UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Liam Fox – 2011 Speech on Protecting National Security in the 21st Century

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, on Thursday 19th March 2011 at Chatham House.

    INTRODUCTION

    The true test of Government is to act not for party political advantage, but to act in the national interest.

    The Coalition Government inherited a level of debt and economic mismanagement that represents a national economic emergency.

    To deal with it we have had to take difficult and potentially unpopular measures.

    But they are essential if we are to put Britain back on track in the long-term.

    This is as important for national security as it is for national prosperity.

    This requires not only dealing with the here and now, but charting a course 10, 15, 20 years ahead – acting to position the country for the safety and prosperity of future generations.

    ACTING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

    So in no area is this more important than in Defence and Security.

    Our Armed Forces remain at a high and sustained operational tempo.

    The requirement to fight, and win, the wars of today is not optional but necessary to protect national security and meet the national interest.

    And when our Armed Forces are committed, they deserve and the country expects that they get the support they need to do the job we ask of them.

    That is why current operations in Afghanistan and in Libya remain the priority for the Ministry of Defence and the men and women of our Armed Forces fighting on the front-line get first call on MOD resources.

    But the requirement for strategic thinking, for strategic planning and preparation – the requirement to play the long-game – is equally necessary.

    Why?

    First – because conflict and threats to national security do not fit neatly into electoral cycles.

    The hunt for Osama bin Laden and the campaign against al-Qaeda’s brand of violent extremism has been taken forward under three American Presidents and three British Prime Ministers of different political persuasions.

    For the long watch of the Cold War – it took 10 different US Presidents and 9 different British Prime Ministers.

    Second – the character of conflict evolves and new threats arise, but the complex military equipment required to meet these challenges can take a decade or more to design and build.

    So we must constantly scan the horizon and prepare for the world as it will be, not as we hope it will be.

    In Defence, contingency planning is central to ensuring that we are prepared for what may come – even if we can’t predict exactly when and where threats may emerge.

    This drives a continuing requirement for Armed Forces that are agile, adaptable and of the highest quality.

    Third – building and sustaining the power, influence and prosperity of a country in the long flow of history – particularly in our age of rapid change and unpredictability – requires action now to ensure the country can succeed in the future.

    Energy security is one example.

    Climate change would be another.

    So today I want to set out what we have achieved in Defence over the last year to set in place a long-term strategy for the safety, security and prosperity of our citizens.

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review has ensured that we will remain in the premier league of military powers.

    It is not an agenda for retrenchment; it’s an ambitious agenda for transformation over time.

    It is not an agenda for the next general election; it’s an agenda for the next generation.

    This long-term vision for Britain’s Defence depends upon a sound economic base that enables sustainable military power to be built – together economic power and military power are the foundation of global influence.

    A proper strategy for the long-term health of our country must balance ends and ways with the means available.

    That is why tackling the crisis in the public finances is not just an issue of economics but an issue of national security too.

    It is central to sustaining in the long-term Britain’s reach, military power and influence.

    THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

    Let us not forget our own history.

    The contraction of European influence in the 20th century was driven as much by the economic exhaustion of European nations over two World Wars as it was by political enlightenment in support of decolonisation.

    As a result of the First World War in the 1920s and 30s, Britain’s national debt was regularly over 150% of GDP.

    After World War Two, it peaked at around 250% of GDP.

    As examples of the effect, economic considerations underpinned both the British withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, and the abandonment of the Suez campaign in 1956.

    It wasn’t until the 1970s that the debt position recovered to under 50% of GDP – a quarter of a century after the end of the War.

    Britain’s so-called ‘East of Suez’ moment in 1967 when the Wilson Government announced a major withdrawal of UK forces from South East Asia, was a response to the decline in the country’s relative economic strength.

    Equally, the Cold War was won because the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of an economic system that could not sustain the myth of communism’s superiority – nor sustain the military forces required to hold it together.

    During the early 1980s for instance, the Soviet Union was spending around 20% of GDP on Defence – roughly four times the level of the US and wholly unsustainable in the long-term.

    The lessons of history are clear.

    Relative economic power is the wellspring of strategic strength.

    And conversely, economic weakness debilitates every arm of government.

    Structural economic weakness, if not dealt with, will bring an unavoidable reduction in our ability to shape the world.

    ECONOMIC WEAKNESS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY LIABILITY

    Let’s relate these lessons to our situation today.

    Speaking at Chatham House last week, Niall Ferguson said:

    “fiscal and monetary stimulus, no matter how much it may take and how many times you read aloud the collected works of John Maynard Keynes, sooner or later brings a hangover.”

    It has fallen to this Coalition Government to nurse Britain through the hangover of the decade of financial mismanagement that put us where we are today.

    When, as Chancellor, Gordon Brown abandoned sticking to the previous Conservative Government’s strict spending policies, Britain’s national debt began an inexorable rise.

    Despite the benign economic environment of most of the last decade, from 2002-2007 under Labour, UK national debt as a percentage of GDP increased not decreased – from around 31% to around 37%.

    On the back of the financial crisis it has ballooned to around 60% of GDP.

    The Coalition Government inherited from Labour a record peacetime annual deficit equal of over 11% of GDP – in 2009/10 alone that meant a spend of over £150bn more than the Government brought in in income.

    Until the structural deficit is eliminated, Britain’s national debt will only continue to grow.

    Even with the Coalition’s aggressive action, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts public sector net debt to peak at over 70% of GDP in 2014/15.

    It currently stands at over £900bn – equivalent to almost a quarter of a century of spending on Defence at the level of this year’s budget.

    By 2015 it is likely to reach well over 1.3 trillion pounds.

    The interest, just the interest, paid out last year alone was £43bn – greater than the annual budgets of the MoD, FCO and DfID combined.

    £43bn pounds a year of taxpayers’ money that could pay for a tax cut to each taxpayer of almost £1,500 a year.

    Or it could pay for a million teachers or over a million nurses.

    In Defence – a dozen Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carriers or 33 Astute Class submarines.

    And the bad news is, next year the interest payments will be £50bn.

    This is all while we are tackling the deficit and before we even begin reducing the national debt.

    So let me boil down this barrage of statistics to my central point.

    The Chancellor doesn’t just sit on the National Security Council to tell us how much everything costs, he does so because this Government recognises what the last did not – that our national security is linked to the health of our economy.

    Creating military power on the back of borrowing at times of extreme or existential threat, such as during the World War Two, is understandable and reasonable.

    But if you continue to do so as a matter of routine, as Labour did over the last decade, you set off a ticking fiscal time bomb that if not defused will inevitably result in strategic shrinkage.

    I didn’t come into politics to cut the defence budget, but neither did I come into politics to be fiscally irresponsible – because the consequences of that are written deep in the historical record.

    To be a hawk on defence, you need to be a hawk on the deficit and the national debt too.

    THE DEFENCE DEFICIT

    Defence spending represents the fourth largest chunk of public expenditure, so the MoD must play its part in addressing the current economic challenges.

    In the MOD we face a particularly tough job.

    The Defence budget was perhaps the worst inheritance of all – before the SDSR the forward defence programme was overextended to the tune of £38bn over the next decade.

    That was spending on all the equipment, programmes and all other variables previously planned over and above a budget rising at the rate of inflation.

    Everyone knew the Defence Budget was running hot and that addressing this would have been required regardless of fiscal tightening.

    This is one of the reasons why, in relation to the vast majority of government departments, the MOD is contributing less to deficit reduction.

    And this is also why the transformation of Defence will have to take place over a longer-term period too.

    This cannot be done overnight – with sunk costs, kit in build, contractual liabilities and other inherited committed spend, room for manoeuvre in the short-term is limited.

    So it’s a process charting a course for the recovery of Defence capability and the sustainability of its funding.

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review has set the right direction – and I will return to this and Future Force 2020 in a moment – but staying the course will require sustaining the strict cost-control regime I have put in place at the MOD.

    This will inevitably require that tough decisions are taken on a regular basis to keep the budget on track.

    Following the SDSR we made it clear that there would be a series of complicated second order consequences including the basing and reserves reviews, as well as the emerging work from the Defence Reform Unit.

    Having completed the current planning round, we have started the next Planning Round to take forward the work needed to balance defence priorities and the budget over the long-term.

    The Department has recently initiated a three month exercise as part of that work to ensure we match our assumptions with our spending settlement.

    This allows us to draw all this work together to inform the next planning round and to avoid the mistakes of the previous government in building up to an unsustainable Defence programme

    We have made it clear that while the SDSR had made substantial inroads into the £38bn funding deficit, there is still more to be done.

    Given the mess we inherited putting Defence on a sure footing, with a predictable budget, was always going to take time, but we believe it is better to be thorough than quick

    The Prime Minister has set out his personal view, with which I strongly agree, that achieving our vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces will require year-on-year real growth in the Defence Budget after 2015.

