UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1982 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margaret Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, at the 1982 Conservative Party conference in Brighton on 8th October 1982.

    Mr. President, thank you for that splendid welcome. You’re right. This has been a year of the unexpected, and in turning our thoughts to an issue which transcends party politics you do well to remind us of what happened in the spring of the year.

    This is not going to be a speech about the Falklands campaign, though I would be proud to make one. But I want to say just this, because it is true for all our people. The spirit of the South Atlantic was the spirit of Britain at her best. It has been said that we surprised the world, that British patriotism was rediscovered in those spring days.

    Mr. President, It was never really lost. But it would be no bad thing if the feeling that swept the country then were to continue to inspire us. For if there was any doubt about the determination of the British people it was removed by the men and women who, a few months ago, brought a renewed sense of pride and self-respect to our country.

    They were for the most part young. Let all of us here, and in the wider audience outside, pause and reflect on what we who stayed at home owe to those who sailed and fought, and lived and died—and won. If this is tomorrow’s generation, then Britain has little to fear in the years to come.

    In what by any standards was a remarkable chapter in our island history, it is they who this year wrote its brightest page.

    In remembering their heroism, let us not forget the courage shown by those same Armed Forces nearer home. We see them and the other forces of law and order display these qualities day after day in Northern Ireland. Yes, and even closer at hand. I have seen no more moving sight in the last year than the Blues and Royals bearing their tattered standard proudly past the spot in Hyde Park where their comrades had been murdered in a cruel and cowardly bomb attack only two days before.

    Terrorism is a deadly threat to our way of life, and we will not be cowed by it. We will continue to resist it with all our power and to uphold the principles of democratic government.

    Mr. President, I cannot remember a better Conference. Our debates have been lively, good-humoured—indeed, at one moment I was very proud to think that I had served in John Nott’s Cabinet, and quite relieved to know that the Secretary of State for Employment will in future have confidence in the Treasury forecasts about the cost of living. He should. He actually compiles the index. He should be telling us.

    They have been lively, good-humoured and humming with ideas, and they have tackled the real issues of the day.

    There have been two other Party Conferences before this, and perhaps I will have a word to say about them later.

    First, I want to come to something that dwarfs party politics—indeed, to an issue that dwarfs every other issue of our time.

    We have invented weapons powerful enough to destroy the whole world. Others have created political systems evil enough to seek to enslave the whole world. Every free nation must face that threat. Every free nation must strain both to defend its freedom and to ensure the peace of the world.

    The first duty of a British Government is the defence of the Realm, and we shall discharge that duty.

    Ever since the War the principal threat to our country’s safety has come from the Soviet bloc. Twenty-six years ago the Russians marched into Hungary. Twenty-one years ago they built the Berlin Wall. Fourteen years ago they reconquered Czechoslovakia. Three years ago they entered Afghanistan. Two years ago they began to suppress the first stirrings of freedom in Poland.

    Oh, they knew the strength of the human spirit. They knew that if freedom were allowed to take root in Poland it would spread across Eastern Europe and perhaps to the Soviet Union itself. They knew that the beginning of freedom spelt the beginning of the end for Communism.

    Yet despite these regular reminders of the ruthless actions of the Kremlin there are still those who seem to believe that disarmament by ourselves alone would so impress the Russians that they would obligingly follow suit.

    But peace, freedom and justice are only to be found where people are prepared to defend them. This Government will give the highest priority to our national defence, both conventional and nuclear.

    I want to see nuclear disarmament. I want to see conventional disarmament as well. I remember the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I remember, too, the bombs that devastated Coventry and Dresden. The horrors of war are indivisible. We all want peace, but not peace at any price. Peace with justic and freedom.

    We seek agreement with the Soviet Union on arms control. We want to reduce the levels of both conventional and nuclear forces. But those reductions must be mutual, they must be balanced and they must be verifiable.

    Oh, I understand the feelings of the unilateralists. I understand the anxieties of parents with children growing up in the nuclear age. But the question, the fundamental question for all of us is whether unilateral nuclear disarmament would make war less likely.

    I have to tell you it would not. It would make war more likely, aggressors attack because they think they are going to win, and they are more likely to attack the weak than they are to attack the strong.

    The springs of war lie not in arms races, real or imaginary, but in the readiness to use force or threaten force against other nations. Remember what Bismarck said

    “Do I want war? Of course not. I want victory.” The causes of wars in the past haven’t, changed, as we know to our cost. But because Russia and the West know that there can be no victory in nuclear war, for thirty-seven years we have kept the peace in Europe, and that is no mean achievement.

    That is why we need nuclear weapons, because having them makes peace more secure. Yet at Blackpool last week, the Labour Party, by a huge majority, adopted a new official defence policy. It went like this: Polaris to be scrapped; Trident to be cancelled; Cruise missiles in service to be removed. It is now clear beyond doubt that given the change the Labour Party wants, they would dismantle Britain’s defences wholesale.

    And yet do you remember how Aneurin Bevan pleaded with an earlier Labour Party Conference not to send a Labour Foreign Secretary naked into the Conference chamber? Well, it is a good thing that there isn’t going to be a Labour Foreign Secretary.

    Yet the Labour Party wants to keep Britain in NATO, continuing to shelter behind American nuclear weapons—so long as they are not on our soil. What utter hypocrisy. To expect an insurance policy but to refuse to pay the premium.

    There must be millions of Labour supporters who are thoroughly disheartened by what they saw at Blackpool last week. I say to them “Forget about the Militant Tendency—come over and join the Tory tendency”.

    Mr. President, a strong and united Western alliance is a guarantee of our peace and security. It is also a beacon of hope to the oppressed people of the Soviet bloc. Mr. President, Britain is a reliable ally, and with a Conservative Government will always remain so—reliable in NATO, reliable beyond NATO, an ally and a friend to be trusted. And trusted not least by our partners in the European Community.

    Of course, ancient nations do not always find it easy to live together. Yet our commitment to the Common Market is clear. We are all democratic countries where freedom and the rule of law are basic to our institutions.

    At present, as you know, Britain pays quite large sums to Community partners often richer than we ourselves. That is fundamentally unjust. It is also shortsighted.

    As you know, we have just come to the end of our first three-year arrangement. We shall really have to fight — courteously, of course — to make sure that we have a fair deal for the future. But those who would pull us out of Europe must come to terms with the damage that that would do to our people. Even the threat of withdrawal destroys jobs. Firms that invest in the Common Market often decide to come to Britain. Labour’s threat to withdraw makes companies hesitate and look elsewhere. That Labour threat is losing us jobs now.

    Mr. President, the great economies of Germany and France, once the engine of growth of the European Community, are struggling with declining output and a growing army of unemployed. Across the Atlantic, the United States, Canada and the countries of Latin America, they have been faced with the most prolonged slump for fifty years. Even the miracle economies of the Pacific Basin—Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore—even they are now being hit.

    But the economies of the Eastern bloc are in a far worse state, far worse state than the West. Poland and Romania are hard pressed to pay their debts, and the Soviet bloc countries generally are riven with shortages of everything, from seed corn to sewing thread.

    Of course, none of us foresaw a world recession of such gravity. Last week in Blackpool the Opposition suggested that I, single-handed, had brought it about. What powers they attribute to me! If I had that sort of power I would banish recession forever. But we’ve no time for dreams and delusions. The main culprit, and there are others, is the greatest sustained inflation in modern times. Almost every developed country has suffered from it.

    For more than a decade economic growth has been thwarted. For more than a decade savers in America and Europe have been systematically robbed by the steady erosion of their savings and for more than a decade the ranks of the unemployed have swollen in the wake of inflation. In 1979 many of us in Europe began the long hard job of wringing a inflation out of the system. As you know Governments had promised to do this over and over again. But when the going got tough they resorted to the printing press. No wonder people became cynical.

    Journalists, many but not all of them on the Left, were almost daily predicting U turns. Some indeed, confidently went around the bend. Now most commentators, with attitudes varying from awe to rage, recognise that we are sticking to our policy. Oh yes, we have been to the IMF. But unlike the last Government we went not as a nation seeking help but as a country giving help to others—a much more fitting role for Britain. From Socialist supplicant to Conservative contributor.

    With inflation falling, interest rates coming down, and honest finance, confidence is returning. In spite of hostilities in the South Atlantic, the exchange rate held steady. What a tribute to the determined and unruffled Chancellorship of Geoffrey Howe. No longer will the saver find his money devalued. No longer shall we have two nations, those who profit from inflation and those who lose by it. No longer will paper booms explode in confetti money.

    Mr. President, there is no road to inflation-free prosperity except through our own efforts. Two hundred years ago, Edmund Burke blamed the French revolutionaries for trying everywhere to “evade and slip aside from difficulty.” He said they had a “fondness for trickery and short-cuts.”

    Mr. President, there are just as many evaders and short-cutters around today, in the Labour Party, the SDP and among the Liberals, taken jointly or severally, according to taste. Inflate a little here, expand a bit there; it’s all so easy. Mr. President, in real life such short cuts often turn out to be dead ends.

    In the 60s and 70s the fashion was to say that the long term does not matter very much because, as Maynard Keynes put it, “In the long run we are all dead.” Anyone who thought like that would never plant a tree.

    We are in the business of planting trees, for our children and grandchildren, or we have no business to be in politics at all. We are not a one generation party. We do not intend to let Britain become a one generation society. Let us not forget the lesson of history. The long term always starts today.

    For, Mr. President, falling inflation on its own will not ensure growth and jobs. We need other things, too. Whether we like it or not, things are changing. They are changing in technology, as we have seen at this conference, with this thing that comes up. We keep abreast of the times. They are changing on the map. Far-away countries scarcely heard of ten years ago now overtake us in our traditional industries. Suddenly we are faced with the need to do everything at once—to wake up, catch up and then overtake, even though the future is as hard to predict as ever.

    So we have to look as far into that future as we can, make sure that all the best talents are free to work at full stretch to help to lead this country into that future. Now Socialists believe that the State can do this better than individuals. Nothing could be more misguided. They are wrong. We can’t opt out of the technology race and try to stand comfortably aside. If we were to do so we should lose not just particular products but whole industries. And we dare not leave our neighbours to inherit the world of the microchip. As one production engineer put it, “The real threat in new technology is the threat of your worst enemies using it.”

    Mr. President, inflation has not been beaten, even when prices stop rising. It is beaten only when costs stop rising. That makes wage costs vital. Pay must relate to output, as every self-employed person will tell you. In the last five years of the 1970s the amount we in Britain paid ourselves for what we produced went up by nearly 100 per cent. One hundred per cent. In Germany their increase was only 15 per cent. In Japan it was zero nought. Of course Japanese workers got more pay, but only from more output.

    So, they got the orders and we lost the jobs. The CBI put it starkly: “Because we have lost over 100 per cent. of the home market to imports” I’m sorry, that’s not what they said. “Because we have lost ten per cent of the home market to imports, and 2.5 per cent. of world export markets to our competitors in the last 12 years we have lost 1.5 million jobs.”

    One and a half million jobs—through losing a fair chunk of our home market to importers and a fair chunk of the export markets to our competitors. Now there is a challenge to management and unions. Get those markets back and we shall get our jobs back.

    And the public sector, well, as you know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced 3.5 per cent. more available for next year’s public pay bill. And before you say “that’s not much”, just remember, for the German civil service it is not going to be 3.5 per cent. but 2 per cent. In Japan, the Japanese civil servants are getting no rise at all. So maybe that will put the 3.5 per cent. in perspective.

    But it is important to keep wage costs down, to accept new technology. If it is important to do all that, then good management and good industrial relations are vital to our future. We heard a lot at Blackpool about how Labour would work with the unions. Of course, they don’t really mean that. What they mean is a cosy get-togethers at No. 10. That is the old pals’ act. It has nothing to do with life on the shop floor and that is where the real problems are sorted out.

