then Conservative Party chair, to the Compassionate Conservatism Conference on 16 September 2003.

    I am sure many people in Britain would be surprised to know that the Conservative Party has hosted such a successful conference on Compassionate Conservatism.

    All too often, we have allowed ourselves to be portrayed as a party which cares nothing about compassion. As Iain Duncan Smith said earlier this year, we have let our opponents place us in a box marked self-interest. We all know that this is not the case.

    We know that many Conservative Party members up and down the country are at the heart of community groups and voluntary organisations that work with some of the most vulnerable people in our country. We know that Conservative councils deliver the best services for the least well off, for the lowest tax.

    Since becoming Chairman I have seen countless examples of how Conservative councils make life better for people. How they improve schools, how they make town centres safer, how they tackle graffiti and anti-social behaviour.

    Today I want to give a clear message.

    There is nothing inconsistent about being Compassionate and a Conservative. Indeed, compassion has always been at the heart of what we have been about. There has always been a rich vein of compassion running through the Conservative Party. We never stopped being the party of one nation, the party of the poor, or the party of the vulnerable. Conservatives have always been about providing the ladder of opportunity, and the safety net for those in need.

    Labour often think history began in 1997, so let me establish a few facts about Compassionate Conservatism.

    · We were the party that granted home ownership to a million and a half council tenants when we were last in office. In 1997 there were four million more home-owners than there were in 1979.

    · We were the party that helped hundreds of thousands of people gain access to university. By the time we left office, one in three young people went to higher education – up from one in eight in 1979.

    · We were the party that helped countless people set up their own business. There were a million more small businesses in Britain by the time we left office than there were in 1979.

    · The last Conservative Government offered more help to families on low incomes, to lone parents, to pensioners and helped expand opportunity so that social mobility became a reality for many.

    Labour would like us to believe that they have a monopoly on compassion.

    – Tell that to people trapped in crime-ridden estates.

    – Tell that to the mothers who see their children high on drugs, without any help or rehabilitation.

    – Tell that to the children trapped in failing schools.

    – Tell that to elderly people who use up all their life savings to pay for a vital operation that the NHS won’t provide for months.

    – What is compassionate about a Government that imposes so many regulations on care homes that they have to close, leaving thousands of elderly people with an uncertain future?

    There is nothing compassionate about New Labour.

    This is a Government that have shut the door on the policy of right to buy – denying home ownership – the fastest vehicle of social mobility to hundreds of thousands of people.

    This is a Government that has already slapped thousands of pounds in tuition fees on university students, and now plans to burden them even more with top-up fees – a policy which could end up deterring thousands of academically able people from disadvantaged backgrounds from entering university. Where is the compassion in that? It is a policy I am proud to say the Conservative Party has opposed, and which we are committed to reverse.

    Under Labour, the gap between the rich and the poor is wider now that it has been for over a decade. For all its talk about social justice, this is a Government in which allows a quarter of all pensioners to live below the poverty line.

    In today’s Britain a crime is committed every five seconds; record numbers of young people are caught up in a culture of crime and drug abuse; and people fear to walk out alone at night.

    That is just a snapshot of ‘compassion’ in New Labour’s New Britain. It is no wonder people are looking for an alternative.

    When I speak to people across Britain, they tell me that they simply want things to be better.

    They want better schools, better hospitals, better public transport, less crime.

    They can’t understand why they pay more tax, and the public services are getting worse.

    They are sick of the Government’s obsession with spin. They are tired of hearing about the Government’s latest target or initiative. What matters to them is whether the things on which they depend – the public services – are getting better or worse.

    To put it simply – they want a fair deal.

    This presents us with a challenge and an opportunity.

    But it is not enough for us to point out Labour’s failures.

    Nor can we simply point to our achievements when we were in office.

    Neither of these alone provide people with a fair deal.

    We have to persuade people that we can offer a genuine alternative to Labour.

    We need to persuade people that we can deliver the changes in the public services they need.