    As we approach the next General Election, and as we prepare for the next Defence Review in 2015, a commitment to meet Future Force 2020 will be a key signifier for those political parties dedicated to the vision of a Britain active on the world stage and protected at home.

    BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE

    As the National Security Strategy clearly sets out – our national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs

    Our trade and economic relationships are global.

    A threat that appears in one part of the world can swiftly be felt at home.

    In order to protect our interests at home, we must project our influence abroad.

    Coming together as they did, the National Security Strategy, the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review, set us on a course to maintain our strategic reach, renew military capability on a sustainable basis, and address the structural weakness of the economy.

    In the MOD it was not only a budgetary deficit that we inherited.

    It was also a capability deficit.

    We had failed properly to adapt to meet future challenges.

    We had scores of tanks on the German plains, but insufficient cyber capability.

    We were committed to an expeditionary policy, but increasingly dependent on ageing strategic airlift.

    So we have embarked on a long-term programme of renewal and revitalisation in Defence that maintains our strategic reach.

    In doing so we have rejected alternative postures quite strongly advocated by some.

    One was that we should invest in what you might call ‘Fortress Britain’, withdrawing back closer to home and investing in the appropriate assets in that direction.

    Under such a posture there would be no requirement for expeditionary capabilities on our current scale, for example.

    There were others who said to go exactly the other way, and that we should have a highly committed posture and just assume that the conflicts of the future would be like the one we currently face in Afghanistan.

    Under such a posture there would be no requirement for widespread maritime capabilities, for example.

    Something that is difficult is to quantify but undoubtedly real is Britain’s invisible export of security and stability carried out by our Armed Forces, including the Royal Navy.

    Clearing mines in the Arabian Gulf, anti-piracy actions in the Gulf of Aden, protecting our own sea lanes – all contribute to international stability and the free movement of goods upon which our prosperity relies.

    So neither a fortress nor a committed posture would have met the requirement in the National Security Strategy for continued engagement in a world where threats are evolving and unpredictable.

    The adaptable posture we have embraced gives us the best capability to respond with agility to changing threats in an uncertain world.

    This means keeping our forces ready to react swiftly to those things we cannot easily predict.

    It means upgrading strategic lift capability.

    It means investment in Special Forces.

    It means being efficient, cutting down on duplication and numbers of equipment types to shorten the tail.

    And it means investing in areas of capability that suit the future character of warfare – such as cyber, intelligence and unmanned technology.

    It also means investing in activities, such as conflict prevention and aid, that prevent the development of threats ‘upstream’, before they require a more demanding military response.

    But in doing so we are not ignoring conventional military power required for flexible, multi-rolled, deployable forces.

    By 2020, The RAF will be built around hi-tech multi-role combat aircraft Typhoon and the Joint Strike Fighter, surveillance and intelligence platforms such as Airseeker, and a new fleet of strategic and tactical transport aircraft including A400M and Voyager.

    The Royal Navy will have new aircraft carriers with the JSF carrier-variant, a high readiness amphibious capability, a new fleet of Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines – and ready at that point to accept the new Global Combat Ship.

    The Army, based on Multi-Role Brigades, will be powerful, flexible, fully equipped for the land environment and able to operate across the spectrum of conflict.

    We will remain one of the few countries who can deploy and sustain a brigade sized force plus its air and maritime enablers, capable of both intervention and stabilisation operations almost anywhere in the world.

    And we will remain a nuclear power, maintaining a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

    I am absolutely clear, as I said in the House of Commons yesterday, that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at sea deterrence is right for the UK.

    We still have the fourth largest defence budget in the world and will continue to meet the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on Defence over the spending review period.

    CONCLUSION

    Of course, pursuing the necessary long-term strategy set out in the SDSR is not the only mark of renewal in Defence over the last year.

    For years successive Defence Secretaries have failed, often through no fault of their own, to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation

    The drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability, from ministers down, must be tackled if we are to avoid history repeating itself.

    That is why the work of Lord Levene and his Defence Reform Unit to reform the operating model of Defence is so important along side the work of the Chief of Defence Materiel, Bernard Gray, to set the forward equipment programme on a sustainable basis.

    We are also acting to redraw and rejuvenate the relationship with industry to ensure the tax payer gets the best deal from the investment in Defence.

    These are all measures in support of the long-term transformation of Defence and the vision set out in the SDSR.

    Labour’s Defence Green Paper published just months before the election admitted with what I have to say is spectacular understatement that:

    “the forward defence programme faces challenging financial pressures”

    It said in particular that the MOD:

    “cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need. We will need to make tough decisions”.

    Well, we have made those tough decisions, and I stand by them.

    I believe in setting your strategic direction and sticking to your plan unless the facts change.

    Since we completed the SDSR, the financial position of the country has not changed nor substantially have the nature of the threats we face.

    Let us be honest about this.

    Those who are arguing for a fundamental reassessment of the SDSR are really arguing for increased defence spending.

    But they fail to spell out the inevitable result – more borrowing, more tax rises, or more cuts elsewhere.

    The bottom line is that a strong economy is a national security requirement and an affordable Defence programme is the only responsible way to support our Armed Forces in the long term.

    There are no easy answers.

    There are no silver bullets.

    There are only tough decisions, hard work and perseverance.

    To pretend otherwise is to fail in our duty to our country and its people.

  • Liam Fox – 2003 Speech to Conservative Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox to the 2003 Conservative Spring Conference on 16th March 2003.

    Our proposals need to be seen against the backdrop of one simple, stark and shocking fact. The British people do not enjoy the standard of healthcare we deserve.

    During our extensive and detailed analysis of healthcare provision in more than a dozen countries over the last two years, we have seen systems which share our ideals, but which offer a considerably higher standard of care and much better clinical outcomes than the NHS.

    Unless there is fundamental and radical reform, the NHS will never produce the quality of care we have a right to expect in the World’s fourth largest economy.

    That reform must occur on three broad fronts:

    – taking politicians out of running the NHS;

    – giving real freedom to health professionals; and

    – ensuring patients have real choice in health.

    Only the Conservatives will be able to undertake that reform. The result will be an NHS which offers high quality care, free at the point of use and irrespective of the ability to pay.

    There is a clear ideological difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party over where power should lie in the NHS. Labour believes that the best way to achieve a quality agenda is for Ministers to determine clinical priorities and to try to enforce them through a rigid target culture.

    Conservatives believe that politicians should be taken out of the running of the NHS, that clinical staff should be given more power and that only by giving patients greater freedom about where and when they are treated can the NHS produce quality care better tailored to the needs of individuals.

    We believe that the NHS is there to service the patients not vice versa.

    We will give new freedoms to patients, empowering them to take more control over the health care they receive. We also intend to develop new capacity by encouraging more spending on health on top of that already spent in the NHS.

    The principle will be that we will want to see total spending on health increase, but we will want to see the proportion of that spending that comes from other sources increase at a greater rate than that coming from the state.

    In today’s NHS choice is highly restricted. Freedom of choice cannot be limited just to those who opt to pay for extra care on top of what they contribute to the NHS. Choice must be available for all patients whether they receive their health care from the NHS or from another provider. Unlike Labour, we do not believe that this choice should only become available after the system has already failed you.

    There needs to be a profound improvement in the overall quality of healthcare available.

    This can be brought about only by increasing the volume of treatment carried out, and raising the standard of such treatment.

    Increasing the volume of treatment carried out can be achieved only by either increasing the output of existing suppliers or introducing new suppliers. Under Labour, despite vast increases in expenditure on the NHS, the total output of the system has barely increased. All the indications are that further huge increases would not be matched by increases in output, since Labour refuse to introduce the radical reforms needed to encourage diversity and innovation. In order to create new capacity and to encourage diversity, it will be necessary to persuade new, non-NHS suppliers of healthcare to invest.

    At present, the state holds a near-monopoly on the supply of healthcare. The most recent available data on health expenditure in the UK shows that it comprises 85% from the NHS, 4% from Private Medical Insurance (PMI) and 11% from a variety of self-pay sources.

    Over recent years, whereas there has been minimal growth in PMI, the number of people opting for self-pay has increased by an average of over 20% per annum.

    In order to increase the quality and quantity of healthcare undertaken, we will need to take a number of steps:

    – Create an environment in which the private and voluntary sectors believe it is worth their while to invest, in order to generate extra capacity.

    – Reform the NHS, removing political interference and giving clinical freedom back to professionals

    – Funding the NHS on the basis of real activity not block contracts

    – Allow patients the option of moving between any NHS provider based on a national tariff system which would define set costs for specific procedures

    – Allow NHS patients to take some or all of the NHS tariff with them if they decide to have treatment outside the NHS.

    The most effective way of stimulating the creation of new, non-NHS capacity is to make it more attractive for individuals to supplement what is already being spent by the state through the NHS. This will allow total expenditure to rise in a pattern more like that in neighbouring European countries where the amount of money spent on health by private citizens is higher than in the UK.

    There are three main candidates which might be incentivised:

    – Personal private medical insurance (PMI)

    – PMI available through company schemes

    – The pay-as-you- go market where patients pay for a single procedure or item of care.