    When I travel overseas, time and again they say to me, “Strikes. You have so many strikes. If it were not for that we would give you more contracts. We would invest more in Britain.” In vain do I say that private industry has very few strikes. But the fact is that the much publicised disruptions in the public sector do Britain down every time. I only wish that some of those trade union members on strike in the public sector would realise how many jobs their actions lose—oh, not necessarily their own jobs, but the jobs of people in manufacturing industries, whose taxes pay their wages. We can’t say it too often—“Strikes lose jobs.”

    Mr. President, it’s going to take a long time to get employment up sufficiently, to get unemployment down as far as we all want. The task is even harder because we are going through a phase in Britain when the number of people of working age is rising.

    There are many more more young people leaving school and wanting jobs than there are older people reaching retirement. Over a period of eight years there will be 1.25 million extra people of working age. So even without the recession we should have needed a lot more new jobs just to stop the number of unemployed rising. That shows you the magnitude of the task. Today’s unemployed are the victims of yesterday’s mistakes.

    Government destroyed jobs by fuelling inflation; trades unions destroyed jobs by restrictive practices; militants destroyed jobs by driving customers away. But that is the past and whatever the problems, we have got to tackle them, not with words, not with rhetoric, but with action. Rhetoric is easy but it does not produce jobs. Indeed, if rhetoric could cure unemployment we would have jobs galore by this time.

    Now for the future, you heard from Norman Tebbit that every 16-year-old who leaves school next year will either have a job or a year of full time training. Unemployment will not then be an option, and that is right. But, of course, the Government can’t do everything.

    If we are to beat unemployment—and we must—we have to do it together. The Government’s getting inflation down, interest rates down, reforming trade union law, cutting regulations and removing restrictions. The rest is up to industry, the work force and management in partnership. Because in the end it is private employers who will produce the great majority of jobs.

    Mr. President time and again history beats out the same message. Competition is better for the consumer than State control. We are acting on that conviction. Three and a half years ago defenders of the status quo tried to brand denationalisation as irrelevant. Now the critics are finding it harder to ignore the evidence of their own eyes. They cannot help seeing the new, long-distance coaches speeding down the motor-ways, at very much lower fares. They cannot miss the success of Cable and Wireless or British Aerospace. Britoil will be the next to be denationalised and British Telecommunications after that. How absurd it will seem in a few years’ time that the State ran Pickford’s removals and Gleneagles Hotel.

    Mr. President we are only in our first term. But already we have done more to roll back the frontiers of socialism than any previous Conservative Government.

    And in the next Parliament we intend to do a lot more. And we are seeing increasing evidence of the savings that can be made. Local authority after local authority has found that even the prospect of contracting out their refuse collection produced amazing economies from their staff. As Dr. Johnson nearly said: “Depend on it, when you know you are going to be privatised in a fortnight it concentrates the mind wonderfully.”

    And I hope that every Conservative councillor in the land will act on what Councillor Chope of Wandsworth told us. Wandsworth has gone out to private contractors and down have come the rates. And don’t we all want that. Where Wandsworth has led, let other Conservative councils follow.

    Mr. President I would like to say a word about the Health Service. Because value for money is just as important in the Health Service. Our opponents’ picture of us as a party that doesn’t care about the Health Service is utterly untrue, and is particularly ridiculous from the Labour Party. When they were in office they had nearly 2,000 fewer hospital doctors and 40,000 fewer nurses than we have, and every one of them was then much worse paid than today. But that same Labour Party now supports those who are disrupting the National Health Service and lengthening the very waiting lists that we have brought down. What sort of twisted compassion is that?

    “I believe that we should condemn industrial action with its damage to the Health Service, whether it comes from doctors, nurses or anyone else who works in the service.” Those aren’t my words; that were the Labour Minister of Health’s, David Ennals , when he was in charge. He supported him because it was true then, and it is true now. We have a magnificent record in the National Health Service. We heard that splendid speech from Norman Fowler in one of the best debates in this conference. This year we are spending 5 per cent. more in real terms on the Health Service than Labour, so under Conservatives we have more doctors, more nurses, more money. Hardly the behaviour of a Government bent on destroying the Health Service.

    Naturally, we have a duty to make sure that every penny is properly spent, and that is why we are setting up a team to examine the use of manpower in the National Health Service. Naturally we have a duty to do that. It is part of our duty towards the taxpayer. Of course we welcome the growth of private health insurance. There is no contradiction between that and supporting the National Health Service. It brings in more money, it helps to reduce the waiting lists, and it stimulates new treatments and techniques. But let me make one thing absolutely clear. The National Health Service is safe with us. As I said in the House of Commons on December 1 last: “The principle that adequate health care should be provided for all, regardless of ability to pay, must be the foundation of any arrangements for financing the Health Service.” We stand by that.

    But Mr. President, it is not only in the National Health Service that our record has been very good. Next month the old-age pension will go up by 11 per cent., and that despite the worst recession since the 1930s. That is some achievement too. Whatever our difficulties, nine million pensioners have been fully protected from inflation. We gave our promise and we’ve kept it.

    But we do not measure our success merely by how much money the Government spends. The well-being of our people is about far more than the welfare state. It is about self reliance, family help, voluntary help as well as State provision. In a society which is truly healthy responsibility is shared and help is mutual. Wherever we can we shall extend the opportunity for personal ownership and the self-respect that goes with it. Three hundred and seventy thousand families have now bought their own homes from councils, new towns and housing associations. That’s the result of this Government’s housing policy carried through in the teeth of opposition from the Labour Party. We have fought them all the way, and we won. Half a million more people will now live and grow up as freeholders with a real stake in the country and with something to pass on to their children. There is no prouder word in our history than “freeholder”.

    Mr. President, this is the largest transfer of assets from the State to the family in British history and it was done by a Conservative Government. And this really will be an irreversible shift of power to the people. The Labour Party may huff and puff about putting a stop to the sale of council houses. They may go on making life unpleasant for those who try to take advantage of their legal rights, and what a wicked thing it is to do that. But they do not dare pledge themselves to take those houses back because they know we are right, because they know it is what the people want. And besides, they would be making too many of their own councillors homeless, not to mention one or two of their MPs.

    And we want to bring more choice to parents, too. Parents, we as parents have the prime responsibility to set the standards and to instil the values by which our children are brought up. And more of us has the right to blame the teachers for failing to make up for our shortcomings. But we have every right to be involved in what goes on in our children’s schools. As parents we want to be sure not just about the teaching of the three Rs, but also about the discipline and about the values by which our children are taught to live. We have given parents more say in the choice of school. We have put parents on governing bodies. For the first time in modern Britain a Government is really paying attention not just to school organisation, but to the curriculum; not just to the buildings, but to what is taught inside them.

    And we are not afraid to talk about discipline and moral values. To us “Law and Order” is not an election slogan. It is the foundation of the British tradition. And I believe that, looking back on this first Parliament of ours, it will be said that we have done more to support the police than any British Government since the war. There are more of them, we pay them better, we train them better and we equip them better, and for that you know who we have to thank. I am eternally grateful for the good sense, good humour and loyalty of Willie Whitelaw. Perhaps only I know how staunch he was throughout the whole of the Falklands Campaign, and the difficult decisions we had to take. Thank you very much.

    Mr. President, it cannot be the police alone who are on duty. As parents, as teachers, as politicians and as citizens, what we say and do, whether in the home, the classroom or the House of Commons is bound to leave its mark on the next generation. The television producer who glamourises violence may find his viewing figures ultimately reflected in the crime statistics. And a public figure who comments to the camera on issues of the day should be especially careful what he says.

    The other day, the last Labour Prime Minister—and I do mean “the last Labour Prime Minister” — spoke of what he called “a contingent right” in certain circumstances to break the law. Mr. President, none of us has a right, contingent or otherwise, to uphold the law that suits us and to break the one that does not. That way lies anarchy. The last Labour Prime Minister.

    Mr. President, there are many people in Britain who share the hopes and the ideals of the Conservative Party. They share our great purpose to restore to this country its influence and self-respect. But they are anxious about the future and uncertain about the changes that we have had to make. They have not recognised how far the debating ground of British politics has moved to the Left over the last thirty years. Where the Left stood yesterday the Centre stands today. Yet the British people haven’t moved with it. Instinctively they know that we have to pull this country back to the real centre again. But the anxious say to us “You really cannot do everything at once. The recession and the international economic situation make things particularly difficult. Why not adapt your approach a little, give in for the time being, till things are getting better and then you can start again after the election, next election when you have longer time to do it.”

    Mr. President, to do that would be a betrayal. People in Britain have grown to understand that this Government will make no false promises, nor will it fail in its resolve. How can the Government urge the people to save and build for tomorrow if the people know that that same Government is willing to bend and trim for the sake of votes today? That’s not trusting the people, and it is not the way to be trusted by them. Nothing could be more damaging to our prospects as a nation if this Government to throw away the reputation it has earned for constancy and resolve. It would throw away three years of hard-won achievement.

    On what moral basis would we be entitled to ask for the nation’s support next time? Mr. President, the only way we can achieve great things for Britain is by asking great things of Britain. We will not disguise our purpose, nor betray our principles. We will do what must be done. We will tell the people the truth and the people will be our judge.

  • Margaret Thatcher – 1960 Maiden Speech

    margaretthatcher

    Below is the text of the maiden speech in the House of Commons of Margaret Thatcher, made on 5th February 1960.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    This is a maiden speech, but I know that the constituency of Finchley which I have the honour to represent would not wish me to do other than come straight to the point and address myself to the matter before the House.

    I cannot do better than begin by stating the objects of the Bill in the words used by Mr. Arthur Henderson when he introduced the Bill which became the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908, which was also a Private Member’s Measure. He specified the object and purpose as that of guarding the rights of members of the public by enabling the fullest information to be obtained for them in regard to the actions of their representatives upon local authorities.

    It is appropriate at this stage to mention that the public does not have a right of admission, either at common law or by statute, to the meetings of local authorities. Members of the public are compelled, therefore, to rely upon the local Press for information on what their elected representatives are doing. The original Measure was brought as a result of a case in which the representatives of a particular paper were excluded from a particular meeting.

    The public has the right, in the first instance, to know what its elected representatives are doing. That right extends in a number of directions. I do not know whether hon. Members generally appreciate the total amount of money spent by local authorities. In England and Wales, local authorities spend £1,400 million a year and, in Scotland, just over £200 million a year. Those sums are not insignificant, even in terms of national budgets. Less than half is raised by ratepayers’ money and the rest by taxpayers’ money, and the first purpose in admitting the Press is that we may know how those moneys are being spent. In the second place, I quote from the Report of the Franks Committee: Publicity is the greatest and most effective check against any arbitrary action. That is one of the fundamental rights of the subject. Further, publicity stimulates the interest of local persons in local government. That is also very important. But if there is a case for publicity, there is also a case for a certain amount of private conference when personal matters are being discussed and when questions are in a preliminary stage. It is in trying to find a point of balance between these two aspects—the public right of knowledge and the necessity on occasion for private conference—that the difficulty arises.

    An attempt was made by the 1908 Act to meet this difficulty, and I now turn to the history of the Measure which I am about to present. Provision was made by the 1908 Act for Press representatives to attend meetings of local councils and meetings of education committees in so far as they had delegated powers, and, also a number of other bodies which have now ceased to exist because successive Parliaments have substituted new bodies to carry out the powers which the 1908 Act formerly permitted the Press to publicise.

    Long before the events of the past summer, there was a very good case for amending the 1908 Act. The first good case arose when the Local Government Act, 1929, abolished boards of guardians, to whose meetings the Act admitted the Press. Boards of Guardians were responsible for the administration of hospitals and many other matters. The first attempt to bring the law of 1908 up-to-date came in 1930, when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) introduced a Private Member’s Measure, which I am happy and relieved to learn received a Second Reading. It did not get any further because of a rather precipitate change of Government, which I do not think even the most optimistic hon. Member opposite would believe was imminent at the moment. The case for the Bill then was that boards of guardians no longer existed and the Act needed amending, firstly, by reference to its past performance, and secondly, by reference to the new legislation of 1929.