    For the last two years, that is what the Conservative Party, under Iain Duncan Smith, has been doing just that.

    This is how we are changing.

    As Iain said last week, we are now in our strongest position for ten years. We’re talking about the issues that matter to people. We’re offering solutions to the problems that concern people.

    And instead of Labour’s phoney compassion, we’re offering genuine solutions.

    Surely that is what opposition is about.

    And that’s what ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ is about too.

    Showing that we don’t have to settle for second best in the public services.

    That Government isn’t only about managing decline in the health service – but revitalising them.

    Showing that our goal shouldn’t be simply to curb crime, but to create a neighbourly society.

    Persuading people that inner city children shouldn’t be condemned to failing schools, but provided with a stepping-stone to success.

    That opportunity should be open to the many, not the few.

    Under Iain Duncan Smith, Renewing One Nation has had a central place within the Conservative Party. For that is surely our mission. To renew Britain. To breath new life into failing public services. To show that we can offer genuine alternatives.

    But why should people believe us? Labour promised the earth, and failed to deliver. People feel let down. People’s faith in New Labour has been betrayed.

    How are we going to convince people we are different? We have to show we understand their problems. And we are changing here too.

    The culture of politics is changing.

    People are tired of politicians who argue by throwing statistics at each other.

    They are sick of politicians who think the answer to a problem is to come up with a good slogan.

    People want to know what we stand for, not simply what we are against.

    On Sunday I attended the 30th anniversary of the foundation of the Cookham and Maidenhead branch of Amnesty International – based in my constituency. There was a time when the idea of a conservative attending an Amnesty International event was anathema to many Conservatives. Because we had difficulties with some things they did and said, we appeared to be completely against them. Now, we are grown up enough to say ‘we admire your commitment and recognise your dedication to fighting against injustice and although we don’t always agree with you, we are happy to work with you when we do, such as when Caroline Spelman met representatives of the Indian Government pressing the case for Ian Stillman.

    I believe that is the sort of constructive political engagement that Britain needs to reinvigorate British politics, because too many people have been put off political debate because of the way it is conducted.

    Too many people have lost faith in politicians because of the culture of British politics.

    That is not only bad for politics. It is bad for Britain.

    People want to know that we understand what they want – not simply what makes a good headline.

    We have to show people what a Conservative Government will do for them.

    How a Conservative Government will make their streets safer, how it will make our schools better, how it will improve health services.

    We have already made great progress doing this.

    Last year’s party conference was, I believe, our most successful for a decade. We unveiled 25 new policies that will begin to reverse the decline in our public services, and we have followed this with more announcements.

    Oliver Letwin has set out our commitment to recruit an extra 40,000 police – the largest increase in police numbers for a generation – and our pledge to provide intensive drug rehabilitation for every young hard drug addict.

    David Davis has set out our policy to allow thousands of more people to own their own homes.

    Damian Green has set out how we would give children stuck in failing schools the chance to go to better schools.

    Since then, we have unveiled new policies on health, crime and education.

    We have launched our policy to scrap tuition fees and oppose top-up fees.

    We have set out proposals to improve public health.

    We have begun our consultation on improving Britain’s transport.

    We have produced our own Green Paper on revitalising the voluntary sector. Up and down the country, each and every day, people from all walks of life take part in voluntary activities that knit together civil society. This is the front-line of compassionate Britain. A Government which neglects this well-spring of compassion will never tackle the problems facing Britain today. We will empower civil society in Britain to be an engine of social renewal.

    Labour think the answer to social problems is ever more state control. We disagree.

    Last week, Iain Duncan Smith and David Davis released a major critique of Labour’s culture of command and control, and promised that the next Conservative Government would cut through suffocating Whitehall bureaucracy and empower people on the front-line.

    Since the last party conference Iain has toured the length and breadth of Britain, telling people what a Conservative Government would do for them.

    We have been to some of our most deprived communities – the areas which have most reason to feel let down by Tony Blair.