    Other countries use a combination of cash rebates, tax incentives and reductions of the cost at source with the state reimbursing providers.

    PMI offers a chance to insure against unforeseen circumstances in a way that self-pay cannot do. Experience in Australia with the use of financial incentives has resulted in a large increase in those carrying PMI.

    Company PMI schemes have the attraction of greater risk sharing, and thus better value for money and a wider income distribution than personal products provide.

    The self-pay market accounted for 250,000 procedures last year; if these patients did not opt to offload themselves in this way the NHS would be unable to cope with the extra demand. It is vital that this number is maintained or increased. It will therefore be necessary to produce a carefully balanced system of incentives to prevent the NHS (with its tiny increases in recent capacity) from becoming swamped.

    We want that choice to be extended to as many as possible.

    We will introduce a Patients Passport which will enable patients to move around a number of providers, NHS, not-for-profit, voluntary or independent. This freedom is essential if we are to see greater plurality and diversity in both the funding and provision of healthcare that we seek. We intend to move away from the state monopoly with its increasing centralising targets and standardization of supply.

    The changes to the organization of care set out in “Setting the NHS free” will enable us to move towards an NHS where the patient as a consumer is sovereign for the first time.

    Knowing the cost of all NHS procedures and treatments and funding providers on the basis of activity will enable us to radically change the balance of power in the direction of the patient.

    Our Patients Passport would enable patients to move around the NHS and to take the standard tariff funding with them. This would set them free from dependence on block contracts agreed between PCTs and agreed providers. The NHS is there to service the patients not to control the patients.

    It would seem sensible that the point of entry to this passport system should be the GP who is best able to determine the type of referral and the level of clinical urgency. GPs could act as independent professional advocates for patients advising them on factors such as waiting times, outcomes and different options on locality. This counters the argument that patients would be unable to make decisions about their own treatment- a view that is both patronizing and outdated.

    We will extend the “Patient’s Passport” system to those services beyond current NHS hospitals – in the voluntary, the not–for-profit and private sectors.

    This will yield two important benefits. It will become a realistic option for a much larger proportion of the population to have access to a very much wider range of healthcare providers than is now the case. Further, those who choose to have their health care provided within the NHS will reap the benefit of shorter queues if more patients choose to access care elsewhere. Patients will, of course, be able to stay entirely in the NHS if they choose.

    The proportion of the standard tariff funding that patients can take beyond current NHS hospitals will need to take account of several factors: the total cost to the public purse, the level of available capacity from other providers, the predicted effect on NHS demand, the effect on the current private insurance market and the need to promote greater diversity in provision.

    We will produce a level relevant and suited to the UK and the varied, pluralist and consumer responsive health service that the Conservative Party would like to see.

    Only by raising our sights can we achieve the level of care that the people of this country deserve.

  • Liam Fox – 1992 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Liam Fox in the House of Commons on 12th May 1992.

    It is with no little pride and a great sense of honour that I speak for the first time in the House. I must immediately make known the debt that I feel to my constituents for sending me here. I hope that the faith that they have shown in me will not be misplaced over the years.

    My constituency is Woodspring. Like many hon. Members, I have received several hundred letters since the election saying, “Congratulations on a wonderful Conservative result—by the way, where is Woodspring?” Those who have been in the House before will not be surprised to learn that the reason they have not heard the name of the constituency more often is that it was represented by Sir Paul Dean, who spent a record length of time as a Deputy Speaker. He gave record service both to the House and to the country. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House join me in wishing him a happy retirement. After the length of time that he spent as Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he more than deserves it.

    One of the questions that is of immense pertinence to Woodspring is its location. After the reorganisation of local government in 1974 the people of Woodspring, who had always belonged to north Somerset, found themselves in the much loathed county of Avon. The quicker Avon is abolished, the better—and the quicker my constituents are returned to Somerset, which is where they belong, the happier they will be. Any Minister who can push that through quickly will be assured of a warm welcome when coming to speak in Woodspring.

    Woodspring extends from Portishead, south of Bristol in the north-west of the constituency, through Clevedon, Nailsea, the Chew valley and down to Paulton, a town which has particular difficulties in the wake of the Robert Maxwell affair. Like many of my hon. Friends, I shall he trying my best to get a fair deal for those who have suffered from the scandalous behaviour of Robert Maxwell and what he has done to those poor people.

    There are several other problems in the constituency, courtesy of Avon county, not least of which is shared by many of my hon. Friends, and that is the problem of traveller sites. We require urgent reform of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It is becoming scandalous that law-abiding citizens who work hard to improve their community and their homes and surroundings should be discriminated against by a piece of legislation which gives priority to those who have no semblance of regard for local community and no community spirit, and who contribute nothing. I urge the Government to undertake a far-reaching and rapid reform of that legislation.

    It is with some sadness that I speak in this debate. I am one of the many doctors who qualified under the Conservative Government and their far-reaching reforms of the health service. I was disappointed—indeed, disturbed—to find that the Opposition, who a few weeks ago told us that health was the single most important issue facing the electorate and that the election was a referendum on the NHS, chose not to debate the subject in the six days of debate on the Loyal Address. Why has it slipped so far down the Opposition’s agenda? Could it be that they were rumbled during the election and were shown to be posturing in the extreme, with no solid policies to oppose the reforms that the Government have made? That is the case.

    Conservatives do not need any lessons from our opponents about caring. We heard the word “caring” used today during health questions as though it were the exclusive preserve of the Labour party. As a junior doctor and a medical student during the health workers’ strike, organised by caring NUPE and COHSE and supported by the caring Labour party, I took blood samples in taxis through picket lines. That was the extent of their caring. In this spirit of great caring, dredging up personal cases of misery to try to find the one case that has gone badly in the national health service and overlooking all the reforms and successes that we have had, they have resorted to the lowest form of political debate. To try to say that every case that has gone wrong is typical is loathsome.

    For the first time since its inception, Conservatives have introduced into the health service the idea that preventive medicine is important. Before the GP contract was introduced, we were told by our opponents—by the British Medical Association and by those who now oppose the new Home Secretary, whose bravery in introducing the reforms should be attested to—that we would lose the ability to see elderly patients and that people would riot get the medicines that they require. We have seen record immunisations, record numbers of women having cervical smears, and record numbers of visits. Yet when our opponents are asked to say what is good about Conservative health reforms, they are not able to give any examples.

    I look forward to giving many examples and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is not here to listen to some of the positive aspects of Conservative health policy. It is time he realised that not everything that the Government do—even in his view—is bad.

    It is a great honour to speak in the House. I hope that in the coming months and years the health debate in the House will be more constructive than in the past, but, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, I fear that it will be a triumph of my fears over my hopes.

    I hope that Conservative Members will contribute constructively. The Queen’s Speech was excellent and Conservative Members, especially the newcomers, look forward to the legislation that follows it, which will be good not only for our party but, more importantly, for the country.

  • Caroline Flint – Speech to 2013 Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Flint to the 2013 Labour Party Conference in Brighton.

    Conference,

    Margaret is 88.

    Lives on her own.

    Hard of hearing and finds it difficult having conversations on the phone.

    In five months, her monthly electricity bill jumped from £45 to £67.

    She couldn’t afford the new payments, so a debt built up.

    Her energy company wanted it to be repaid in full.

    Margaret has never been in debt before.

    Frightened – she turned her heating off.

    Embarrassed that her flat was too cold, Margaret stopped inviting friends over too.

    Nicola is 32.

    She’s a mum, with two kids.

    Both her and her husband work.

    But after a few cold winters, the gap between what Nicola could afford and her bills left her in debt, too.

    Now, she’s worried about what will happen if prices rise again this winter.

    David Cameron and George Osborne say the economy is fixed but for people like Margaret and Nicola, things are getting harder, not easier.

    They’re at least now getting some help from the National Energy Action charity.

    But millions more face the same problems and worse.

    Unfolding day-by-day in kitchens and living rooms, in every town and every village – North, South, East and West, is a cost of living crisis.

    Of course, the worst off are the hardest hit.

    But everyone’s living standards are under attack.

    People who always thought themselves “comfortable”, now feel under pressure.

    Now, the slightest misfortune – a broken boiler, a faulty fridge, or another inflation-busting rise in their energy bills, can mean real hardship.

    So if ever there was a time for action over energy prices it is now.

    But what is this Government doing?

    Have they taken our advice over the last year?

    Will they put all those over 75 on the cheapest tariff this winter?

    Did they sit up and listen when we revealed that energy companies have seen their profits soar while ordinary people’s bills have rocketed?

    No, support for people struggling to pay their bills has been cut in half.

    The Prime Minister promised that energy companies will have to give their customers the cheapest tariff.

    A year later, four out of five people still on the wrong deal, paying more than they need to.

    And what about the big promise to insulate homes and save us all money? The Green Deal.

    It was meant to be the biggest home improvement programme since World War Two.