    Then came another major local government Measure, the Local Government Act, 1933. That Act has very considerable significance, because in Section 85 local authorities were empowered to appoint any committees they chose. As a result, many authorities began to go into committee of the full council, not merely for the purpose which is in the spirit of the 1908 Act—that is to say, in order to discuss something which was truly of a confidential nature—but in order merely to exclude the Press, without addressing their minds to whether such exclusion was justified by reference to the matter to be discussed. That began to provide the first major legal loophole in the Act. Where previously local authorities had to deliberate in open council, with the exception of circumstances arising from the business which justified the exclusion of the Press, after that Act they were enabled to resolve themselves into committee merely as a matter of administrative convenience.

    Two more Private Members’ Measures attempted to bring the 1908 Act up-todate—one introduced in 1949 by the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), and the other introduced in 1950 by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay). In the meantime, the need was becoming even greater, because in 1944 came the Education Act, which removed from the sharp light of publicity education committees which had been within purview of the 1908 Act. So we find that the purpose of this Act which governs the position now is no longer effective, because its provisions have become greatly out-dated. This is one of the major grounds for attempting now to bring the 1908 Act up-to-date and make its purpose effective by means of a new Act.

    I now turn to the Bill before the House and will try to deduce its general principle from the Clauses there set down. There are six points I should like to make. The first point is, on what occasions in local authority work will this Bill entitle the Press to be present? I use the word “entitled” because there are many authorities which already practise the admission of the Press to a far greater extent than the Bill would necessitate their doing if it became law. This is meant to establish a minimum legislative code of practice for the local authorities. Therefore, the first question is to which meetings of local authorities would the Press be entitled to be admitted by virtue of the Bill. I would refer hon. Members to Clause 2 (2), which contains the major point with reference to committees, and I will try to put the point in fairly simple language —rather simpler than the complicated drafting we find here.

    May I point out that committees of local authorities whose only power is to recommend a course of action to the council—a course of action which must be taken by the council and which cannot be taken by the committee without reference back—are not included at all in the Bill? Therefore, any committee of a local authority whose only task is to recommend a course of action to the council is not within the purview of the Bill.

    I am well aware that a number of committees of local authorities have two different kinds of power—power to recommend and power to discharge the function of the local authority itself because that local authority has specifically delegated that task to the committee. Where the committee has both of these functions, it comes within the realm of the Bill if, and only if, a substantial Dart of its functions consists in discharging delegated powers. Where a committee only has the odd delegated power referred to it, it will not come within the Bill. Where local authorities have made a practice, as some have, of delegating their own functions to committees, these committees have substantial delegated powers, and therefore come within this Clause.

    The Press will be admitted to the main council meetings of local authorities and to those meetings which effectively discharge the functions of the council; that is the committees with substantial delegated powers, but others are not included. I know that some authorities include them, and I would like to see more authorities include them, because I think it would be in the interests of local government, but they are not entitled to be included under this Bill.

    Having got the Press in to these meetings, or having entitled them to be in, there must inevitably be occasions, such as personal circumstances coming under discussion, matters preliminary to legal proceedings, matters with regard to the acquisition of land, or such matters which would inevitably come up, when the Press were entitled to be present, unless some effective provision was made to exclude the Press on these occasions.

    My second point, therefore, is: having got the Press in, upon what grounds is a local authority entitled to exclude it? There must inevitably be some occasions. We have had great difficulty in drafting the Clause to fit all cases. I had hoped to draw up a schedule of circumstances in which local authorities would be entitled to exclude the Press. That was not possible, and we have had to go back to a kind of omnibus Clause. I refer hon. Members to Clause 1 (2), which is the operative Clause for this purpose. I suggest most earnestly that when the Press is excluded it must be because of some particular reason arising from the proceedings of the local authority at the time, and there must be very good reason for the exclusion. The real reason for excluding the Press is that publicity of the matter to be discussed would be prejudicial to the public interest.

    There are two prongs to this Clause. Publicity would be prejudicial for two main groups of reasons. The first group is where the matters under discussion are of a confidential nature. They may relate to personal circumstances of individual electors. They may relate to a confidential communication from a Government Department asking local authorities for their opinion on a subject which the Minister would not like to be discussed in open session until he is a good deal further on and has received the views of local authorities.

    There is another group of subjects which perhaps could not be strictly termed confidential but where it would be clearly prejudicial to the public interest to discuss them in open session. They may relate to staff matters, to legal proceedings, to contracts, the discussion of which tender to accept and other such matters. On this prong the Press has to be excluded for a special reason which would need to be stated in the resolution for exclusion. Where the matter is confidential it would not need to be specified further in the resolution for exclusion. Where it was for a special reason, that reason would need to be specified in broad general terms in the resolution for exclusion. This subsection is effective and wide enough in its drafting to cover all occasions upon which a local authority could possibly have good grounds for going into private session. Those are the two main operative Clauses of the Bill.

    My third point relates to documents. I understand that there is a very wide variation in practice between the number of documents which different local authorities give to the Press. I do not know how many hon. Members have tried to obtain information about a local authority of which they are not a member but happen to be a ratepayer. One sometimes goes to a council meeting without any idea of what is to be discussed. One sits there for about 15 minutes and all one hears is numbers being counted up to about twenty and starting all over again. Unless the Press, which is to report to the public, has some idea from the documents before it what is to be discussed, the business of allowing the Press in becomes wholly abortive. Therefore, Clause 1 (3, b) makes provision for a limited number of documents to be supplied to the Press at its request in advance of the meeting. It specifies that the agenda must be supplied to the Press if it so requests and is prepared to pay for it.

    Agendas vary very much. Some are couched in terms which do not betray for one moment the subject which is to be discussed. One sees such items as “To discuss the proposal of Mr. Smith” and, “To receive the recommendation of Mr. Jones”. As distinct from the supporting accompanying documents, the agenda itself is usually a comparatively brief document. I have, therefore, thought fit to put into the subsection a provision that the agenda shall be supplied to the Press together with such further statement or particulars as are necessary to convey to an outside person the nature of the subject to be discussed. Therefore, the Press must have some idea from the documents what is the true subject to be discussed at meetings to which its representatives are entitled to be admitted.

    If the whole agenda was supplied, it might include some things which would be likely to be taken when the Press was excluded. I understand that the practice in many councils is to have Part I and Part II, to take subjects in public session first, and then have a resolution and go into camera for the next group of subjects which come up in private. The corporation, acting through its proper officer, to whom it would have to give instructions, is entitled to exclude from the agenda matters which are likely to be taken in camera so that no confidential matters will leak out by that process. Another provision in the Clause is that the corporation may, if it thinks fit—not must—include supporting committee reports or documents, but it would have to exercise its mind to include them. The Press would not be able to demand such documents as of right.

    Fourthly, I have been approached and asked about the question of qualified privilege for local councillors and people who serve on local authorities. I have been approached by people who suggest that the privilege should be made absolute. I could not possibly accede to that, as I think that absolute privilege should be given very rarely indeed. However, there is a consequential provision in the Bill which means that where qualified privilege at present exists for statements made by people serving on local authorities that qualified privilege shall not cease to exist merely because the Press is present. That retains the present position and removes one of the reasons why people can object to the Press being present, because unless there were a consequential provision it might serve to remove the qualified privilege.

    Fifthly, I understand from various sources that my proposals are under some criticism because they contain no sanctions or penalties upon local authorities. I should therefore like to state briefly what I am advised the position is when any statute is breached. There are general sanctions available at law for this purpose. Where a public right is infringed, as it would be in the event of the Bill becoming law and local authorities wrongfully excluding the Press, any person can apply to either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General for what is known as a relator action. He must state on the application the grounds and enclose counsel’s opinion that there is a good cause of action, that is to say, that it is probable that the council wrongfully excluded under particular circumstances. The person must supply also—I have no doubt that this is very important—a solicitor’s certificate to the effect that the person to take action and to go to the courts is a person who is likely to be able to meet the costs, because the Attorney-General will not foot the bill. He only lends his name to the action.

    When that is done, the courts can adjudicate on whether that exclusion was legal or illegal. In the event of the litigant getting a declaration that the exclusion was illegal, he would get costs, and the district auditor already has power to surcharge those costs upon the members of the local authority whose misconduct was responsible for the illegal action occurring. I submit that those sanctions that are available by the ordinary law are sufficient to enable this Measure to be enforced.

    My sixth point relates to the Schedule. I shall not go through the Schedule in any great detail, except to point out that a considerable number of the bodies referred to in it are the successors in title to those mentioned in the 1908 Act—the divisional executives established under the Education Act, the regional hospital boards and so on. Hon. Members will note that some committees of authorities are specifically excluded—those whose functions consist solely of determining matters of a confidential nature.

    For example, committees of regional hospitals boards are specifically excluded. Committees of executive councils are specifically excluded, which means that any disciplinary matter relating to doctors, nurses, and so on, would not come before the public eye because the committee discharging the function does not come within this Measure.

    I hope it is evident from what I have said that we are trying very hard to put into the form of legislation a code of practice that will safeguard the rights of the public. There was, last summer, one instance of the letter of the 1908 Act being contravened, and in a number of instances certainly the spirit of that Act was contravened. It is not, therefore, only a matter of bringing the 1908 Act up to date; because of the abuse of the law, there is a case for safeguarding the rights of the citizen. I hope that hon. Members will think fit to give this Bill a Second Reading, and to consider that the paramount function of this distinguished House is to safeguard civil liberties rather than to think that administrative convenience should take first place in law.

    Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to acknowledge the help given to me by my right hon. Friend and his Department which, I understand, has been as great as any Government Department could give to a private Member. I want also to acknowledge the help of those who have been good enough to subscribe their names to the Bill, and I should like to thank the House for its very kind indulgence to a new Member.

  • Sarah Teather – 2011 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    Below is the text of a speech made by Sarah Teather to the Liberal Democrat Conference on 18th September 2011.

    Good morning conference.

    “Education… beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery.”

    The quote is from Horace Mann, the great 19th century American reformer. But it speaks to the instincts of liberals here with as much resonance as then.

    The scandal is that though it should be true, it isn’t.

    LABOUR’S LEGACY

    You will hear many people talk this week about the shocking state of the nation’s finances that was Labour’s legacy. I want to talk about another of Labour’s legacies: the shocking inequality at the heart of the nation’s education system.

    A system where the poorest children start school behind and fall further behind at every stage.

    Where poor seven-year olds are twice as likely to fall short in reading and writing than their richer peers.

    Where the poorest 16-year olds are three times as likely to fail to get five good GCSEs as the richest.

    Labour didn’t only waste money – they wasted the chance to make a difference for our children.

    We have come to expect that poverty will inevitably always go hand in hand with poor attainment. But in other countries it does not necessarily follow.

    Something in the way society functions, in the way education works, makes children elsewhere more resilient, more self confident, more aspirational, better able to benefit from what education has to offer, and so escape their family background.

    Conference, it is not acceptable that poor children to fail. That reflects badly on the complacency of the previous Government, and it reflects badly on the complacency of our society.

    We have to put it right.

    It is our ambition that every child will be the author of his or her own life story, will be able to fulfil his or her own potential, not bound by the confines of their family background, of their parent’s job or wealth, or of other’s expectations.

    To break the link between your birth and your fate: this is our task. It is the reason we are in Government.

    It is the reason I came into politics.

    It is not an easy task. But it is the challenge we have chosen to take on, and carefully, and consistently, we have begun to try and tilt the playing field, back in favour of those children and families who are falling behind.

    EARLY YEARS

    What do we know about how best to make that difference?

    Inequality starts early. A bright child from a poor background in Harlesden in my constituency will already have begun to fall behind at two. Life’s race is too often lost long before they start school.

    Liberal Democrats have consistently argued that we need to intervene early.

    So we’re reviewing the early years curriculum for every child and every nursery.  It will be simpler for parents and more focused on how children develop and learn.  And I’ve just announced a review of workforce qualifications, to make sure the best people are working with our youngest children.

    But that won’t help, unless it reaches the children who most need it.