    We’re not just going to these areas and telling them what we would do. Through organisations like Renewing One Nation, we are listening to them, to their problems, listening to the voice of people – people not obsessed with Westminster politics – to see what they want.

    And I think the fact that this conference is taking place is testimony to how much the Conservative Party is changing.

    Yesterday Iain Duncan Smith set out the Conservative Party’s approach to fighting poverty. Greg Clark has set out the policies that underpin the Fair Deal. Caroline Spelman has spoken of our approach to the developing world. Peter Franklin has spoken about drug rehabilitation. Jill Kirby has spoken about the role of the family. Oliver Letwin has spoken about helping young people off the conveyor belt to crime, and our mission to create genuine neighbourhood policing.

    Later we will hear from leading Conservative figures in local Government about how they are already tackling poverty and empowering communities where they live. We will hear about how Conservative principles, put into practice, can make a genuine difference.

    This afternoon we will hear from David Lidington about how Conservatives will resolve tensions between different communities in Britain – something we need now more than ever before. David Willetts will speak about a Conservative approach to welfare and poverty, and how we will free people from a culture of dependency.

    In a few weeks, we will meet for our annual conference, when even more policies will be set out about how we will take power out of the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, and give it back to the people.

    We won’t deal in slogans. We will set out our policies. People will know what we stand for. And then they will decide.

    This year’s local elections showed that people are already making that decision. Across Britain, people are deciding to come back to the Conservatives.

    On May 1st, we gained over 500 council seats and we are now the largest party in local government in Great Britain.

    People have realised that Labour have failed to make life better. Labour’s voters are abandoning them – not simply because Labour are addicted to spin, not simply because of the war on Iraq, but because they have broken their promise to make Britain better. As Iain said yesterday, there is no heart in Labour’s heartlands. Under Labour, people pay higher taxes, but live in a country of rising crime and declining public services. That is why people are turning to us to deliver a fair deal.

    As this conference has reminded us – there are conservative solutions to the problems Britain faces today.

    Conservative solutions that ensure no one is held back, and no one is left behind.

    But we cannot be complacent. Britain does face huge problems. Too many children leave our schools unable to read or write. Too many communities and town centres have been lost to drug dealers, vandals, and criminals. Too many people wait too long for vital hospital treatment.

    I believe compassionate conservatism offers the answer to these problems. Our party under the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith is providing these answers.

    We have to be disciplined. We have to stick to the course we have set.

    Our goal – as a party and as a country – must be to turn around the decline in our public services, and restore life to our communities.

    This is why we are Conservatives.

    We are Conservatives because we believe in One Nation. We believe that by Conservative principles we can address Labour’s failure.

    Renewing One Nation will be at the heart of our campaign.

    Our mission is simple. It is to make Britain better.

  • Oliver Letwin – 2003 Speech at the National Volunteering Convention

    Oliver Letwin – 2003 Speech at the National Volunteering Convention

    The speech made by Oliver Letwin to the National Volunteering Convention at the Britannia Hotel, Canary Wharf, London on 16 September 2003.

    In a speech given at Toynbee Hall last year, Iain Duncan Smith described Britain’s intractable social problems as “five giants” – an echo of William Beveridge’s famous words. Since Beveridge’s time the giants have changed, but they are still with us. After almost sixty years, our society still faces enormous challenges. The main difference is that public confidence in the ability of state to meet those challenges has evaporated. Which is not to deny an equal degree of scepticism in the universal applicability of market solutions.

    Failing schools, substandard healthcare, rising crime, child poverty and insecurity in old age: the persistence of the same old problems demands a new kind of politics. A politics distinct from that of the 1940s and from that of the 1980s. A politics that looks beyond the state and the market for new solutions. A politics that looks to the voluntary and community sector.

    Don’t we already have this new kind of politics? Hasn’t the voluntary and community sector been getting more attention than it has done for decades? Yes, but only up to a point. And that brings the voluntary and community sector to a potentially dangerous place.