    Ministers said they’d be having sleepless nights if 10,000 people hadn’t signed up by this Christmas.

    They’ve spent £16 million promoting this scheme so far.

    But just 12 households have had any work done.

    £16 million for 12 homes.

    Only nine thousand nine hundred and eighty eight to go. They won’t be getting much shut eye this year.

    This Government, complacent over soaring bills.

    Indifferent to people’s struggles.

    Always standing up for the wrong people.

    It doesn’t have to be like this…

    Imagine if a certain beer company was your energy supplier?

    You know who I mean.

    They’d ring up one day and say “the wholesale price has fallen, so we’re going to cut your bill today”.

    A few weeks later, they’d ring you again “we’re really sorry you’ve overpaid us, we’re refunding the money today”.

    They’d ring you up a few weeks after that and say “we’ve got to own up, we’re not the cheapest supplier to you, so we’re cutting your tariff today to make sure we are.”

    Conference, we’d all raise a glass to that.

    But it’s not like that is it?

    Half a dozen companies, squeezing out competition, setting prices in secret, and never telling you if you’re getting a rotten deal.

    Prices rising year after year, followed by record-breaking profits.

    Conference, it’s not right.

    We all joined the Labour Party to fight injustice

    And this is one injustice Ed Miliband and I won’t stand for.

    Now is the time for politicians that are bold enough to argue for big changes in our energy market.

    Today, I promise with a Labour Government the most radical, comprehensive reforms since energy privatisation.

    No more price setting in secret.

    The energy companies will be forced to open their books.

    And do all their electricity trading on the open market, in a pool.

    A single place, in public, for everyone who wants to buy or sell power.

    No more secret price setting. No more back room deals.

    The days where a company generates energy, sells it to themselves… and then sells it to us…

    Those days will end.

    But that’s just the start.

    Have you ever wondered how it is that whatever world energy prices, whatever our bills are, somehow the energy companies always manage to make bigger and bigger profits?

    Conference, let me spell it out.

    If they own the power station and sell the electricity to themselves, what’s the incentive to keep their prices down, if all it does is reduce their profits?

    So Conference, today I pledge, we will break up the Big Six.

    The power stations will be separated from the companies that send you your bill.

    Just as the banks will have to separate their investment and trading arms from the high street branches, so we will make the energy companies separate their production from the companies that supply your home.

    And let me say one more thing about the bills you will receive…

    Under Labour, on every bill you will see one standing charge and one unit price.

    Simple.

    Straightforward.

    Easy to compare. Easy to switch.

    Conference, ultimately, our best protection against volatile world energy prices is to save the energy that escapes through our windows, walls and rooftops.

    And invest in home-grown British clean energy.

    Around these small islands that make up Britain, from the Shetlands to Southampton, we must invest in the low-carbon energies that will power our country for a new industrial age.

    And I say to every nation in our great country, we invest in energy together, we share the risks, we share the rewards.

    We are stronger, together.

    And to the Tory backwoodsmen, understand this: clean energy is not the enemy, climate change is.

    So in government, we will set a clear course to clean up our power system.

    To keep our country safe and secure, we will establish a new dedicated Energy Security Board, to identify our energy needs, secure investment for the future and keep the lights on.

    And I promise we will end the disastrous decline in new jobs and industries under David Cameron.

    I want Britain at the forefront of change, building a cleaner economy, creating the jobs our nation needs.

    Conference, together, we can build a better Britain.

    A Britain where the energy we share is secure, affordable and clean.

    A Britain where Margaret, and millions like her, can warm their homes without fearing the bill.

    A Britain to which we all truly belong.

    For the many, not the few.

    A Britain built by Labour.

  • Caroline Flint – Speech to 2012 Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Flint to the Labour Party conference on 1st October 2012.

    Conference it was my birthday the other week.

    Apart from them arriving too quickly these days – I find myself reflecting on times gone by when life seemed simpler, but also on the amazing scientific advances that have changed our lives for the better.

    Over the past year I have been inspired by the opportunities for jobs and growth new low carbon technologies can deliver for all our futures.

    But some changes we have all experienced don’t seem that great. Technology was meant to put you in control and make life easier.

    So why do so many of us feel less in control than ever before?

    Do you remember a time when you knew what your bank manager looked like?

    When you didn’t have to press ten numbers before you spoke to a human being?

    When you didn’t have enough passwords to fill a small notebook?

    Even buying something as simple as gas and electricity is bewildering today.

    We all have to heat our homes and buy gas and electricity from somebody.

    And I know that companies that keep the hospitals warm, factories working, and the lights on in 22 million homes are doing a pretty fundamental job for the British economy.

    But even the big six energy giants know that something has gone badly wrong when the poorest people pay the most for energy and nearly everyone pays more than they need to.

    When fewer than ever trust their energy company to help them.

    Fewer than ever switch supplier.

    And fewer than ever believe the Government will help.

    Energy bills have gone through the roof in the past two years.

    Up by £200.

    And more price hikes heading our way this winter.

    The Government tells people to shop around for a better deal.

    It’s down to you they say.

    You’re on your own.

    That’s not the Labour way. We believe in co-operation.

    We know that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we do alone.

    Turning the clock back isn’t the answer.

    But we don’t have to accept things the way they are.

    I want to tell you and everyone at home, that Labour may not run the country but we can help you cut your bills today.

    In America, co-operatives, local councils and community organisations are bringing people together to strike a better deal for their custom.

    Our sister parties in Belgium and Holland have delivered cheaper energy prices for thousands of people through collective switching.

    We can do the same.

    I am proud to announce the launch of Labour’s SwitchTogether campaign.

    We will ask people to sign up to Labour’s SwitchTogether to get a better energy deal.

    And if the energy companies want our business they need to name the price.

    Stand together. Buy energy together. Switch together.

    Not giving up because we are in opposition but rolling up our sleeves and getting down to work.

    Our strength is in our local organisation, our community links, our councillors, our members, our supporters.

    I am asking you – knock on doors, deliver leaflets, organise community meetings, make the calls and the tweets.

    We can reach out to people who are paying too much but alone can’t change that, and we can make a difference.

    The next time someone tells you all political parties are the same – and they will – tell them Labour is buying energy on behalf of many people, as one customer to get a better deal.

    Tell them about the first political party in British history to run a collective switch.

    We may be in opposition.

    We may not run the country.

    But we can help people right now when this Government won’t.

    There are of course things only Government can do, and the British people deserve to know Labour’s plans for the way our energy is sold.

    Whenever bills go up, the energy companies always tell us they’re only passing on their costs.

    So why, when prices rise do bills go up like a rocket but when they come down they fall like a feather – if at all?

    The reason is – they’re allowed to run their businesses in such a complicated way that it’s almost impossible to know what the true cost of energy is.

    This must end.

    So we’re calling time on Ofgem.

    Too often, Ofgem has ducked the opportunity to get tough with the energy giants, failed to enforce its own rules and let energy companies get away with ripping off hard pressed families and pensioners.

    The time has come to say goodbye to Ofgem and create a tough new regulator that people can trust.

    We will open the books of the energy giants.

    Stop the backroom deals and end the secret contracts.

    And if they don’t do it first, we will force the energy companies to pass on price cuts.

    An energy market that is simpler and works in the public interest.

    An energy market which delivers fair prices, protects the most vulnerable.

    An energy market that people trust.

    That is our pledge.

    I am proud that it was a Labour Government that faced the future – stood by the science and faced the threat of our planet overheating.

    We beat our Kyoto target and doubled renewable energy generation.

    Ed Miliband delivered the Climate Change Act, a world first, placing Britain at the forefront of global action on carbon and sending out a clear message that Britain was open for green business.

    When Labour left Government the UK was ranked third in the world for investment in green growth with £7billion of private money driving new energy and clean technology.

    We are now seventh.

    David Cameron’s promise to be the greenest government ever lies in tatters.

    But let’s not forget the Liberal Democrats

    It was Chris Huhne who took the axe to Britain’s solar industry.

    It was Ed Davey who fired the starting gun on the next dash for gas.

    Tories and Liberal Democrats.

    Creating uncertainty.

    Deterring investment.

    Costing us jobs.

    Britain must be part of an energy revolution just as important to this country’s prosperity as the Victorian railways, and the internet in the 20th century.

    A cleaner future in a radically different, fairer energy market.

    Britain needs:

    New jobs.

    New growth.

    New hope.

    And in 2015 – a Labour Government.

  • Caroline Flint – Speech to 2011 Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Flint to the 2011 Labour Party conference on 29th September 2011.

    Conference, nearly 45 years ago, in this great city, the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral opened.

    Built from the donations of ordinary people, when they had so little to give.

    As the dedication reminds us, they did it by touting the streets and pubs and knocking on doors like their own.

    They did it with dolls and raffle tickets.

    They did it with pools and bingo.

    They did it with silver paper and tuppenny legacies.

    They did it with cigarette and Green Shield stamps.