    So, Liberal Democrats in government have extended the free hours of early years education for all three and four year olds. For the first time, we will make 15 hours of early education available to all disadvantaged two year olds.

    And this early education will become a legal entitlement.

    And today I can make a further announcement.

    I will shortly be launching a consultation on how councils will decide which children are eligible.

    I’ll propose that first and foremost every family who meet the criteria for free school meals should qualify, along with looked after children.

    What’s more, we know that some children with special educational needs and disabilities could particularly benefit from extra support at an early stage.

    So I’m proposing that councils should be free to offer it to these other groups if they choose.

    I have seen the difference this commitment will make.

    Children whose confidence and vocabulary has been radically changed because of these crucial hours of early education.

    Children who will begin school further ahead because of help they had at a critical time.

    Conference, these children will have a fairer start in life because Liberal Democrats fought for it and Liberal Democrats in Government made it happen.

    PUPIL PREMIUM

    That’s not all we’re changing. Since April this year, schools in England have had an additional £625m to spend on the pupil premium.

    Schools up and down the country are already using this extra money to help children who otherwise would have fallen behind their peers.

    Extra individual tuition.

    Parent support advisors.

    Out of school clubs.

    We’ll be sharing evidence about what works, and making sure that schools are held to account on the results they achieve.

    We have to do more.

    Today I can announce that, next year, the amount of money available for the pupil premium will double to £1.25bn. Doubling the amount of support schools are able to offer their most disadvantaged students.

    Conference, five years ago, as your Education spokesperson in opposition, I asked you to support the pupil premium. You went out and campaigned on it. Nick Clegg championed it. It was on the front page of our manifesto. We put it at the centre of our coalition negotiations and we made sure it was protected it in the spending review.

    Conference, children across the country will have a fairer start in life because Liberal Democrats fought for it and Liberal Democrats in Government made it happen.

    EDUCATION SYSTEM

    I’d like here to thank my parliamentary colleagues Joan Walmsley, Dan Rogerson, Simon Wright and Tessa Munt, and Cllr Gerald Vernon Jackson and James Kempton who sit on the Education Department’s advisory group. They have worked tirelessly over the past year to support me in working to close the achievement gap left by Labour.

    A fairer school admissions systems.

    A better deal for children excluded from school.

    Strengthened access to vocational education, and so much more.

    Together, we are tackling Labour’s wasted years.

    Years when youth unemployment increased by over a third.

    Years when thousands of young people were pushed towards qualifications that didn’t lead to college or a job.

    Years when our young people fell further behind their compatriots in other developed countries.

    Conference, Labour may have thought this was a record to be proud of but we do not.

    SUPPORTING FAMILIES

    If we’re going to turn around the entrenched relationship between poverty and life chances, yes, quality education is an important part of the story.

    But it is only one piece of the jigsaw.

    We all know what marks the difference between the 5 year old who begins school confident, sociable, able to read and write their own name, compared with the child who isn’t ready for school. It is as much to do with the head start they were offered at home by their family.

    Strong, stable, confident parenting.

    Mothers and fathers spending time with children, reading them stories, engaging with their education.

    And yet just this week UNICEF published a report showing how our parents feel under so much more pressure than in other countries, so much less confident in their parenting ability.  They struggle in finding time for their children.

    Liberals have traditionally said that it is not Government’s job to interfere in family life.

    But if we are serious about allowing each individual to realise their full potential, it must surely be Government’s job to create the kind of society in which all families are able to flourish. The kind of society which fosters a safe, stable and happy environment in which children can grow and develop.

    Every family goes through tough times, but if you don’t have family close by, if you are bringing up a child on your own, if your health is poor or you are out of work things can be really difficult. If you are lucky, friends and family can step in. But if you aren’t, if we are going to provide that fair start for every child, we need to offer families the support they need.

    That is why the Government is investing in relationship support. £30m over the next four years.

    That is why Ed Davey has proposed to extend parental leave to both parents, to give families more flexibility and to encourage both parents to play their part.

    That is why Children’s Centres are so important – with a new core purpose, clearer that they’re accessible to all, but more focused on what works for the most disadvantaged and needy families.

    And we are now identifying some of the best Children’s Centres to become centres of excellence, training others in offering support, and making changes so that parents and community groups can be more involved in how they are run.

    PARENTING SUPPORT

    But we want to do more. To respond to those parents who say they are under pressure, and would like more information on what to expect, more ideas on how to cope, and more ideas for helping their child learn and develop.

    So I can announce today that the Government will shortly begin piloting an offer of voluntary parenting classes for every parent of a child under 5 in three or four areas.

    This is a direct response to the evidence that the home learning environment is the biggest single determinant of your child’s future success. Where parents support their children to learn, the link between poverty and poor attainment can be broken.

    SOCIETY AFTER THE RIOTS

    But bringing up children isn’t just a job for parents. It is all of our responsibility.

    The riots this summer gave most of us pause for thought. Many theories were proffered in the immediate aftermath, some more ludicrous than others.

    Liberal Democrats in Government have tried to take a more thoughtful approach.

    And in responding to what we saw on our television screens, we also saw differences between the political parties.

    Differences in their values, and what they believed for the future of our country.

    For me, it provoked many deeper questions about the kind of society we are trying to create, the kind of society we want our children to grow up in.

    Our schools – are they places where children are happy and safe, and want to learn or are they places where a macho, and “have that now” culture gets in the way of aspiration and achievement?

    Our families and friendships – are they built on strong relationships, or, as that UNICEF report suggested, are they too often filled with “stuff” we can buy as a substitute for valuable time?

    Our communities – are they places that encourage children to be children, or are they dominated by what adults want and desire?

    Our country – is it one where individual rights are cherished and protected, or where the response to threat is to clamp down harder?  Is it one where your birth is allowed to equal your fate, or where we use the nation’s resources to fight against it?

    Conference, it is time to think again about how we value children and young people, how we portray them, and what part they play in society.

    It is time to challenge Labour’s wasted years.

    It is time to be strong in standing up for human rights, for children’s rights, and for a society that is free and fair for all.

    Liberal Democrats, you fought for a fair start for every child.  And in government, that is what we will deliver.

  • Sarah Teather – 2011 Speech to the Family and Parenting Institute

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sarah Teather to the Family and Parenting Institute on 17th October 2011.

    Thank you very much – it’s a great pleasure to be here today, especially for the start of Parents’ week. I’m really grateful to the FPI for hosting this meeting today.

    This is a really important agenda for the Government, and I hope that you recognise that by the support that’s been given at the highest levels of Government for this week. This is an issue which the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and I take very seriously.

    The key point that I want to leave you with, as the Government’s Minister for Children and Families, is that this Government isn’t going to shy away from supporting family life.

    I do recognise that this is a controversial area – and it’s controversial both on the left and on the right. There are some people who will say it’s all about supporting marriage. Then you’ve got people who say it’s nothing to do with supporting marriage.

    Marriage is incredibly important in creating a supportive and happy environment, but it is not the only thing that we should consider when we’re thinking about supporting families, because we know that it is the quality of the family and parent-child relationships that really matter.

    I also think, in reflecting about supporting families and parents at this stage, that there is a tendency too often for families to become the public whipping boy for policy. After the riots, it’s right that we should think and ask questions about how we raise our children. But too often the debate becomes polarised into good parents and bad parents.

    That’s not helpful for anybody. All parents make mistakes. All parents find it a tough job. Most parents are desperate for more advice, more information and more support.

    Bringing up children is something that we all have a stake in, and we knock families at our peril. All of us have a stake in this. That’s demonstrated by the work that the FPI have done – in getting businesses involved as much as in the support that is offered to individual families.

    But I think that there is a very specific role for Government in trying to create the kind of society in which children grow up and develop well and in which family life can flourish.

    The evidence is clear. As Graham Allen and Frank Field have found in their reports, children’s life chances are heavily predicated on their development in the first five years of life. For children’s health, mothers’ health is critical in the early days and weeks.

    Two other factors are really important to children’s life chances: high-quality early years education and what we call the home learning environment. “The home learning environment has a greater influence on a child’s intellectual and social development than parental occupation, education or income.”

    That’s a very stark finding – it means that the way in which parents interact with their children in the very early stages of life can overcome many of the other factors associated with disadvantage.

    We know that this is very important. Supporting parents to do a good job is critical if the Government is serious about accessing the potential that all children have.

    That’s the reason that we have extended the free early years entitlement from 12.5 hours to 15 hours for all 3 and 4 year olds. It’s also the reason that we’re extending it to all disadvantaged two-year olds. There’s also significant, on-going work to improve the quality of the early years offer.

    But we need to do more if we want to support parents.

    Most new parents would expect to attend an antenatal class. They may decide to pay for that, or they may be able to have it for free.

    But parenting support once your child arrives has come to be seen as remedial or punitive. Something that is forced on you if something goes badly wrong or if your child is uncontrollable.

    I don’t think that’s a healthy way forward. I want to see more access and more choice for parents to parenting advice and support. That’s why I announced last month that the Government will shortly begin trialling an offer of parenting classes for mothers and fathers of children child aged 0 – 5 in three or four areas.

    The trial will give parents access to parenting classes during those first five years of their child’s life, so that they can have help with parenting until their child starts school. I hope that will begin to break that cycle that says that parenting classes are only something that happens when things go wrong, and that people will then feel confident, at a later stage, to access information and support.

    Today I am delighted to announce that those trials will run in three areas: Middlesbrough, High Peak and the London Borough of Camden. Officials from my Department have already been in touch with partners in those areas. They’ve been chosen specifically to make sure that we’re able to cover a rural area, an urban area, and areas with a very mixed population that have wealth and disadvantage living side by side. If this offer is going to work then it needs to be available to all parents.

    The classes won’t be compulsory. This isn’t the nanny state. But it is a response to the evidence that says that the home environment is the biggest single determinant of your child’s future success. I don’t think we can afford to ignore that evidence. It would be to squander the nation’s most precious resource – our children’s potential.

    But parenting classes are just one element in the spectrum of family support that this Government is providing.

    Sure Start Children’s Centres continue to play a vital part in their local community, alongside schools and NHS services.

    We believe that these centres should have a clear core purpose, focused on improving outcomes for young children and their families, with a particular focus on the most disadvantaged families – reducing inequalities in child development and school readiness; parenting aspirations, self esteem and parenting skills; and child and family health and life chances.

    We want areas who are trialling parenting classes to think about the role their local network of children’s centres can play – in terms of: children’s centres supporting families into parenting classes, through parenting classes, and after a parenting class has finished.

    And we know how important the support of health visitors can be, especially during those early years. This is why the Government is acting to strengthen the Healthy Child Programme through its commitment to an extra 4,200 health visitors by 2015.

    We’re also investing in relationship support – £30 million over the next four years – because we know that’s critical in supporting parents.

    Last week, we announced an increase in childcare support for families on low incomes.

    In addition, the Government has proposed to extend parental leave to both parents, to give families more flexibility and to encourage both parents to play their part. I believe passionately that this is a vital part of our commitment to families.

    BIS have recently concluded their consultation called the ‘Modern Work Place’ consultation, which addressed this issue. I believe that this is absolutely critical to supporting family life, and I’m very excited about this consultation.

    In the coming weeks, I’ll be announcing more support to help parents navigate through the wealth of information and advice available to mothers, fathers and carers, particularly on the internet.

    If you try Googling “parenting” you’ll receive over 200 million suggestions – not all of which will be relevant. We need to start helping parents navigate the enormous amount of parenting information and support available.

    That is why my Department and the Department of Health are jointly exploring ways of making digital information for parents of children between pregnancy and the age of five more easily accessible. The aim is that parents find specific information and advice when they need it and are signposted to high quality health and parenting content. I expect to be able to say more about this new service very shortly.

    Parenting isn’t just about supporting families in the early years. We know that things don’t always get easier as children get older.

    That’s why the commitment that the Prime Minister made very recently to a family ‘test’ is so critical.

    We want to do everything we can to ensure that policies help families flourish by supporting the financial well-being and work-life balance of families and promoting quality public services for them to use.