    The threat is that the sector will be seen as a source of replacement parts for the worn-out components of an essentially unchanged public service framework. A framework governed by the same old politics. What is sold to the voluntary and community sector as partnership may turn out to be subservience. After decades of being locked out of the public services, the voluntary organisations may find themselves being locked in, co-opted as unofficial and under-resourced agencies of the state.

    And yet the opportunities of true partnership are enormous – both for the public services and for the voluntary and community sector. That much is obvious. What is not so obvious is how you can have the opportunity without the threat.

    The voluntary and community sector cannot complain that it is been ignored by Government and Opposition. Politicians on all sides are touting their solutions to the dilemmas facing the sector.

    Government initiatives include the Compact on relations between the public and voluntary and community sectors; the Treasury cross-cutting review; and the possibility of a Charity Law Bill in the next Queen’s speech. Incidentally, I will continue to press my opposite number to make room for such a Bill in the legislative timetable.

    On the Conservative side, in 2001 we were the first party to issue a civil society election manifesto; in 2002 our annual business breakfast was replaced with a charities breakfast at party conference; and this year we published Sixty Million Citizens a consultation paper containing sixteen proposals aimed at unlocking the full potential of Britain’s voluntary and community sector, whilst safeguarding its independence.

    In short, there is some pretty healthy competition for your hearts and minds. Of course, it would be far from healthy if the voluntary and community sector were turned into some kind of political football. Indeed, there is a great deal of cross-party consensus on these issues and we have welcomed a lot of what the present Government has done for the sector. Nevertheless, there are differences in each party’s approach to relationship between civil society and the state. You need to be aware of those differences, because I believe they will have a profound influence on the sector as it stands on the brink of enormous opportunity and real danger.

    These differences are rooted in each party’s fundamental values, which determine what each party values most about volunteering and the voluntary sector. Our Conservative values are set out in Sixty Million Citizens, where they are stated as five principles, which together can be remembered by the acronym VALID:

    The first principle is volunteerism: The uncompelled gift of time or money by volunteers and donors is virtually unique to the non-statutory, non-commercial third sector. Professionalism and professional staff are also important to the sector, as is income from contractual arrangements with other sectors. But we hope that these will always be used in a way complementary to volunteerism, not as a substitute for volunteering.

    The second principle is altruism: Though the unselfish desire to better the lot of others is by no means absent from either the public or private sectors, it is most apparent and important in the voluntary and community sector. Altruism and voluntarism are deeply interdependent. Altruism motivates volunteers and donors, who in turn influence voluntary organisations to serve the common good, rather than the enrichment or aggrandisement of those in control.

    The third principle is localism: If the private sector is fuelled by money and the public sector by power, then the life blood of the third sector is compassion. And while money and power can be centralised, compassion cannot be. Whether large or small, the best voluntary organisations retain a strong local character, rooted in the communities from which they draw support and to which they render service.

    The fourth principle is independence: A sector which is genuinely voluntary, altruistic and local is almost by definition independent. However these internal drivers of independence could be overwhelmed by external pressures from the much larger public and private sectors. As, for the very best of reasons, voluntary organisations deepen their involvement with the state and the marketplace, independence cannot not be assumed. Independence must become a cardinal value in its own right to be defended at all costs.

    The fifth principle is diversity: Proof of the independence of the sector is its ability to represent every need and cause, to encompass organisations of all sizes, and to include every shade of religious and secular motivating ethos. This clearly distinguishes the voluntary and community sector from its public and private counterparts, and also explains why it is able to find solutions to intractable social problems where neither the state nor the market can.

    Each of these principles describe what we think is good about volunteering and voluntary organisations – not what they are good for. Of course, the voluntary and community sector is good for all sorts of things. Not least the pivotal role it could play in the reform of the public services. Conservatives believe that we should empower the sector to play a much bigger role in fighting poverty, rebuilding community and improving delivery. But it must be stressed that, as far as we are concerned, this is an invitation not a command. Unlike Don Corleone, we are making you an offer you can refuse.