    They did it with old newspapers and wedding rings.

    They did it.

    And the day it opened was their day.

    That is the history of our party.

    From the Christian socialism of the Welsh valleys.

    To the self-help tradition of the Rochdale pioneers and the co-operative movement.

    And visionary trade unionists like Doncaster railwaymen Thomas Steels and Jimmy Holmes, who moved the motion that persuaded the trade unions to create our great party.

    Ours is the story of ordinary people in ordinary communities achieving extraordinary things.

    They said that Labour could never win in Dartmouth.

    Ben Cooper was prepared to stand up for Labour values.

    And he won.

    In Barking and Dagenham, when people feared the rise of the British National Party, brave men and women like Josie Channer, stood up against ignorance and prejudice

    And won.

    In York, Liberal Democrats said that 29 was too young for someone to run the council.

    James Alexander proved that only Labour could bring the change that city wanted.

    And Labour won.

    Labour’s 800 – our new generation of councillors elected in May, prove day in day out that it is not age, it’s attitude that matters.

    Every day, in the face of huge, frontloaded cuts.

    Thousands of Labour councillors are:

    – Giving voice to their communities.

    – Defending the services people rely on.

    – And building the good society.

    The Tories like to talk the language of localism.

    But it’s a strange localism that imposes cuts that fall deeper and faster on local councils and communities, than on almost any central government department.

    It’s a strange localism that dismantles local services and puts blind faith in volunteers taking up the reins – because, as Ed Miliband has said, you can’t volunteer in your local Sure Start centre or library when it’s already been closed.

    It’s a strange localism that sees Eric Pickles take to the TV studios to smear local councillors with cynical, politically motivated attacks.

    It’s a supreme irony that a man of Eric Pickles’ stature is the Minister for Meals on Wheels.

    And barely a day goes by without another missive from Mr Pickles to local councils.

    Frankly, it would take more than a weekly bin collection to get rid of his rubbish.

    Labour councils are showing that we are the real party of localism.

    Not the party of big government, or an over-bearing Whitehall.

    But the party of quality local services, of modern housing, and stronger communities.

    Giving people a voice.

    Giving them hope – when all the Tories offer is chaos, confusion and fear.

    And I want to tell those councillors that we are doing our bit to ensure your voice is heard by the Government.

    I am proud of the support my Shadow Team give to you.

    So my thanks to:

    Barbara Keeley

    Alison Seabeck, to

    Jack Dromey

    Chris Williamson

    Angela Smith

    And Julie Elliott.

    And our Lords team:

    Jeremy Beecham

    Bill McKenzie and

    Roy Kennedy.

    And most of all, our thanks to friends, old and new, in local government.

    Who keep us on our toes.

    And show us the impact of this Government’s failed policies.

    And Dave, thanks to you. Your support has been invaluable in the last year.

    Conference, one Tory MP said that chaos in the planning system is a good thing.

    Well, they’ve certainly delivered on that.

    Their planning reforms have already caused confusion and alarm.

    But we are living in strange times when the Government reveals that the National Trust is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy

    I must be going to the wrong meetings.

    Of course, we all want an effective planning system that is able to meet our future needs for housing, transport and infrastructure, and which supports jobs and growth.

    And that is exactly what we did in government.

    Building businesses and homes, creating jobs, supporting growth.

    And we did so, while we created new National Parks. And protected over 1.6million hectares of green belt.

    Labour did so, while ensuring brownfield and town centre first policies.

    And we won’t let them undermine this now.

    It is a disgraceful sight.

    To see Tory and Liberal Democrat ministers proudly publicising their opposition to local housing schemes in their back yard.

    While standing in Parliament wringing their hands about the need for more homes.

    Pure hypocrisy.

    The truth is the economy isn’t stalling because of the planning system.

    It’s stalling because of the Tories.

    Cuts that go too far, too fast. And no plan for growth.

    Look at what they’re doing on housing.

    First time buyers waiting longer.

    Fewer houses built last year than any year since the 1920s.

    200,000 new homes cancelled in 18 months

    Waiting lists for council houses soaring.

    And only half a million mortgages provided last year.

    Half the number provided each year during Labour’s first ten years.

    Conference, the Tories have sucked the life out of our economy.

    And hit the building industry hard.

    And for every one of the housing developments cancelled there are skilled people put out of work and small suppliers put out of business.

    That’s why we must kickstart the building industry by repeating the bankers’ bonus tax to fund 25,000 new homes.

    And why a temporary cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements is vital.

    Because George:

    You might enjoy it hurting.

    But it certainly ain’t working.

    Conference, I am proud of what we achieved in our 13 years in power.

    Proud of the one and a half million homes modernised.

    Proud of the 250,000 affordable homes built in the teeth of a recession.

    And proud of the 1 million extra families able to buy a home for the first time.

    But I’m honest, too, that we did not do enough.

    So today I reaffirm our commitment:

    To a decent home for all.

    At a price within their means.

    In a place they want to live.

    To the many people who want to own their home.

    Who want to build an asset.

    Who want security.

    Who want a little more control over their own life.

    We will support that dream.

    But I also want those same benefits to be spread to those who live in social housing or the private rented sector as well.

    Conference, we have ambitions for social housing.

    To once again serve its original purpose.

    A positive choice for many.

    Homes for heroes.

    Homes for those in need.

    Homes for the hardworking.

    And I’m not going to take any lectures on aspiration from a prime minister who believes that, if you get a pay rise you should be kicked out of your council house.

    Under Labour, the private rented sector will be properly regulated, so every family that rents has security and choice.

    And we will not ignore that more than a million properties in the private rented sector would not meet the decent homes standard.

    It cannot be right that housing benefit continues to go into the pockets of landlords who have tenants in sub-standard properties.

    Under Labour.

    We will end it.

    To the family who own their home but worry that their children never will.

    To the older person wanting a smaller house.

    But close to the church or community they’ve known their whole life.

    To the son or daughter still living with relatives.

    Or sleeping on the sofa of a friend.

    For all those whose voice is never heard.

    I say, we are on your side.

    And we will fight to keep housing at the top of the agenda.

    But we will only do that if we give councils the powers they need to build the homes their communities want.

    In government, we were too slow to trust local councils and communities.

    We were too reluctant to relinquish the levers of the state.

    Too often, we looked like the party of Whitehall.

    Not the town hall.

    But Ed Miliband and I both know:

    The only way you create stronger, safer, fairer communities is by trusting people to make their own decisions.

    As our film showed, Labour Councils are pioneering new ways of delivering services.

    Reinvigorating civic life.

    And empowering local people.

    But localism can never mean cutting councils loose.

    Leaving communities to fend for themselves.

    Or pitting North against South.

    Where the Tories try to divide our country, we will seek unity.

    Around a funding system fair to everyone, and which reflects need, as well as encouraging growth.

    So that every council is able to deliver the services its community relies on.

    On May 5th, we took another step forward.

    From Gravesham to Gedling, Telford to Ipswich, Hull to Barrow in Furness.

    In our great cities.

    And in our market towns.

    In our villages.

    And in our seaside resorts.

    Labour is regaining the confidence of the British people.

    Town by town.

    Street by street.

    Door by door.

    At every opportunity:

    We must win more seats.

    And more councils.

    Until the Tories’ onslaught on local government is stopped in its tracks.

    Today, I say to the British people:

    Labour is once again finding its voice in all corners of our country.

    The party of community.

    The party of localism.

    And in 2015, the party of government.

  • Caroline Flint – 1997 Maiden Speech

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Caroline Flint in the House of Commons on 2nd June 1997.

    I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during our consideration of this important Bill. To be able to stand here today as the new Member of Parliament for Don Valley and to speak on behalf of my constituents for the first time is a humbling experience—humbling because I am here by the grace and good will of the people of Don Valley and because my predecessor, Martin Redmond, who served the people of Don Valley for 14 hard years of opposition, was deprived of the opportunity to stand here as a new era of Labour Government begins.

    In the 10 weeks from my selection as candidate to polling day, I learnt much from the people of Don Valley about Martin. A private man, he remained living in the same village that was his home. He remained friends with the people he knew from before his election. He made time for individuals and he was regarded with warmth and affection. In his maiden speech in July 1983, Martin was able proudly to describe Don Valley’s main industry as coal mining. Now we can but say that coal mining is part of the heart and character of Don Valley, but that it is no longer the main employer. Martin saw the heavy price paid by the mining communities that are strung from east to west of the constituency as their industry closed without the necessary foresight and investment needed to build a new economic life to replace the old.

    Like many constituents who supported new Labour on 1 May, Martin Redmond understood the value of work. He believed in reward for hard work, in the respect and achievement derived from a lifetime of work and in the dignity that should be the rightful reward to be enjoyed in retirement. Martin understood the corrosive effects of persistent unemployment and the dangers of enforced idleness. He criticised the insecurity that seemed to be built into too many jobs.