    I’m concerned that this test shouldn’t just pick up the broad sweep of issues or only cater for middle class families. If this test is going to work, it has to cater for families of all backgrounds. Families who may be more vulnerable, for example, because they have a child who has a disability, or because they fit into one of the categories which are less popular with the media. How are we supporting families who are involved in the criminal justice system, or who may be affected by benefit reform? These are the critical tests of how a family ‘test’ should work.

    But a family “test” operated wholly in Whitehall is unlikely to be the most effective way of achieving our aims. We need to know what real families think, and not just what civil servants think real families think.

    So that’s why I’ve been so grateful for the help of the FPI in developing our thinking so far.

    And we want to continue working with partners like you in developing the family “test.”

    If you want to make an input to the development of the family “test”, if there are obvious policy areas that you know need highlighting, or things that you think should be addressed by this family ‘test’ I’d encourage you to get in contact with the Families’ Strategic Partner, who offer advice to the Government on families’ issues, via our hosts today the Family and Parenting Institute.

    I just want to finish by saying that I’m incredibly grateful for the support, advice and challenge that everyone in the sector and beyond provides Government on its policy decisions. We are better for it!

    I know that families are feeling under pressure at the moment with the current fiscal situation. I know it’s tight and I know it’s difficult. But this Government is determined to do as much as it can to support families. I’m grateful for your help in making that happen.

  • Sarah Teather – 2010 Speech to 4Children Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sarah Teather to the 4Children conference on 13th October 2010.

    Thank you for inviting me here today and for your report, which is an extremely important contribution and I know is a culmination of a long piece of work and research. It is particularly useful ahead of next week’s spending review.

    I absolutely agree with your analysis. If we want to build any kind of society, let alone a big one, it needs to be built on units. The fundamental building block is family – families of all sizes, big, small, families that extend up through generations and horizontally too. All the elements of society exist in them. Many of society’s problems begin there and pass through generations. But so too are many of the solutions.

    As you say, families are a great untapped resource.

    So, if we are to build a big society, critical to our discussion is how we support families so they flourish and thrive. We need to look at removing the barriers that stop families thriving.

    This is the time for including families, and this is particularly true for the most vulnerable families.

    It’s the reason why so much of our focus has been and will continue to be on how we can support the most disadvantaged families. That’s why we’re making Sure Start children’s centres work better to help more families, recruiting extra health visitors, reforming the special educational needs system – because disabled children and their families have particularly important needs that can put a strain on family relationships, or making work pay to encourage people back into work.

    But the relentless top-down approach from Whitehall has not yielded all the results we want. People’s experience is of services being done to them and not taking account of them. They have been offered the wrong kind of help and there is a sense that they’re not being listened to. You can’t reach the most alienated families from a Whitehall office – we can’t do everything from the centre.

    We need to design services in a radically different way and encourage councils to think more innovatively. We need a different relationship with local government to fundamentally reshape the way we think about working with children and families. By removing ring fences on funding, changing how we deliver things and involving the voluntary sector more.

    This is especially important in Sure Start, where there is much more room for voluntary sector involvement.

    Penn Green, the children’s centre research centre I visited last week, has a fantastic track record of involving the community, and particularly parents. This is a model we need to learn from.

    But it is more than just about services. It is something bigger in vision – more difficult to achieve outright. Social capital is at the heart of what the Big Society is all about. It’s the links you have with others, the informal networks you are a part of that matter. Informal relationships offer people information, connections to work, sources of support.

    When relationships in your family get tough it’s the informal support networks that are key. Having somebody to talk to, other people who know what you are going through.

    The more disadvantaged you are, the fewer of those social links you have. Resilient families is what really matters. Building resilient families is partly about putting in place professional support and also about trying to create a society where people are less isolated – building communities – or putting in place the things that are needed so they build themselves, so that families of all types make connections with others.

    We need to create a society where people are less isolated – that’s the big vision. Children’s centres are at the heart of that, as well as churches, mosques, local clubs and even pubs – all provide ways to get to know people.

    Localising power down to local communities is not about getting things done for free, but about giving communities more power to find the solutions that are right for them.

  • Jeff Rooker – 1998 Speech to the British Poultry Meat Federation

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Jeff Rooker, to the British Poultry Meat Federation on 29th April 1988.

    I am pleased that I have been given the opportunity to address this lunch. It has long been recognised that the poultry industry represents a great success story for UK agriculture. A success that has come about with little or no support from the Common Agricultural Policy.

    Despite the lightness of the CAP regime for your sector the Ministry’s work does of course impinge on your industry in a number of ways.

    Firstly, of course, there is the forthcoming establishment of the Food Standards Agency. This reflects consumers concern about the safety of the food they eat. But it would be quite wrong to see this development as conflicting with the ideal of a healthy and successful food industry. In fact, the opposite is true: the Government believes that UK food producers stand to benefit both domestically and abroad from the increased confidence in the safety of our food which the FSA should bring.

    To back this up, we are building in safeguards to ensure that the agency does not impose disproportionate costs and burdens on British producers which are not justified on safety grounds. The rules under which the FSA operates will enshrine the principle that its actions should be proportionate to risk, and pay due regard to the costs as well as benefits to those affected by them.

    Moving on, I know from your Federation’s detailed and well thought-out response to the White Paper that our plans to shift some of the costs of food safety work from the taxpayer to the industry are worrying you. This question perhaps provoked the biggest reaction in our consultation, with many strong views voiced from all quarters. It is our firm belief, however, that the food industry stands to benefit in the long term from the new food safety arrangements, and that it is only fair that it should pay its share of their costs.

    But we do recognise that the area is complex, and we want to make sure that the final arrangements are both equitable and workable. We shall therefore be consulting on questions such as the scope of any scheme and the basis for calculating charges, including the need to take account of the size and type of the business, before we finalise our proposals.

    Still on charges, I am aware of your concerns over Veterinary Medicine Directorate charges for residues surveillance which will raise more money from the UK poultry meat industry than is actually needed to carry out the sort of cost-effective residue testing programme the VMD is committed to. You know, however, that the level of charge is set directly by EU legislation and that the Commission will be closely monitoring our compliance. I firmly believe that the extension of the VMD statutory programme to poultry significantly enhances the protection available to the consumer. All results from the programme will be published along with brand names for those above the action level and all such positives will be followed up with farmer and his veterinary adviser.

    I know the VMD have suggested ways in which to mitigate this problem. I have asked them to continue to be pro-active with your representatives and can assure you we will seek to re-negotiate the poultry residue charge set out in the EU legislation should the opportunity arise.

    The levels of salmonella infection in the national poultry flocks continues to be a matter of concern. The ACMSF has looked at this area in detail, and its Report on Poultry Meat provides clear direction for the industry. In addition, the Forward Programme for the Poultry Meat Industry, in which the British Poultry Meat Federation were involved, indicates the way in which HACCP can be applied in the slaughterhouse.

    I am pleased that the levels of salmonella enteritidis and salmonella typhimurium in broiler breeder flocks has been reduced. The policy of eradication in the breeding pyramid, which we have been concentrating on, does appear to be working.

    I hear that the level of infection in the broiler flocks has also reduced significantly in recent years – perhaps to as low as 10% in some cases. Again, this deserves recognition, but I believe further progress is possible. The ACMSF saw no reason in principle why the prevalence of salmonella contamination in chickens on retail sale should not be reduced to single figures in percentage terms, on the basis of existing technology. The Department of Health will be conducting a survey on salmonella in UK produced chickens on retail sale later this year. As you know from the White Paper, the scope for pathogen reduction throughout the food chain in general is a subject in which we propose the Food Standards Agency will take a close interest. The continued co-operation of the whole industry will be essential in order to build on the progress made so far.

    You may know that the European Commission has started its review of the original Zoonoses Directive. We will consult the industry as the review progresses.

    You may also know that, in December 1997, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) looked at the possibility of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies arising in pigs and poultry. Although it considered the risk to be small, it felt that recycling pig and poultry waste as feed for the same species could create the potential to spread disease, and recommended that the Government should remove this risk in discussion with our European partners. We have accepted SEAC’s recommendations and have asked the Commission to schedule early discussions about a possible ban on the use of poultry and feather waste as poultry feed within the European Community.

    With regard to mammalian meat and bone meal I should say that there are very good reasons why our own controls on feed are more restrictive than those in place elsewhere, in countries where mammalian meat and bone meal can be fed to poultry. The Uk has had far more cases of BSE than any other country. Consequently we have to maintain stringent controls in order to remove the risk of ruminant diets being infected, either directly or through cross-contamination, with the disease agent.

    Last year I announced that there would be a review under the Poultry Meat Hygiene Regulations, to look at the current exemption from licensing of those premises with an annual slaughter of less than 10,000 birds. This exemption affects both on-farm production and small slaughterhouses. The issue relates to the European Community wide prohibition on the production of New York dressed poultry, to issues of food safety and to the maintenance of a level playing field for all of the poultry industry.

    This review is now under way within the Ministry, and we plan to have proposals ready for consultation in the summer. As I have promised, there will be a full public consultation, including the industry. The review will address all aspects of the issue, and consider all the practicalities of the various options available. I look forward to receiving the contributions of this Federation and of this industry to our proposals.

    There are, of course, other policy areas that are of concern to you as producers, such as animal welfare and environmental protection measures.

    It is important to strive to improve minimum standards on animal welfare. Obviously this is best done at international level if we are to achieve real improvements and not just open up our market to products produced elsewhere to lower welfare standards. There are encouraging signs of progress on this front but realistically the adoption of agreed EU minimum standards is likely to take some time. Meanwhile, as you know, there are pressures on us to legislate at national level and consumers and retailers are continuing to demand reassurance as to welfare standards. It is important therefore to show that progress is being made voluntarily by the industry to improve welfare.

    You will all also be aware that the public is more conscious of the impact of agriculture on the environment. It is important that the industry takes a responsible attitude to how it organises its various operations, and takes care that those which might cause pollution do not do so.

    The Ministry provides advice on preventing pollution, for example, through the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice. In the near future there will be legislation aimed at requiring an integrated approach. The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive will affect a wide range of businesses, including some in agriculture. Of specific interest to you is the fact that it will apply to poultry businesses which have more than 40,000 birds. It will also apply to installations which process raw animal material including poultry meat, as well as slaughterhouses and animal renderers.

    The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is in the lead on the implementation of this Directive, but the Ministry is closely involved in the discussions and you have been, and will continue to be, consulted as the implementation process develops towards legislation and the guidance to comply with that legislation.

    Agriculture, including poultry businesses, will also be affected by the development of the EU Acidification Strategy. There is still some way to go on discussion of the Strategy. In particular, national emission targets which will limit emissions of the acidifying gases including ammonia, the gas most relevant to agriculture, have not been agreed. Once again the Ministry will continue to keep you informed of, and consult uyou on, developments.

    Let me turn to the subject of trade, which I know is of major concern to the Federation. You will be aware that the next World Trade Organisation (WTO) Round of agriculture negotiations is due to begin at the turn of the century. Informal preparatory work has already begun at the WTO in Geneva under the WTO Agriculture Committee, involving the analysis and exchange of information between member countries to help them prepare their positions for the next Round.

    What will the Government be looking for in the next Round ? The Uruguay Round was a significant step forward in terms of bringing agriculture under international trade disciplines, but there is still a great deal to be done in terms of policy reform and reducing protectionism. So we will be looking to the next Round to achieve further liberalisation of trade and reductions in agricultural support and protectionism.

    This means lower tariffs, larger import quotas and tighter limits on export subsidies. And there will be pressure on domestic agricultural support, which will have to either be decoupled from production or live within tighter limits.

    Having said that the Government support trade liberalisation, I know that a major concern of your industry is the increased volume of imported chicken particularly from Brazil and Thailand. The fact is that the Community is committed, under the Uruguay Round settlement, to provide a minimum level of access for imports of products including poultry-meat. This level of market access is bound to go up after the next WTO Round as the trend towards further liberalisation continues.