    In fact, it goes further than that. While we want to increase opportunities for partnership with the public sector and, like everyone else, ensure that such partnerships do not disadvantage those volunteers and voluntary organisations that choose to get involved; we also want to ensure that there should be no disadvantage to those volunteers and voluntary organisations that choose not to get involved.

    In short, we do not regard civil society as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. A healthy voluntary and community sector is one which flourishes both in partnership with the public sector and by itself.

    So far I have spoken of the voluntary and community sector generally. Now I’d like to turn to the specific issue of volunteering – which, of course, includes Britain’s longstanding and much valued tradition of volunteering within our public services, as well as volunteering within voluntary organisations.

    Conservatives strongly believe in the inherent value of all volunteering as a leading dimension of full citizenship. It should, therefore, be encouraged for its intrinsic value – as well as for its instrumental usefulness to both the public and voluntary sectors. We do not want to devalue the importance of an increasingly professional voluntary sector; nor the need for its employees to be properly paid and to enjoy full pension provision. Nevertheless, increased rates of volunteering are essential if we are to build a culture of active citizenship and if we are to expand the sector’s capacity to reach vulnerable people. Many people struggling with addiction, loneliness or low self-esteem desperately need the reliable care of another human being and that cannot be provided by overloaded caseworkers. Conservatives want to encourage the voluntary and public sectors to greater consideration of what volunteers might bring to their work.

    That’s our vision for volunteering, but is it achievable? In particular, can we really hope to see an expansion in the number of volunteers at a time when many voluntary organisations, especially those involved in partnerships with the public sector, are taking on more paid staff?

    The experience of other nations is instructive. According to research carried out by the Comparative Non-Profit Sector Project, the world’s volunteering superstars are the Swedes. And yet in terms of paid employment, Sweden has one of the least developed voluntary sectors in the western world. It is also the case that Swedish state dominates public service provision, with next to no role for the voluntary sector. From the Swedish experience we might conclude that a professional voluntary sector and partnership with the public sector is incompatible with a flourishing culture of volunteering. However, if one then looks at Holland, which comes second only to Sweden in volunteering levels, one would have to come to exactly the opposite conclusions. Not only does Holland have the highest level of paid non-statutory, non-commercial employment in the world, it also has public services in which voluntary organisations play an extensive role.

    Britain is more like Holland in that it has high levels of both paid and unpaid third sector employment, though not quite as high. And it is more like Sweden, in that the voluntary sector has a limited role in the public sector, though not quite as limited. If Britain were to move to Dutch levels of voluntary sector participation in the public services, paid voluntary sector employment would be sure to be boosted accordingly – but what would happen to volunteering?

    As I said earlier, the work of volunteers is one of the good reasons why the voluntary sector should play a bigger role in the provision of public services. However, it also provides a very bad reason. Volunteers are unpaid and therefore the danger is that partnership with the voluntary sector could be seen as a way of providing public services on the cheap. I don’t have to tell you how damaging this would be to all concerned. Indeed, nothing could be more guaranteed to kill the culture of volunteering in this country than its exploitation by an unscrupulous government.

    However, there is an equal danger that partnership between the two sectors will proceed without significant involvement from volunteers. This is just what has happened in the former East Germany following reunification with the west, where public service reforms boosted levels of paid voluntary sector employment, but left volunteering not much stronger than it was in the Communist era.

    Not only would this deprive our public services of the contribution that volunteering can make. It would also compromise the whole approach to the third sector. Volunteers keep voluntary organisations focused on their grassroots, an invaluable anchor in all circumstances, but especially in situations of partnership with the state – where the temptation can be to fix on centres of political and bureaucratic power. This temptation is understandable when projects depend on the continuing good will of the powers that be, but a voluntary sector that loses touch with its grassroots is well on the way to losing its independence too.

    I would like to offer two solutions. One general and one specific.