    Martin Redmond witnessed a Britain divided between the haves and have-nots—those with work and those without, and those with opportunities and those without. Martin Redmond would have been proud of the start that this new Labour Government have made—the concerted plan to tackle youth unemployment and the plan to shorten NHS waiting lists. He would have been as proud as I am to welcome this Bill, which will make good the key pledge on class sizes for which Labour has received a clear mandate.

    Don Valley’s history is steeped in mining. Every previous Member of Parliament came from mining and I pay tribute to them all. Indeed, in 70 years, the constituency has had but five Members of Parliament. James Walton, a miner, was the first Member of Parliament to represent the constituency from 1918 to 1922. He was the only Labour candidate in the history of Don Valley to have the unofficial support of the Conservatives.

    I would love to boast that I am the youngest Member of Parliament in Don Valley’s history, but I am not. Tom Williams, later Baron Williams, was elected in 1922 at the age of 34. I would love to aspire to be the constituency’s longest-serving Member of Parliament, but Tom Williams served 37 years, until 1959, and I cannot imagine having such a substantial tenure. He served through great and turbulent times; his seventh general election victory was in 1945. As the right hon. Tom Williams, he then served as Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries until 1959. He made a distinguished contribution to the House and I would be proud to be mentioned on the same page in the history books.

    Tom Williams was succeeded by Dick Kelley, who served the people of Don Valley for 20 years. In his maiden speech, in November 1959, Dick Kelley was concerned for the economic survival of the village communities he represented. He pleaded: These villages must be kept alive.”—[Official Report, 9 November 1959; Vol. 613, c. 72.] In the weeks leading up to the 1997 election, that view was expressed to me many times.

    I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been allowed to make this speech so soon after my election to this House. I would love to have claimed that I was the quickest of the six Don Valley Members to have made a maiden speech, but that honour remains with Mick Welsh, who was Member of Parliament from 1979 to 1983 and who was later the Member for Doncaster, North. He addressed the House just 20 days after the general election. In his maiden speech, Michael Welsh celebrated the genuine community life of the mining villages of Don Valley. Those men embraced, celebrated and championed Don Valley’s culture and communities for the best part of a century. I celebrate it, too.

    Don Valley is a changing constituency. It is perhaps fitting that I am the first woman to represent it. I am not from a mining background. At the time of my selection, try as I might to discover that a distant grandparent had once spent a long weekend in Don Valley, I could not. I determined then that honesty was the only policy. My curriculum vitae announced, I won’t try to kid you that I’m from South Yorkshire. I’m not. Labour party members, and subsequently the electorate, welcomed me with warmth and friendliness to put down roots in the constituency, as they did for so many people before who moved from the four corners of the United Kingdom to make Don Valley their home. Indeed, I am very proud to have been made a life member of the Official’s club in Edlington, and to have been presented with a badge bearing the white rose of Yorkshire and welcomed as an honorary Yorkshirewoman.

    In his 1941 book about Don Valley entitled “Old King Coal”, Robert W. L. Ward wrote: Men from Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Durham, Northumberland, Wales and Ireland came in hundreds, bringing with them customs, dialects, superstitions and faiths foreign to the Don Valley. Gradually these foreigners from the midlands and the north have become digested by their South Yorkshire hosts. And such digestion has done something to enrich the local strain. The Don Valley that I know is a diverse community. It is dominated by the former mining villages of Conisbrough, Denaby, Edlington, Rossington, and Hatfield—a new addition to the constituency. It is a constituency of striking landmarks, scenic villages and many beauty spots. It includes villages stretching to the borders of Nottinghamshire, such as Bawtry. The constituency has seen a rapid expansion of villages such as Auckley, Finningley and Sprotbrough, with new families and their young children moving to the area every week.

    Don Valley is the historic heart of South Yorkshire, boasting two castles—Tickhill and Conisbrough, which is the setting for the classic story “Ivanhoe”, penned by Sir Walter Scott in a room in the Boat inn at Sprotbrough falls. If The Mirror is to be believed, “Ivanhoe” is the favourite book of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    In the book, Sir Walter Scott describes Conisbrough castle. He wrote: There are few more beautiful or more striking scenes in England than are presented by the vicinity of this ancient Saxon fortress. The soft and gentle River Don sweeps through an amphitheatre in which cultivation is richly blended with woodland, and on a mount ascending from the river, well defended by walls and ditches, rises this ancient edifice. Conisbrough castle is part of Don Valley’s past, but it is also part of its future. Along with the Earth centre on the site of the old Denaby main colliery, Conisbrough castle affords opportunities to attract visitors from afar and become part of Don Valley’s economic regeneration.

    I know that the people of Don Valley will welcome the Bill, which will pave the way to reducing class sizes. That pledge, coupled with the ambitious goal of raising education standards and opportunities for children and young people, will be received with great enthusiasm by the electors of Don Valley. Families with young people in Don Valley know that, unlike for previous generations, the mines will not provide the gateway to employment for the many. They know that education is the foundation. The achievement of their children will determine their life chances thereafter. The Bill demonstrates that the Government intend to place education at the centre of their programme—the No. 1 priority. Education is the building block for the future, and children must be at the heart of it.

    During the election campaign, one French teacher asked me how she could teach French to children in year 7 of secondary school if, when they arrived, some had not yet mastered the basics of written and spoken English. That is a problem that the Conservatives refused to tackle. Standards are the cornerstone of our education policy. Schools are a vital part of any community and have a precious role to play in the life of the small villages that dominate my constituency.

    However, schools are not islands, and must be encouraged to share their expertise, spread their best practice and learn from each other. Where a school is failing, we must look to turn it around in six months, not six years. That should be the Government’s ambition. Not to do so is to condemn generations of children.

    Gone are the days when the height of Government ambition was to have one good school in every town. That proposal was rejected at the election. We must ensure that every school is a good school; that every school comes up to scratch—nothing less is acceptable. Gone will be the complacency that allowed class sizes to rise steadily throughout the years of the Major Government. By 1996, more than 1.25 million children were in classes of 31 or more. Indeed, in my constituency, more than 2,000 children are in classes of more than 30 pupils.

    I welcome the Government’s intention to review the presentation of league tables, because, vital as they are, the many qualities that a school offers—leadership, morale and parental involvement—are all essential ingredients that add value to a child’s education. Those qualities must be reflected in information made available to parents. The Bill makes a start. Those who choose to buy private education for their child are buying one thing above all else: smaller class sizes. Yet for the majority in Britain, the past five years have seen an unrelenting rise in class sizes. That rise must be brought to an end, and the Bill helps to release resources to begin that task.

    The Bill will be welcomed by the electorate of Don Valley as a sign of a new Labour Government who govern for the many not for the few; a sign that Britain has turned a page in history and entered a new era. The Government deserve praise for the flying start that they have made, showing in weeks that a change of Government can lead to a change of mood and priorities. I hope that, for the duration of the Government’s term of office, I serve my constituency well in this new era in British life—a period of new hope and great opportunities. As the Member of Parliament for Don Valley, and, perhaps more important, as the mother of three children in state education, I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Michael Forsyth – 1999 Maiden Speech in the House of Lords

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Lords by Michael Forsyth on 24th November 1999.

    My Lords, it is a great honour for me to find myself a Member of this House and I was particularly glad that I was privileged, however briefly, to sit in this House while its heritage, authority and spirit of public service were still enhanced by the contribution of the hereditary Peers, now sadly banished. I should also like to thank the staff of the House for the courteous way in which they welcomed me and helped me to find my way around, along with the many others who have come in in rather large numbers.

    To me it is regrettable that the most independent part of this House has been removed without any credible policy for its replacement. Nobody could ever justify the expulsion of the hereditary Peers on the grounds of utility. No senate on earth has ever benefited from such a wealth of experience and dedication at so little cost to the public purse. Their contribution was informed and valuable.

    During my earlier incarnation in another place I had the responsibility of steering rather more than a dozen Bills through Parliament. I have to tell your Lordships that this was the place that I and my officials feared. In the other place people stood up and made speeches which were political and not concerned with the contents of the Bill. It was in this place that every government Minister and every parliamentary draftsman knew that any legal anomaly or oversight would be forensically investigated and challenged. On our parliamentary navigational charts, your Lordships’ House was marked, “Here be dragons”.

    I last spoke in Parliament on 10th March 1997. A lot has happened since then: waiting times in the National Health Service have gone up; so have class sizes in schools; police numbers have gone down; the crime rate has gone up; and the beef ban remains in place, even though we surrendered our sovereignty over employment laws and a host of other matters.. The principle of free access to education has been abandoned with the introduction of tuition fees by this Labour Government. The drugs budget, as my noble friend pointed out, in the National Health Service has been cash limited for the first time in its history leading, as it will do, to the rationing of vital treatments. Patients will no longer receive treatment according to clinical need, but according to postcode and the judgments of accountants.