    But the Uruguay Round also allows countries to take action in circumstances where the volume of imports has risen dramatically, or their price fallen. As you know, the Community has exercised its right to take this special safeguard action in your sector.

    Under the forthcoming Poultrymeat Marketinbg Regulations THIRD country of origin will be required on labels for both pre-packaged and unpackaged poultrymeat. The latter is an option that the UK has decided to take.

    We will continue to monitor the trend in imports closely and to discuss with you the effect on the UK market and industry. But the trend is clearly towards more liberal trade, and I urge you to be prepared, in the longer term, to operate in a more open and internationally-competitive environment.

    One of my main concerns in this area is to ensure that the market for poultry meat in the UK, and the opportunities for export, are not undermined by producers in other European Union Member States who are not complying with the hygiene conditions laid down in Community law. I know that this is a particular concern for the Federation at this time. We do not have an easy task given the fact that trade in poultry meat is not normally dependant on official health certification and there will always be unscrupulous traders who seek to circumvent the rules for their own ends. The problem is not helped by the fact that some Member States have failed to transpose Community directives into their national law. But this does not excuse them from ensuring that their producers meet the conditions laid down in those directives.

    We are very keen to bring examples of transgressions by traders in other Member States to the attention of the authorities in those countries. But we need your help in order to identify problems and I am pleased to say that we have been getting it.

    Finally can I say that your Federation has effectively represented the views of your industry on the establishment of the FSA, on the implementation of the Poultry Meat Marketing Standards enforcement regime and on a whole range of other issues. These contributions are greatly appreciated and valued by the government, and long may they continue. Thank you.

  • Herman van Rompuy – 2014 Speech to Conference of Parliaments

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Herman van Rompuy, the President of the European Council, to the Conference of Parliaments on 20th January 2014.

    It is a pleasure to be able to join you today in this second meeting of the Conference of Parliaments provided for by Article 13 of the Stability Treaty. Inter-parliamentary meetings like today are important in helping the participating parliaments to better exercise their scrutiny role at home, as regards their respective executive’s involvement in European decision-making, and also of course to confront their own ideas directly with one another.

    Although each national parliament remains responsible for its country’s own economic policy and its own budget, these powers are now exercised in a context of enormous interdependence and in a framework that we are developing together to manage that interdependence.

    This interdependence is, of course, particularly acute for those who share a common currency, but, as the treaty spells out very clearly in Article121 relating to the whole Union, “Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council”.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the economic crisis that hit us half a decade ago was the biggest economic downturn to face the western world since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It revealed shortcomings in national economic policies, in our single European market and in the structure of the eurozone.

    All EU-members paid a huge price for a lack of surveillance of banks and for their irresponsible risk-management. Public and private debt was another root cause of the crisis. And major mistakes were also made in the first ten years of the eurozone.

    Much of our work over the last few years has been to rectify these shortcomings at each of those levels. Huge efforts have been made at national level, and not only in those countries that have been in the headlines: all of us have had to address structural issues and long- term changes in our economic situation.

    Looking at the European Union as a whole, a manifest shortcoming was that, although we had a common financial market, we had little in the way of common regulation or common supervision of that market. We did it separately and ineffectively. We have since adopted a significant volume of legislation providing for common and strengthened rules and, for those wishing to join the banking union, a system of common supervision. We also found that our rules on debt and deficits were not applied and were anyway inadequate. This too, has been addressed. Finally, we have set up procedures, as part of the “European

    Semester”, to coordinate economic policy-making among countries across a broad range of areas and to detect and correct the emergence of economic imbalances.

    Last, but not least, at the level of the eurozone, where the Maastricht treaty made no provision for a crisis of this magnitude, we have set up the rescue mechanisms, culminating in the European Stability Mechanism, and brought in stronger coordination of economic policies as set out in the Stability Treaty. And we are continuing the work, with the creation of what is loosely called a “Banking Union”, with last month’s Ecofin and European Council being a key staging post.

    Allow me to dwell in more detail on the Banking Union, as it has been the focus of our most recent agreements, in particular around last month’s European Council. Heads of State and Government had previously promised this for December, and agreement was delivered in December. Banking frameworks generally come in three parts – supervision, resolution, and deposit guarantee – and so does ours:

    First, deposit guarantees: the new directive, which will provide a unified scheme, was agreed in talks between the Council and the European Parliament, two days ahead of that European Council meeting.

    Second, on supervision: the single supervision mechanism will be up-and-running at the latest in November, with Ms Danièle Nouy as its head. A health check for banks is currently underway, ahead of the European Central Bank taking on this new supervision role.

    Third, on resolution: the Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive, that will harmonise the rules on this, was also agreed between the Council and the Parliament, just before our December summit. But, most important of all, the finance ministers found a consensus on the single resolution mechanism. A good agreement must now be reached, of course, with the European Parliament on this. I hope this will happen swiftly to make sure we have the Banking Union framework agreed by the end of this electoral cycle. And I urge Council and Parliament to find a consensus.

    The magnitude and speed of these achievements should not be underestimated. For the eurozone, it is the biggest leap forward since the creation of the euro itself. We are putting the vicious link between failing banks and government finances behind us, and this will help to get economies going again. Beyond that, what the banking union reconfirms, is the full commitment of all leaders to a strong and stable eurozone. Our political will remains intact. The existential threat to the eurozone is behind us. Precisely thanks to this political will.

    By the end of the year, the main elements from my reports and the report of the four presidents, on getting to “a genuine Economic and Monetary Union” will largely be in place. And, while designed to address the Eurozone’s shortcomings, our new Eurozone architecture is open to non-euro-area Member States.

    We also made further progress in the December European Council on the “E” in EMU: our economic union, going beyond the European Semester, the 6-pack, the 2-pack, and the fiscal compact. We discussed how to complement all this with “Partnerships” for competitiveness, growth and jobs.

    The idea is to encourage key structural reforms, necessary for the sound working of EMU, through a balanced approach, to foster more national ownership through mutually agreed partnerships. With more responsibility – more engagement and investment in sound economic policies – and with more solidarity – more support and financial incentives. The aim is to reach final agreement on this piece of the “Economic Monetary Union puzzle” by October 2014.

    In the December European Council, we also came back to our on-going work on competitiveness, growth and jobs, assessing the progress on the Compact for Growth and Jobs. With President Werner Hoyer of the European Investment Bank, we followed up on the EIB stepping up its lending to the economy, in particular to small and medium-sized enterprises. The new EU funds for 2014-2020 are also now available, including for the Youth Employment Initiative and the SME initiative. The EIB delivered.

    In the past year we have mobilised all possible levers to spur the recovery forward and, thanks to this and, more importantly, all the national efforts, I am convinced 2014 will be a better year, with average employment levels beginning to grow again.

    Allow me now to return to the overall picture – of the cumulative work carried out over the last four years, step by step, to endow our Union with these new means that will, together, make a real difference to the management of our economic interdependence.

    Some of all this was done on the basis of the existing treaties, through European legislative procedures. Other aspects required the creation of new instruments that did not previously exist and which needed the approval and ratification of national parliaments. Some aspects relate to the Union as a whole and some to the eurozone. All have raised questions about ensuring democratic accountability.

    As a general rule, accountability for national decisions is of course via national parliaments, while accountability of European decisions is ensured jointly by the Council (whose ministers are accountable to national parliaments) and the European Parliament – a double safeguard, a dual legitimacy, but also a dual complexity.

    But when a decision involves both national and European competences, it can become even more complicated. And that is indeed what, in some cases, has emerged from our work. And even if, at the end of every line of accountability lies a parliament, it requires us to address the challenges of transparency and readability of our procedures.

    One key aspect is to ensure that national parliaments – whether they are scrutinising a national decision by their government, or their government’s participation in a European decision – are able to ensure accountability and have the tools to do so.

    The key tool – the ability to scrutinise their national minister – is for each Member State to organise in respect of its own constitution and parliamentary tradition. It does not require a European rule to do so. But the European level can facilitate this, as it has done, for instance, through the Lisbon Treaty provision that all legislative proposals are first sent to national parliaments to consider, before the Council or the European Parliament take a position. The establishment of inter-parliamentary dialogue, such as in this Conference, is also a useful tool.

    As for European-level decisions taken by new authorities to which specific tasks have been delegated (such as the Single Supervisory Mechanism for banks or the forthcoming Resolution Authority, which operate with a degree of independence), what is particularly key here is transparency and reporting mechanisms, enabling an ex-post control of their actions – actions which are in pursuit of objectives laid down for them in the decisions that established them. In addition, the European Parliament plays a role, where appropriate, in appointments to these bodies.

    No-doubt more can be done to enhance democratic legitimacy and accountability in the mechanisms we have established. But it is my firm belief that proposals in this regard should come, first and foremost, from parliaments themselves. I therefore look forward with interest to the ideas and suggestions that will emerge from this Conference and from individual parliaments on this, as well as to your on-going reflections on current economic policy.

  • Dan Rogerson – 2014 Speech at the Royal Bath and West Show

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dan Rogerson, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management, at the Royal Bath and West Show on 28th May 2014.

    Thank you for this opportunity to join you here this morning. One of the great pleasures of my role of Minister is the opportunity to attend events like this, and have an opportunity to meet a wide range of people.

    As many of you will know, my constituency, North Cornwall, is a beautiful area of the country, with some wonderful countryside. It’s vital that, as a constituency MP, I understand the rural agenda as well as the urban, and doubly so as a Defra Minister. So I do very much value events like this, and I welcome the opportunity to take your questions and listen to your opinions at the end of my speech.

    I thought I would set the scene a little first, and talk to you about Defra’s key priorities. I’ll then talk about some of the key issues currently facing us- the recent floods, TB, and the importance of food.

    General strategic direction

    My department, Defra, has four key priorities: growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health.

    However, running through all of these is economic growth as the Government’s top priority- and we all know how important the rural economy is for this.

    We’re supporting the rural economy by helping key business sectors to grow. We work for increased competitiveness in the food chain and the rural economy; improved rural skills; more investment in tourism, and protecting plant and animal health.

    For instance we have sought to allocate £350,000 of RDPE funds for the delivery of rural business skills training activity during 2014/15.

    We can also support a growing rural economy by investing in infrastructure- improving broadband and mobile phone access; investing in flood and coastal protection- and by reducing regulatory barriers and red tape.

    We know, for instance, that online small businesses, whether rural or urban, grow 4-8 times faster than offline counterparts.

    We also know that rural businesses are equally reliant on good mobile coverage. We are working closely with BDUK to optimise benefits of the £150m Mobile Infrastructure Project, providing coverage for premises in ‘complete notspots’.

    One of my first visits as a new Minster was to the launch of an EE mobile broadband project in rural Cumbria, where I had a chance to see first-hand the importance of broadband services for the rural economy.

    There are lots of other projects which Defra is doing to continue promoting and supporting the countryside, from Grown in Britain’s work on growing the British woodland sector, to promoting the importance of British rural tourism.

    However, we can’t have a growing rural economy without ensuring that we manage the big issues well.

    I will speak about a few of the things which I know are on all our minds- TB, flood recovery, and the key importance of the food industry.

    TB

    Firstly, I was asked to briefly touch on TB, a subject which is very important to many of you here today.

    The Government remains determined to tackle bovine TB by all available means which is why we have outlined a 25 year plan to eradicate this disease by addressing infection in both cattle and wildlife. The plan was debated and approved by Parliament last year.

    Following extensive consultation, Defra has launched a Strategy to achieve Official Bovine TB-Free (OTF) status across England by 2038. In the low risk areas, we hope to achieve OTF status by 2025.

    Taking into account the Independent Expert Panel’s recommendations and lessons learned during the pilots, badger culling will continue in Gloucestershire and Somerset as planned later this year.

    It is important to get this right, which is why we have decided to assess the success of the improvements we are making to the culls, in the light of the lessons learned, before taking a decision on how we extend to other areas.

    We fully accept the conclusions of the Independent Expert Panel’s report, and are currently looking at the best ways to implement the recommendations in time for the second year of culling in Gloucestershire and West Somerset.