    Our general solution is the decentralisation of the public services. By returning power to the frontline providers and users of our public services, we will radically reduce the power of politicians and bureaucrats to pull the strings – whether from the town hall or from Whitehall. This isn’t so much a single policy, but an entire platform on which we will base our appeal to the nation at the next election. Indeed, it is more than a platform, it is our purpose as a Party.

    Obviously, our decentralisation platform is not aimed at the voluntary sector alone, but it would be of enormous benefit to the voluntary organisations. By giving users a greater choice of service providers, and making sure that funding followed those choices, we would multiply the opportunities for voluntary sector involvement. And by making service providers primarily accountable to local users, rather than to political and bureaucratic hierarchies, we would enable voluntary organisations to maintain their independence.

    Our specific solution is to make sure that some of these bottom-up funding streams are devoted to the expansion and development of volunteering. Our green paper, Sixty Million Citizens, includes an outline proposal for the creation of what we call a “volunteer bounty”. That is, a simple and straightforward per capita payment for each volunteer signed up to an accredited training programme. We would very much welcome your continued feedback on this proposal, but we believe that it would be a much better way of distributing public funds than the current top-down bureaucracy – whose flaws have been amply demonstrated by the Experience Corps debacle.

    In the words of Iain Duncan Smith: “The alternative to a bigger state is not… a lonely individualism. The centralised state and Darwinian individualism are, in fact, natural accomplices in the undermining of society. Both cut people loose from the institutions that provide identity and personal security. The real alternative to a bigger state is a stronger society. Chris Patten once talked of a smaller state and bigger citizens. Government should be focused on strengthening the natural institutions of society – and not replacing or undermining them.”

    Likewise, Government should be focused on strengthening volunteering – and not replacing or undermining volunteers.

  • David Lidington – 2003 Speech on a Fair Deal for the Dairy Industry

    David Lidington – 2003 Speech on a Fair Deal for the Dairy Industry

    The speech made by David Lidington, the then Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 17 September 2003.

    The Dairy Industry is going through a period of drastic and painful change.

    The rules of the market place are changing in three significant ways. First, we are seeing the gradual opening up of world trade and the dismantling of production subsidies.

    Despite the failure of the WTO talks in Cancun, the world looks almost certain to continue moving, albeit hesitantly and erratically, towards the further liberalisation of international markets.

    The enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 members will lead to an increase of about one fifth in total EU milk production and more vigorous competition for British producers in some of our traditional export markets.

    Together, enlargement and the push towards global free trade are bringing change to the Common Agricultural Policy. The need to limit the overall CAP budget and the growing political pressure from churches and charities to help developing countries will, in my view, lead to export subsidies being reduced or phased out all together.

    Second, the structure of the food industry is changing. Retailing is already dominated by a handful of big players and I hope that the sale of Safeway does not lead to a further reduction in the number of national supermarket chains. Meanwhile, both catering and food processing are following the pattern already set by the retail industry. Both sectors are consolidating, giving us a market with fewer big players and fewer food factories.

    Third, customers’ demands and shopping habits are changing. I welcome the rise of farmers’ markets and internet sales of food but the figure that leaps out of the Curry Report is that more than 95 per cent of us do our main shopping at a supermarket. Customers value the convenience, price and variety that the big retailers offer and I see little prospect of that changing.

    More people live on their own, in most couples both partners work. Fewer people are willing to make time to prepare fresh food. The demand for ready-to-eat meals is rising.

    If we look at dairying, figures from the Institute of Grocery Distribution show that demand for traditional dairy products – full fat milk and cheddar cheese – is static or declining. The growth in demand is for value added products, for skimmed milk, yoghurt and fromage frais.

    There is a market for speciality products – I want to be the first in the queue for cheese like Llanboidy or Stinking Bishop. And there is a demand for novelty foods. When I read about the prospect of Tandoori flavoured cheddar, I want to run a mile. But it does actually offer the possibility of a new market for British dairy producers.

    What should politicians do to help dairy farmers to meet these various challenges?