    The iron Chancellor appears to be suffering from metal fatigue since, according to the Library in the other place, his increases in tax amount to £40 billion and the OECD claims that the tax burden in this country is rising faster than in any other country in Europe. The Civil Service has been politicised. Half of the information officers in Whitehall, including those who used to serve me in the Scottish Office, have been sacked and the remainder brought under direct political control. The promised bonfire of quangos has fizzled out; they remain in existence filled with Labour placemen, a fate destined soon to overtake this House. Parliament has not been modernised by this Government; it has been marginalised by this Government.

    I believe that the tradition in this House is for maiden speeches to be uncontroversial. So your Lordships will understand that I resist drawing any conclusions from those facts. If the rules of the House allowed it, I would sing a few bars of “Things can only get better”; but I gather they do not. Although there are some things in the gracious Speech which I believe to be good, I fear that I can find nothing that will deliver that particular slogan’s promise.

    At the end of the last Session we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of the remaining 92 hereditary Peers being held hostage lest this House dare exercise its constitutional right to disagree with aspects of the Government’s legislation. To its very considerable credit, this House called the Government’s bluff and stood up for the disabled.

    We seem to be moving rapidly towards a situation where Parliament is under the thumb of the executive. The House of Commons is already controlled by the Government: the Lords will be appointed by them. We are becoming the biggest quango in the land. It is clear that this Government do not like revising Chambers. Why else have they opted for a one-chamber Parliament in Scotland? I fear that we are moving defacto to unicameralism in Westminster as well. I believe that that is the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, earlier today, which was unanswered by the Government Front Bench.

    I believe that the new House must have an elected element. But before the composition is decided, the functions of this place must be defined. There will be difficult issues to be resolved in either a partly-elected or wholly-elected House. In the former we would have two or more classes of Peer. But both must be better than a wholly appointed House.

    The Government’s plans to reform this House are fatally flawed. They do not know what they want this place to do other than be more acquiescent towards the executive than its predecessor. Hiding behind the fig leaf of a Royal Commission, which they should have set up immediately following the general election—and waited for its conclusions before implementing any legislation—this Queen’s Speech contains no mention of the Government’s view on the future role of this place. I, too, look forward to seeing the Royal Commission’s conclusions. I earnestly hope that when we lift the fig leaf we do not find a fig.

    There are some elements in the gracious Speech which I find very difficult to accept, and I find very surprising the reasons why it is difficult for me to accept them. They are difficult to accept because I believe them to be far too Right-Wing and illiberal in their impact. The removal of the right to trial by jury was rightly opposed by the Government in opposition. To describe such a fundamental right enshrined in Magna Carta as “eccentric”, which is what the Home Secretary did the other day, shows vividly how little understanding he has of his responsibilities to guard our liberties and the institutions which protect them. The doctrine that the ends justify the means seems to have survived his conversion from his radical Left-Wing days.

    I am not a lawyer, but I am sufficiently familiar with the work of Lord Devlin to know that he wrote the authoritative work on trial by jury. Perhaps I may read a quote from that work, which was written in 1956. It begins: The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution, it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives”. Those were the words of Lord Devlin. I hope that the Government will ponder them and think again.

    The proposal contained in the gracious Speech to stop the benefits of youngsters who do not comply with community service orders is, to my mind, completely crackpot and lacking in common sense. I fail to see how cutting off their means of support will make it less likely that people will reoffend. Many of these youngsters have got into trouble because they have become involved with drugs; they steal in order to get the money to buy them. If money is taken from them, they will repair the loss by committing burglary, mugging or worse crimes. I expected much more emphasis on rehabilitation from this Government and I feel a real sense of disappointment that an opportunity has been missed.

    Your Lordships will have seen the Freedom of Information Bill, which has been published. I took the opportunity to read it. There are no fewer than 13 pages of exemptions under the legislation as regards entitlement to information—indeed, 13 pages of exemptions listing the information that we cannot have. It actually makes more information secret than is the case at present. The information officer, under the Bill, should decide whether information should be disclosed, not the Government. That is what is being proposed by the Labour Party north of the Border in Scotland. How can this matter of principle be different on each side of the Border? How can it be right that there is an independent right of access to public information north of the Border, whereas, south of the Border, the Government will decide whether information should be made available?

    I appreciate that time is at a premium. Therefore, in conclusion, perhaps I may add that I believe the only true system of checks and balances, which has always relied upon the goodwill and good sense of all participating parties, has been attacked with the constitutional equivalent of a sledge hammer. Out of the debris we must salvage our bicameral parliamentary democracy. I believe that the role of this House in that task will be crucial.

    I respectfully submit that the duty which history and the public interest alike impose upon us is to honour the oath that we took by fearlessly asserting the independence of this House and acting as the vigilant guardians of the rights and liberties of the British people.

  • Michael Forsyth – 1983 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made to the House of Commons by Michael Forsyth on 18th July 1983.

    It has been obvious that for many hon. Members tonight’s discussion is a rerun of an almost familiar classic, albiet with some of the leading cast in new roles. For me it is rather different. I was not in this place on 29 November 1982 for the Second Reading of the previous Telecommunications Bill and I was not here for the detailed debates which took place in Committee.

    My experience of the telecommunications industry, as a business man and a private individual, seems to be very different from that of many Opposition Members. It is from that experience that I derive my commitment to replace the monopoly that British Telecom has endured with competitive private enterprise. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) spoke about charges being made for telephone numbers to be supplied in Chile. That seems to be the reality of the black market experience of far too many of my business colleagues.

    The new constituency of Stirling, which I have the honour to represent, is not entirely unknown to the House. Its district council affairs have had to be debated in this place in the past, and I regret that they will have to be discussed once again on Thursday. It is a constituency of great contrasts — and I do not refer to the obvious contrast of a Conservative Member representing an area which has one of Scotland’s most Left-wing and extravagant councils.

    The constituency stretches from the north at Collin and Tyndrum and Strathblane in the south, and from the tidal reaches of the Forth to the bonny banks of Loch Lomond, an area of about 800 square miles. It includes the university town and commercial centre of historic Stirling and the old boroughs of Callendar, Dunblane, and Bridge of Allan. From the great rural areas drawn from the former counties of Stirling and Perth, I have a constituency of outstanding natural beauty in which tourism, agriculture, commerce and new high technology-based industries are playing an increasing role. In short, it is a constituency which provides exactly that range of demands which the new private enterprise British Telecom will have to meet. It is a constituency in which industry and commerce require effective speech and telex communications with Europe and the rest of the world and within the United Kingdom, as well as data handling and processing.

    A rural area needs effective communications to minimise its isolation, and services that are needed especially in emergencies. Despite the smears and innuendos of the Bill’s opponents, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will ensure that in bringing private enterprise into the communications network he will make provision for meeting social costs within the licensing requirements and the fears that have been expressed about call boxes and the cost of connection in rural areas.

    It is because I believe that private enterprise will more effectively meet those demands in my constituency that I speak enthusiastically in favour of the Bill. The arguments do not need to be repeated and I suspect that if they were I should be called out of order. Private enterprise brings a force to bear on companies through competition that makes them more efficient and keeps prices down. Competition, not private enterprise, is at the heart of the debate. I hope that the many speeches which have been made will alert the Minister to the grave dangers of substituting a public monopoly with a private one.

    The Government’s decision during the last Parliament to license Mercury showed their commitment to competition, as do the provisions of part II of the Bill for further licensing, provided those powers are used imaginatively to create the maximum possible innovative competition and not to restrict it, as has been so often the case. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the commitment not to issue licences that was made on Second Reading of the previous Telecommunications Bill during the last Parliament. I hope that more licences will be issued and that that commitment will be withdrawn.

    As part V of the Bill now stands, British Telecom will be transformed lock, stock and barrel into one company with a dominant position. If it had arisen in any other way, it would almost certainly have attracted the unfavourable attention of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I wonder whether, even if we proceed along the lines that have been suggested, it might not create a difficulty with our obligations under the treaty of Rome. The City editor of the Daily Mail asked on 23 June: Would it be any less of a monopoly because half the shares had been sold? Do we have to keep British Telecom in its present shape and size? He is not alone in asking such questions.

    Some people have suggested the organisation of local services into separate locally owned companies working within the national network. An example that is often quoted is the municipal service in Hull. Others have suggested hiving off the specialist services which make up British Telecom enterprises. I ask the Government —clearly this is not the place to discuss detailed provisions —to consider part V carefully before British Telecom is brought to the market. The experience in the United States, with the break-up of the AT and T empire and the reorganisation of the Bell telephone network, might provide useful evidence.

    So far we have considered only the benefits of competition as they affect the consumer, but British Telecom is also virtually a monopoly buyer of telecommunications equipment. In the past, this has led, to put it mildly, to unhappy relations with suppliers, or at least would-be suppliers. This could easily recur if the enterprise and innovation which is important to these support services were stifled in favour of company-inspired regulation and conformity. Only with a wider range of purchasers for products will telecommunications manufacturers be encouraged to recapture their share of overseas markets.