    Farming and Food security

    The CLA organiser also asked me to talk a little about on food and food security. This is the one area of Ministerial remit I wish I had got. Food is one of my favourite things- so much that I set up an All Party Parliamentary Group on Cheese.

    Food and drink is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector, contributing £24.1 billion to Gross Value Added (GVA) in 2012. It’s vitally important for the UK in terms of economic growth and thriving businesses.

    We have a rich diversity of food businesses- including some remarkable cheese and cider industries, whose wares I hope to be able to enjoy later on today. We also have a high degree of food security in terms of access, availability, resilience and variety of food supply. This is due to our diverse sources of supply, and the strengths of our trade links.

    We know this because we did a UK Food Security Assessment, published in 2010, which analysed the different factors impacting on UK food supply. This told us that UK food security is built on a strong food production base in the UK and access to a wide variety of markets through the EU and an open, rules-based world trading system.

    All of this is supported by consumer prosperity and income, which is addressed through the Government’s focus on growth.

    We support domestic food production and want to see it increase. The Government is committed to championing a thriving, competitive British food and farming sector, driving sustainable growth in the wider rural economy in support of rural communities.

    We are doing this by increasing exports and improving domestic competitiveness. We are also enabling public procurement to support a competitive and sustainable food and farming sector.

    I also particularly appreciate the work that the Farming Sector is doing as part of its own resilience planning- work like the Somerset farming fund to help recovery from flooding. This leads me on to flooding, my last area.

    Flooding recovery and farming specific funding

    The floods from December 2013 until earlier this year have certainly been challenging, for people and communities, central and local government, and all of the agencies and companies involved in dealing with the winter floods.

    Unprecedented weather events caused the flooding we witnessed across the UK. We experienced an extraordinary period of very unsettled weather since before Christmas.

    It was the wettest January since 1766 for England and Wales. Central and south-east England received over 250% of average rainfall. Added to this, tidal surges caused by low pressure, strong winds and high tides led to record sea levels along many parts of the east coast. High spring tides brought coastal flooding to parts of the south and west coasts. River, surface water and groundwater flooding occurred in many areas.

    Latest estimates suggest that over 8,000 properties have been flooded in England since the beginning of December 2013. But our defences and the sterling work of responders helped to protect 1.4 million properties.

    Our Preparations and Response

    The local response was a magnificent effort. In the face of such unprecedented weather, countless people and organisations worked together around the clock to help those affected. The level of response, and spirit of it, was staggering.

    I appreciate how hard everyone worked and just how hard it is for those people whose homes and businesses have been affected.

    All levels of government and the emergency services were fully engaged in dealing with the floods and extreme weather. The Government’s response was led by the COBR emergencies committee.

    The Environment Agency was at the forefront of the local response. In Somerset, this included one of the biggest pumping operations the country has ever seen.

    Military personnel from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force provided flood relief in affected parts of the UK. More than 5,000 personnel were committed to help with flood relief operations. Thousands more troops remained available if required.

    Somerset

    As you will well know, Somerset was particularly affected by the flooding. At the end of January Owen Paterson asked local leaders to produce a long term Action Plan for the sustainable future of the Somerset Levels and Moors. The plan was published on 6 March.

    The plan is wide ranging, and recommended priority actions including dredging 8km of the Tone and Parrett, working on infrastructure including roads and options for the Bridgewater Barrage, setting up a Somerset Rivers board, catchment sensitive farming, minimisation of urban runoff and working on community resilience to flooding.

    I was also particularly impressed to learn of the Somerset flood recovery fund. The Somerset fund is an excellent example of industry pulling together at a time of crisis, and is typical of the genuine community spirit I know from first-hand experience exists throughout English agriculture.

    Looking to the future, we want to see industry doing more to proactively enhance its resilience to all forms of external shock. That’s why my colleague the Secretary of State formed the Farming Resilience Group: A collection of key industry bodies, high street banks, Farm Charities, and others- including the Met Office—tasked with delivering real, practical action on enhancing farm business resilience.

    National Funding

    Protecting our communities and businesses against flooding, and helping them to recover is a high priority for this Government.

    Over this Parliament, the Government is spending more in cash terms, more in real terms, than ever before. Defra will be investing an extra £270 million to repair and maintain critical defences over the next 2 years. This new funding will help the Environment Agency ensure that the most important defences are returned to, and maintained at, target condition. With the extra funding, this Government will be now spending more than £3.2 billion over the course of this parliament on flood and erosion risk management (between 2010/11 to 2014/15).

    We are working with insurance firms and the ABI to ensure that flood insurance coverage is affordable and payments are made when they are needed.

    We’ve also announced funding for flood resilience for households and businesses affects by flooding through the Repair and Renew grant, which launched on the 1 April 2014. Households and businesses who were flooded in the period 1 December 2013 – 31 March 2014 will be able to apply to local authorities for a one off grant of up to £5000.

    Flood Recovery – Farming Recovery Fund

    My last point is also the most important. Our farming industry contributes billions of pounds to the UK economy every year and we want to see it get back to business as soon as possible. Through the Farming Recovery Fund we have made £10 million available to help farmers affected by flooding get their land back into production as quickly as possible.

    Farmers can apply for grants of up to £35,000 to cover 100% of costs of restoring their land. Following feedback, we’ve made it quicker and simpler to claim, with standard costs to negate the need for 3 quotes. The fund closes on the 27th of June, and I would encourage affected farmers to apply for the funds. The application can be found on Gov.uk

    Closing remarks

    I hope this whistle-stop tour of some of our key rural interests has helped to demonstrate that this Government has a strong interest in the countryside and that we are hugely grateful for the work that you and your members do. Working together, we can overcome the challenges of things like flooding and TB, and ensure a thriving countryside and growing rural economy. I very much look forward to hearing your questions and our discussions.

    Thank you.

  • Dan Rogerson – 2014 Speech at the National Flood Forum Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dan Rogerson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resources Management, on 13th March 2014.

    Thank you to the National Flood Forum and your new chairman John Pegg for your invitation to speak at the conference today. I look forward to continuing to work closely with you.

    Officially we’re still a week away from the start of spring; but in my mind this drier weather has been long overdue! We’ve had at least 12 major storms this winter and the wettest weather on record since 1766. Latest estimates suggest that over 7000 properties have been flooded in England since the beginning of December as well as large areas of farmland.

    Thank you to all of you therefore for taking time out today from what I realise for many of you has been a very busy few months dealing with the response and ongoing recovery from these floods. I know that many of you were working non-stop over Christmas and have given up tremendous amounts of your free time to assist. Since December more than 1.3 million properties have been protected from flooding by existing defences and improvements to the way in which we respond to incidents. That’s more than 140 homes protected for every one that flooded.

    To me this illustrates that we’re not helpless – there is much that communities, voluntary organisations Government at all levels, and individuals can do collectively and individually to manage flood risk and increase our resilience in the face of it. In every event there are lessons to be learned. I think one of the lessons to emerge will be the importance of valuing local knowledge.

    So this morning I’d like to talk about how we’ve already been doing this, give you my own thoughts about where I think we can do more, and set out one area in particular – building community resilience to flooding – where I think we need to do more, and need to do more together. I’m also here to listen to your reflections from your own local experiences of the recent floods.

    Firstly I want reassure you that we are listening to local communities affected by flooding – the challenges you face and your suggestions for how we can do things better. We’ve taken practical action to cut red tape, be more transparent about our priorities and make it easier for local communities to have their say.

    Funding system

    For example in 2011 we changed the funding approach to flood risk management projects to give communities greater choice and certainty about how their community is protected and what Government’s contribution to worthwhile projects will be. Twenty-five percent more schemes are already going ahead than would have been possible under the old approach, including rural projects like Badsy Brook in Worcestershire which would not have received any Defra funding under the previous system.

    River maintenance pilots

    Last year when farming communities said that red tape was getting in the way of taking practical action to maintain river environments and reduce flood risk, we set up river maintenance pilots in seven areas of England. These are testing out new approaches which put local communities at the centre of decisions around the future upkeep of rivers in their area.

    It is vital that we listen to local experts and learn from their experience in deciding how best to manage flood risk in each area. For example dredging of rivers can produce real benefits in some areas. But in others it could cause serious problems such as flooding of communities downstream or damage to the environment.

    So we need to engage communities in making informed choices about priorities, drawing on the best available evidence – both local and national.

    But the recent floods have shown there is still more Government can do to listen to communities whose local knowledge, skills and energy is vital for an effective response before, during and after a flood. This is why we’ve taken the following actions…

    Armed Forces deployment

    Last month when community leaders in the flood-affected Thames Valley called for more practical assistance on the ground, we deployed 1,600 servicemen and women to work alongside the local multi-agency command chains to protect people, property and vital infrastructure.

    Somerset

    When the people of Somerset called for something to be done about the flooding, we brought in extra resources to facilitate one of the biggest pumping operations this country has ever seen. We also aided the local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards to work together to produce an action plan for the long-term management of the Somerset levels and moors in just 6 weeks. It was important that this responded to the local knowledge and calls for action.

    Published just last week the plan sets out some immediate actions, such as our commitment to dredge 8 km of the Rivers Parrett and Tone and to give more responsibility for water management to local partners – key things local people asked for.

    The plan also recognises the importance of sustaining and enhancing business and community resilience.

    We also announced a £10milion Farming Recovery Fund to help farmers like those in Somerset to restore flooded agricultural land and bring it back into production or improve field drainage.

    The level of support from the public for those affected has also been truly impressive, and shows the strength of our communities.

    We’ve seen everything from direct personal support to those who have had to move from their homes, to gifts of blankets, food and household goods, with great generosity of farmers in donating feed to those whose fields have been flooded and face prolonged loss of grazing.

    We all owe those community organisations who have been at the forefront of organising this support a big vote of thanks.

    I’m sure there will be further lessons to learn, for example around the handling of transport and electricity supply disruptions, that will emerge as part of the review that the new Cabinet Committee on Floods is overseeing. I am interested in what those of you here today think worked well and where there is room for improvement.

    Our focus for the time being though must be on the few areas of the country, especially in southern England, where high groundwater levels mean flooding is likely to continue into the coming weeks.

    Our aim in all of this is to help people get their lives back to normal as quickly as possible.

    But ‘back to normal’ shouldn’t mean burying our heads in the sand and crossing our fingers that flooding won’t happen again – that would be foolish when climate scientists are telling us to expect more frequent and intense rainfall as is consistent with the climate change.

    ‘Back to normal’ should mean developing a ‘new normal’ where our resilience as a nation, as local communities and as individuals is improved, so that we’re all better prepared when flooding next happens.

    So secondly this morning I want to seek your help in embedding community resilience at the heart of our approach to flood risk management. I know that a number of you are already beavering away in your communities helping them develop their resilience.

    I think there will be particular opportunities to develop this even more when our new ‘Repair and Renew’ grant scheme goes live from 1st April.

    The scheme will provide flood resilience grants of up to £5000 for households and businesses that have been flooded because of the exceptional weather this winter.

    It will help people with the cost of repairs that improve a property’s ability to withstand future flooding, over and above like-for-like repairs funded by insurance payouts.

    To ensure the scheme works on the ground for those affected by the flooding we’re working closely with Local Authorities and insurers to develop the scheme.

    But resilient homes and businesses are only part of the story – we need resilient people to achieve resilient communities.

    Sir Michael Pitt noted in his review of the widespread flooding in 2007 “although resilience begins with the individual, greater dividends can be achieved if activities are organised at the community level”.

    Community Pathfinders

    The 13 flood resilience community pathfinders that we’ve funded are looking at trialling approaches to achieve that. I am grateful for the National Flood Forum for their work with many of them.

    For example, with support from our Pathfinder scheme the Cornwall Community Flood Forum, spearheaded by their chair Charles Richards, is developing the expertise of individuals in the community and in the council to retain a lasting resource to support others and share good practice beyond the life of the project.