    I want to see British farmers make profits. The job of government should be to help make it possible for them to do so.

    That doesn’t mean that politicians should be taking business decisions. Governments have a dire record of picking winners in business. Not even the brightest and best in Whitehall or Brussels is likely to be able to tell you which cheese or ice cream is about to become the customers favourite. Farmers, not civil servants, let alone politicians, have the enterprise and ingenuity to produce the food that customers will want to buy. That is why I believe that the future lies in a world where farmers are free to respond to the signals from their customers rather than those from government. The duty of government is to help create the economic conditions in which farm businesses can prosper.

    I believe that government should be fighting to get a fair deal for British agriculture in the EU and the WTO, that we should make changes to the home market to give domestic producers a better chance and that we should be helping farmers to cut their costs by a different approach to regulation and determined action against disease.

    We are meeting just a couple of days after the collapse of the Cancun negotiations and before the Trade Secretary has made any statement to Parliament about the reasons for that failure. So it is difficult to speak with any certainty about what is likely to happen next, though I can truthfully claim to have expressed doubts ever since the Luxembourg Agreement that the partial and incomplete decoupling regime agreed then by the EU would be sufficient to secure progress at the WTO.

    There are two things in particular that I regard as important in further WTO talks. The first is that the burden of making concessions to help the poorest countries in the world should be shared fairly amongst all the developed nations. For once, American rhetoric about free trade needs to be matched by American practice. Second, we have to find a way in which to write animal welfare into the rules governing international trade so that our producers do not suffer on account of the welfare standards that we as a society impose upon them.

    When it comes to the Mid Term Review, I support the principle that the link between farm support and production should be broken. But I am worried that the concessions made to France and others in terms of both the timing and the scale of decoupling may lead to market distortions and the fact that “degressivity” has now been renamed “financial discipline” cannot conceal the fact that British farmers are going to be expected to pay a disproportionately large share of the costs of CAP reform.

    However, the priority now must be for the Government to announce clear decisions on how it plans to implement what was agreed at Luxembourg. Whatever its flaws, that is the deal to which the Government has signed up and it is vital that farmers are told how they will stand under the new support arrangements.

    If decoupling is to come in as early as 2005, farmers need to take decisions by the end of this year in order to plan their businesses. Uncertainty over the precise implications of the Mid Term Review is causing turbulence in the quota market (already in some turmoil following the Thomsen case) and in the market for land. People need to know what the new rules mean for them.

    The Government also needs to come clean about cost compliance. One of the big attractions of decoupling is that it will sweep away a lot of form filling and red tape. That will be of little account if we simply substitute a host of new rules in the name of the environment. Nor is it clear how the standards required of farmers under cross compliance will relate to those that will have to be met to get into the “broad and shallow” environmental payments scheme.

    One further point about Europe – with the end of OTMS, it is vital that DEFRA makes it a priority to campaign for the lifting of the date based export scheme to ease the pressure on the home market. I was dismayed to read that Health Ministers are stalling over whether to implement the recommendation from the Food Standards Agency that to allow Over 30 Month beef back into the food chain. That kind of hesitation will only give ammunition to those on the Continent who want to maintain export restrictions.

    When it comes to the domestic market, I know that the chief concern amongst dairy farmers is that the farm gate price of milk often does not even cover the cost of production, let alone give you a decent return.

    Those worries have undoubtedly been made worse by the collapse of United Milk. I think that it is in everyone’s interest that the receivers are able to sell United Milk as a going concern and I hope that the business remains in the hands of farmers themselves. A takeover by one of the other cooperatives would of course raise issues of market share and it is vital that the OFT recognises the need of the industry and does not block a merger on competition grounds. The last thing that we need is a “Son of Milk Marque” judgement.

    We will need to look at the implications of last week’s ruling from the ECJ but I am already persuaded that we need to overhaul the competition rules as they affect farmers’ cooperatives. If British farmers want to follow the path of the profitable cooperatives that we see in New Zealand or on the continent, they should be free to do so. If politicians tell farmers that we expect you to compete in a European and global market place, then our competition rules should be framed to take account of that fact rather than looking solely at domestic market share.