    I add only a few words, lest it be thought that I have forgotten my traditional duty as a new Member to pay tribute to my predecessors. My constituency is carved out of three long-standing ones, all of which have disappeared. All the previous Members, such is their quality — the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn)— have returned to the House to play a full and prominent part. Therefore, it would be redundant of me to sing their praises.

    Mr. Denis Canavan (Falkirk, West) Why?

    Mr. Forsyth Their performance is a testimony to that. I look forward to matching their records in dealing with constituency matters in the years to come.

  • Lord Freud – 2014 Speech on Transforming Welfare

    lordfreud

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Freud, the Work and Pensions Minister, on 27th January 2014 at the Capita Welfare Reform Conference in London.

    Thank you…..I am very pleased to be here.

    I would like to use my time this morning to reflect on the past 4 years, and in particular how different the welfare landscape is now compared to 2010.

    In short, it is very different. And the change has been long overdue.

    We are introducing the most fundamental reforms to the welfare and pensions systems for more than 60 years.

    These are structural changes designed to reward work, encourage responsibility and help those who need it most.

    And we are already starting to see the impacts of these reforms.

    When I started looking at the benefits system in 2007 the employment level stood at 29 million, and there were 3.4 million people on inactive benefits.

    These figures stood at a similar level when I became a Minister in 2010 [employment = 29m – inactivity = 3.3m]

    Today, the picture looks quite different.

    Not only, as many of you will have seen last week, have employment levels hit a record high, rising to 30.2 million.

    But we now have 2.95 million people on inactive benefits – a drop of nearly 400,000 in the last few years.

    There are a number of factors driving these figures, but I believe one of them is the impact of the structural changes we are introducing to the welfare system.

    When I wrote my report in 2007 it was clear that we had a system that was discouraging work, and that had written off large numbers of people as ‘incapable’.

    It was a system designed around the lowest common denominator, that took away people’s control of their own lives, rather than empowering them:

    – it penalised you if you wanted to work more than 16 hours a week

    – it said to people with illnesses and disabilities that we didn’t think they were capable of anything, rather than looking at what they could do

    – and for some people it meant that when you earned any money, you lost almost all of it in benefit withdrawals

    We know that work is good for you, it gives you a purpose, it has huge health benefits and – most importantly – it puts you in control of your life.

    Yet we were saying to some people that they would have more money if they stayed on benefits.

    We had a system that was actually pushing people away from being in control of their lives.

    So we started changing this, bringing in measures to help people find the right kind and level of activity for them, and designing a benefits system that didn’t assume people were incapable.

    Because, as so many people delivering services tell us, the real barrier is how people see or think of themselves.

    If they haven’t worked, if they have always been given a lot of help by others and not given the means and support to help themselves, then it is unlikely they will be able to take control of their own lives.

    Salutogenesis

    Behind this idea of giving back control is a theory I find really interesting, from the work of Aaron Antonovsky.

    He argued that a purpose in life – what he called coherence – was crucial to understanding human health and well-being.

    Whether we can overcome setbacks such as losing one’s job, or dealing with an illness, or whether they overwhelm us is, for Antonovsky, a function of whether these stresses violate an individual’s sense of coherence.

    He says life should be comprehensible, manageable and have meaning.

    Essentially that people can manage changes if they understand them, they have the skills and ability to manage their affairs and finally that they themselves have a purpose in life.

    If people know why things happen to them, and they have the support and ability to manage their lives, they have a fighting chance of being able to maintain their well-being.

    So we need to ensure that we support people’s lives by empowering them.

    The longer someone is out of work, the less likely their life is to have an overarching sense of purpose or meaning. The less help people receive at vulnerable moments, the more likely they are to fall through the cracks.

    And when you see well-being in these terms, then the Department for Work and Pensions becomes almost as relevant for people’s long term well-being as the Department of Health.

    Helping people get into work gives them a purpose and meaning to life that may have been lacking.

    This benefits society as a whole – work gives people a sense of pride, lifts them out of poverty and provides a model for younger generations to look up to.

    Universal Credit

    So we need a more responsive benefit system that empowers people. It should reward them for going into work and increasing their hours, not push them away from it.

    And that is where Universal Credit comes in.

    The idea behind Universal Credit is to create a much simpler and more flexible system that makes work pay…

    …ensuring claimants are better off in work than on benefits…

    … clearly showing how increasing hours increases earnings…

    …while continuing to provide support for those who need it most.

    And by having one flexible benefit with better earnings disregards it allows people who face bigger challenges – such as lone parents or people with disabilities – to take part in the economic life of the country and take control of their own lives.

    By spring, Universal Credit will be live in 10 areas. From this summer we will progressively start to take claims for Universal Credit from couples and, in the autumn, from families too.

    And our plans are for Universal Credit to roll out completely across the country during 2016, with new claims to all existing benefits that make up Universal Credit being shut down during this time.

    From there we will move existing claimants of the current benefits over to Universal Credit, and we expect the vast majority of these to be on the new benefit by 2016 and 2017.

    Early indications suggest that Universal Credit is starting to have the impact we are looking for.

    We are already seeing that Universal Credit claimants are spending twice as long per week looking for work…

    …are applying for more jobs per week…

    …and are more confident about finding work in the next 3 months than comparable JSA claimants.

    And 70% understand that they will be better off for each additional hour in work.

    But while we expect that many people will be able to handle these changes well, we must ensure that help is there for those who can’t, or need support at first.

    Local support service framework

    That’s why I’ve been working incredibly closely with local authorities to develop the Local Support Services Framework.

    This framework will do 2 vital things:

    First, it will ensure people are supported to make the transition to Universal Credit by helping them adjust to some new aspects of the way they claim benefits.

    And second, it will provide longer term support to the small number of people who find it more difficult to make this transition and need to gradually progress towards independence.

    This is not simply about providing service lines for people, it is about supporting them to get the tools and skills they need to take control of their own lives.

    A lot of hard work has already been done to develop this framework.

    In December 2013 we published, in partnership with local government, an updated trialling plan. This sets out how we will work together over the course of the next year to test exactly what works in the delivery of Local Support Services.

    That testing will build on the excellent learning that has already been done through the LA led pilots.

    Just 2 weeks ago I held a very insightful workshop with all of the LA led pilot teams.

    From Lewisham’s innovative triage process…

    …to Bath and North East Somerset’s all-encompassing one-stop-shop…

    …and a whole host of other examples, we are gathering some really important learning that will play a major role in the development of the Local Support Services Framework.

    Direct payments

    We have also been testing support for people through the Direct Payment Demonstration Projects, another crucial part of our efforts to give people control over their lives.

    It used to be assumed that people weren’t capable of paying their own rent. And of course this made it even more daunting to move into work and manage their finances themselves.

    The demonstration projects enlightened us in a number of ways. We discovered that of course a huge number of people are perfectly capable of managing their money. Across the different areas, the average successful rent collection rate stood at 94%.

    And as a result more than half of the organisations involved have decided to leave their tenants on direct payment after the pilots ended.

    And because the projects mean gradually increasing personal responsibility, they have also brought to light wider social problems as a result of the closer engagement with tenants.

    There’s one particular instance that really sticks with me.

    There was a family that was living in appalling conditions because the father was a lone parent of 4 children and struggling to cope with a heroin addiction – the benefit system had taken care of all their payments but isolated them.

    Because of the projects, and the increased intervention that followed, the relevant authorities were able to step in and provide the appropriate support.

    So for some people Direct Payments have proved a useful mechanism for highlighting where they need support.

    But for those people who could be moving towards work, getting used to direct payments is crucial in preparing claimants for a seamless transition, and allows landlords an opportunity to increase their rent collection from this group of claimants in a phased and managed way.

    I know there have been concerns about will happen when there are missed payments, or where a household isnt coping. So I’ll just describe the safety net we have here.

    After 1 month of missed payment we can review the payment process and the claimant’s payment history.

    And after 2 months we guarantee to move rent payment back to managed payments.

    And these can be cumulative, so its not just about missing a whole month, but can be about a cumulative failure to pay rent.

    So, we’ve learned a lot from the demonstration projects.

    Indeed, I think they have been so valuable that I am keen that local authorities think about moving people on to direct payments earlier – so that we are supporting people to manage their own finances before they move onto Universal Credit.

    Conclusion

    Of course, Universal Credit is far from the only welfare change that we are introducing at the moment.

    There are many others that are proving equally crucial in delivering the structural changes needed to drive down inactivity…

    …but I’m afraid I do not have time to touch on them all in detail this morning.

    Suffice to say that there is still much more work to be done.

    I know many of you work in the organisations supporting these changes, and that it is not always easy.

    But I think we should all be encouraged by the fact that we are starting to see some positive results.

    Whether it be the record employment figures, rapid reductions in inactivity, or the positive feedback we are already getting from Universal Credit claimants, I believe these reforms are starting to work…

    …and that we are…

    …at last…

    …starting to give people control back over their own lives.

    I thank you for your support in making that a reality, and look forward to continuing this crucial work together in the years to come.