    Similarly in Calderdale with support from the pathfinder scheme, the council is working with the local community to consider simple practical solutions like ensuring there is sufficient local storage for vital flood protection equipment so it’s close-at-hand and can be called on quickly by those that need it.

    They are also looking at ways to help less affluent households by offering low cost, professional advice on flood resilience and working with a credit union to provide affordable loans to fund the recommended measures.

    We’re also making sure people have the tools they need to develop their resilience. Back in November I launched the Property Protection Adviser tool which provides instant tailored advice to householders about what they can do to help protect their homes from flooding and how much it might cost. Kindly hosted by the National Flood Forum on their website, we’ve already generated tailored reports for 500 homes – I’d love your help in getting the message out there in your own communities about this great free tool.

    Lead Local Flood Authorities have a vital role to play in coordinating approaches locally. Whilst some of them have already published their local flood risk management strategies, many others are still developing or consulting on them.

    I would therefore encourage you to play an active part in the consultation process to help make the local strategies as effective as possible.

    Some authorities won’t had the added impetus that the recent flooding has brought to others; we need to ensure that managing flood risk doesn’t slip down their agenda until a rainy day!

    Flood Insurance

    Insurance is another important tool in developing households’ resilience in the face of flooding. The impact of a single inundation of floodwater lasting just a few hours typically causes £35,000 of damage to a home, according to the Association of British Insurers.

    The Water Bill currently before Parliament is seeking to put into effect the Government’s preferred approach to deal with the future availability and affordability of flood insurance.

    The approach, known as Flood Re, would effectively limit the amount that most UK households at flood risk should have to pay for flood insurance. Flood Re’s benefits will be targeted towards lower income households who are least able to pay.

    I recognise concerns raised by the National Flood Forum (and in Parliament) that Flood Re should not disincentive households in Flood Re from understanding their risk and taking appropriate action to manage it and plan for the withdrawal of the scheme over time. We are keen to ensure that Flood Re plays its part in preparing high-risk households for the transition to the free market.

    The Association of British Insurers has now come forward with proposals for ensuring that the correct incentives are in place to drive uptake of resilient repairs after a flood, particularly for those properties subject to repeat flooding.

    This is a complex issue. There is an important balance to be struck between support for high-risk households and the need to keep Flood Re simple, to ensure that it remains viable and attractive to insurers. We’ll be reporting back on our proposals on this important issue when the Bill is next back before Parliament.

    Concluding remarks

    The number of properties protected despite the exceptional nature of the weather and December’s tidal surge are testament to our improved levels of preparedness for flooding.

    Our short term focus needs to remain on helping those still at risk of flooding and those entering into recovery.

    But our attention then needs to turn to look at what lessons there are to learn from this winter and how we can increase our collective resilience to flooding so we bounce back better from such events in the future.

    That is going to require close cooperation within and between communities and we in Government need to ensure we’re facilitating that, not creating obstacles that prevent it. The National Flood Forum and your members are vital partners in this.

  • Hugh Robertson – Speech to the 2nd UN/IOC Forum on Sport for Development and Peace

    Below is the text of a speech made by Hugh Robertson in Geneva on Tuesday 10th May 2011.

    It is a great honour to address the Second Forum on Sport for Development and Peace; I don’t say that lightly.

    Even though I am here as the UK’s Minister for Sport and the Olympics, this Forum brings together two organisations with a special place in my personal affections.

    The first, the IOC, has awarded London the honour of hosting the Olympic Games next year.  I would publicly like to thank the President, and the IOC, for all the help, encouragement and friendship that they have extended to us over the past six years.  The work of the Co-ordinating Commission, the IOC’s panel of experts, headed by Denis Oswald, many of those members are here today, has been invaluable and as a country, we very much appreciate your help in delivering London 2012 and your wider work for world sport.

    I would also like to extend my thanks to the President for his personal lead in the fight against corruption in sport.  If those watching sport ever cease to believe that the contest they are watching is not a fair contest between individuals and teams, then many of the benefits of sport that we will discuss today will be lost.

    Thank you, sir, for your personal commitment to this fight and for the global lead that the IOC is giving over this issue.

    The second organisation, the UN, is also one close to my heart.

    As a young army officer, I served twice with the UN Peacekeeping forces in, first, Cyprus and, later, in Sarajevo, a former Olympic host city, during the siege.

    I also chaired the UN group in our Parliament before I became a Minister so I am a great supporter of the work of the UN.  I am delighted that my government is supporting the work of the UN Sport for Development and Peace movement.

    I think that we are also at an exciting turning point with this agenda.

    The issue is how we use sport more effectively to contribute to the Millennium Development Goals – and, crucially, how we measure and sustain progress.

    So I don’t come here with any definitive answers. But what I did want to do today is –

    Firstly, give you a brief overview of the work we’re doing as part of our Olympic legacy programme.

    Secondly, share some reflections on what has worked well.

    And thirdly, to be honest with you about some things that haven’t worked so well.

    Let me start by saying a little bit about International Inspiration.

    This is the UK’s global sports legacy programme inspired by the London 2012 Games and the Olympic and Paralympic Values and supported by the IOC and IPC.

    It’s run by an independent charity, the II Foundation. And it’s delivered by UK Sport, the British Council and UNICEF – working alongside the British Olympic Association and British Paralympic Association, host Governments and other local and national agencies.

    A variety of projects are already running across 16 countries, spanning all continents, and we aim to reach 20 by the end of the programme.

    And the benefits work both ways.  The school links programme has developed partnerships with 300 schools in the UK helping to foster a greater understanding amongst children of the challenges of their counterparts in other parts of the world.

    The range of programme activities is considerable, but in essence the programme is centred around two key aims.

    The first is to develop the skills of teachers, coaches and young leaders around the world to increase access to high quality PE, Sport and Play

    The second is to help local agencies and partners to influence and improve national policies and programmes so that they can lock in progress and bring about systemic change in their countries.

    What sort of things does this involve? Well, here a few examples.

    In Bangladesh, the programme has helped to train teachers to deliver swimming lessons for more than 80,000 children.

    These are children learning to swim in one of the safe ponds that have been built in local communities. Working with the Bangladesh Swimming association, a new structure of clubs is being supported, and talented young swimmers identified.

    But the backdrop here is the urgent need to reduce the 17,000 children who drown in Bangladesh’s many rivers and waterways every year.

    In Jordan, we’re working very closely with HM King Abdullah’s Awards programme, and the Jordanian National Olympic and Paralympic Committees, to improve opportunities for young people to get involved in sport.

    This includes helping with the development of 15 ‘Sports Hubs’ which provide safe spaces for children to play and practise sport, as well as helping to recruit ‘youth leaders’ – young people who are trained to help other children to get their first taste of sport.

    A particular focus here is among girls who in the past had not been encouraged to take part in physical exercise and sport.

    There’s also some innovative work – strongly supported by the Jordanian Government and the IOC – for example to help more disabled young children to play an active role in the sporting life of the nation.

    And I would like here to pay tribute to the work of the whole Jordanian Royal Family and, in particular, Prince Feisal Al Hussein for his leading role in establishing the Generations for Peace Academy, opened by the king last week.

    Finally, in Zambia, we’re recruiting local leaders to train peers to reach out to disadvantaged children through sport.

    This isn’t just sport for sport’s sake, but an effective medium for spreading crucial messages about identifying and preventing HIV infection and importantly reducing the scourge of stigma attached to the many thousands of people already affected.

    One of the young leaders involved in the programme is a young man called Philip, who has been trained up to deliver support for his community.

    Frankly, he summed up the whole philosophy better than I can.

    He said that, “If you take a fishhook and put it in the water you are never going to catch anything. If you put bait around the hook, you will attract many fish! Sport is our bait and our messages are hidden within the hook.”

    Well, I couldn’t agree more.

    So what have we learnt? Well, let me highlight four things that I think have worked well.

    First, we’ve found that projects must be embedded within, and make a clear contribution to, the wider development agenda.

    For example, in Mozambique, there was already a great opportunity thanks to the country’s commitment to UNICEF’s Child Friendly Schools initiative.

    What International Inspiration was able to do, is review what it was already doing to promote sport and then to make some very targeted and specific interventions.

    The Mozambique Government worked with us, and backed the programme – so much so that the sporting aspect of the child friendly schools programme has been rolled out to seven out of 11 regions across the country.

    That takes me onto a second observation: partnership working is vital.

    It’s perhaps an obvious point, but success isn’t about our agencies working in a specific country, but rather working with that country.

    In terms of:

    – Understanding its agencies, and its government, and in particular the challenges they face in prioritising the needs of young people.
    – Getting to know the key personalities and players.
    – Working with their agenda, rather than trying to impose new priorities on them.

    Frequently, we are dealing with sensitive, cultural realities and challenging some entrenched behaviours or attitudes. Buy-in and support at the highest level is crucial for making the breakthrough.

    In other words, we’ve come to understand that delivering real change through sport is about building coalitions, not mounting crusades. This was a specific recommendation made by the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation in their excellent report on What Sport Can do for Africa.

    Thirdly, you have to be clear about the outcomes.

    In Bangladesh, the priority was quite obvious: as I said earlier UNICEF estimates that 17,000 Bangladeshi children die each year by drowning.

    The Swim Safe programme led by UNICEF, was already working across seven flood prone districts.

    With International Inspiration’s help, it’s been able to expand the number of swimming instructors who have been trained.

    That multiplier effect helps to amplify the impact. In this case: an extra 80,000 children have been taught survival swimming skills since 2009.

    Finally, evidence is key. Without the proof that investing time and effort does pay off, it’s hard to maintain long term support even for the most impressive projects – at a time when all national budgets are under pressure.

    We’ve found that we needed to become more forensic, more exacting in how we measured success – and yes, more critical and honest when things haven’t worked.

    As with any programme of this size and scale, there are things we could have done differently and better. Let me share a few of these too.

    Firstly, in the early days, we tried to develop and deliver the programme in strands, rather than through integrated working.

    Different agencies doing different things with not enough central co-ordination. There was no sense of a grand plan, bringing everything together under a clear and agreed set of shared outcomes.

    Second, I already mentioned the importance of partnership. Again, we found the programmes worked best where the right relationships were built at the outset.

    If you don’t encourage a sense of shared ownership and excitement for the programme, then you don’t get the long term commitment you need.

    Finally, I think we learnt over time, you have to be realistic about what the programme could and couldn’t do.

    The International Inspiration programme is not about achieving elite sporting success. It isn’t a short cut to medal success in the Olympics and Paralympics.

    The schemes may help in the long-term, of course, but it is a very long term prospect.

    Where early programmes fell away, it was because the commitment was superficial and short term.

    These programmes need local enthusiasm and energy to sustain progress and ensure lasting change; collaboration is absolutely vital.

    So, based on our experiences, I would say that co-ordination, partnership and realism are key to successful delivery.

    In conclusion, yes, there are challenges. Yes, the financial situation is difficult for many, if not all, of us.

    In the UK, we are increasing our overseas assistance to 0.7% of our Gross National Income by 2013, but we do need to think carefully about priorities.  It is always a challenge to make the case for sport for development against other development priorities.

    But that makes it all the more important that we fix on the things I’ve been talking about: effectiveness, relevance, sustainability and, above all, evidence of value.

    And let me say this to you finally.

    If we get our collective approaches to sport and development right.

    If we work together and learn from each other, I’m confident we’ll see this agenda expand and mature in the years ahead.

    Sport can achieve great things for people around the world.

    – To strengthen and reinforce those founding values of the Olympics and the Paralympic.

    – To give renewed life to de Coubertin’s vision of sport as an agent for justice and social progress.

    But more than anything else, to support many thousands more young people across the world.

    We all want to involve, engage and inspire young people to use sport as a path to a better life for themselves, and many others in their communities.

    That’s what International Inspiration is all about, and I hope it will leave a valuable legacy long into the future, certainly long after the Olympic torch leaves London for, first, Sochi and then Rio.

    To both the IOC and the UN, co-hosts of this forum, thank you for all that you have done – and good luck for the remainder of this exciting forum, and beyond.