    We also need stricter rules on labelling. A British shopper should be able to tell instantly whether the food she is buying came from British producers or not. I acknowledge that there are practical issues to be worked out over processed foods that contain ingredients from a number of different countries. But the current situation, where food can be grown abroad, processed here and still labelled as “UK” is unfair to our farmers and amounts to fraud on consumers.

    At a time when dairying is going through a traumatic recession, government should be making every conceivable effort to reduce the costs that it imposes on farmers. Too often that is not the case. Regulations are agreed and imposed without adequate thought being given to the practical, including the financial, implications. We all know the examples: nitrate vulnerable zones, fallen stock, not to mention the sheer incompetence of the Rural Payments Agency. Even after the Government had conceded the principle of a ban on the burial of fallen stock, it could have used exemptions and derogations to allow time for an alternative system of disposal to be put in place. Ministers agreed to delay the implementation of the Animal By-products Regulation for waste food from retailers. It should have done the same. Other countries were more ingenious. The Spaniards even secured a derogation to allow carcasses to be left on the hills as a conservation measure to preserve vultures!

    We could all draw up our list of regulations that we would like to see repealed or amended. But more important still I believe is to bring about a change in the whole culture of regulation in this country. We need much earlier consultation with industry, much more effective scrutiny by Parliament (especially of secondary legislation), an end to the gold plating of Brussels’ Directives. We need sunset clauses embodied in new rules so that they lapse automatically after a given period unless renewed. That way, we give everyone the chance to assess how the rules have worked out in practice and to make changes.

    We need to end the duplication of forms and inspections that waste hours of time that would be better used running your business and winning customers. Government should adopt a risk-based approach to regulation. It is not necessary to monitor and inspect every enterprise every single year. Different agencies should make use of the same body of information and not insist on sending out their own special list of questions and tick boxes. A single set of data for each farm business, filed on line, could surely be interrogated by the different regulatory bodies and remove the need for much of the paperwork.

    The other issue raised with me at every meeting I have had with dairy farmers has been Bovine Tuberculosis. This is now developing into as great a threat as Foot and Mouth Disease. The latest figures show that 4,200 herds were under restriction during the first half of this year. More than 15,000 beasts have been slaughtered. In 2002 the cost of TB to taxpayers was between 80 and 90 million pounds and while that figure included compensation payments it did not cover the costs borne by farmers through the disruption of their businesses. This year, those costs will be much higher.

    There are still more than 3,000 herd tests overdue. It must be a top priority to eliminate that backlog altogether and to ensure that reactors are quickly removed from the farm.

    Restocking after Foot and Mouth was almost certainly responsible for bringing Bovine TB into Cumbria. I think we will need firm rules on testing both before and after movement to avoid such a thing happening again.

    We have to revisit the issue of culling. Yes, the way in which disease is transmitted between wildlife and cattle is complex and still not wholly understood. But the Irish evidence is clear. Culling, in combination with other disease control measures, can bring about a big reduction in the incidence of TB. There are now disturbing reports that TB is found, not just in the badger population, but amongst deer on Exmoor and in the New Forest.

    On both economic and animal welfare grounds, this situation should not be allowed to continue. Where there is clear scientific evidence that local wildlife has become infected with TB, the government should be prepared to authorise culling of the diseased populations.

    The long term answer has to come through developing effective vaccines. This needs to move to the top of DEFRA’s research agenda and when the Irish Government is carrying out field trials on a BCG vaccine for wildlife we should be saying to Dublin that we would like to take part in that experiment.

    The Dairy Industry is going through a time of great difficulty and challenge. No politician could come to this event and say truthfully that he, or for that matter any government of any political colour, had all the answers. But I believe there are initiatives that Ministers could and should take to show dairy farmers that their government is on their side and will fight to get them a fair deal in a rapidly changing world.