UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Alistair Darling – 2007 Speech to the CBI Annual Conference

    alistairdarling

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, to the CBI Annual Conference on the 27th November 2007.

    It is a pleasure to address the CBI Conference.

    And first of all I would like to acknowledge the advice and support given by Richard Lambert and his colleagues. Both at the DTI and now at the Treasury I have worked closely with the CBI. From the working time directive to reducing burdens on business your views matter. And your staff speak up for your interests. Believe me they don’t pull their punches. They serve you well.

    This year’s conference is taking place at a time when the reality of the global economy is clearer than it has ever been.

    The problems that started in the American housing market have quickly affected countries across the world. There are reasons to be cautious. We don’t yet know the full effects of this uncertainty.

    But there are good reasons too to be optimistic.

    This year world growth will again be around five per cent – above its thirty year average for the third year in a row.

    Britain has a strong economy.

    We have highly successful competitive businesses, many here today. We have seen over ten years of uninterrupted growth.

    And as I said in the Pre Budget Report whilst that growth will slow next year, the economy will continue to grow next year and the year after.

    It is the Government’s job to work with you as we deal with the present uncertainties. But there are also huge opportunities ahead as many of your members will testify. You are winning orders here and across the world in every sector competing with the best.

    Supporting and sustaining businesses remains central to everything we do and I know that we have worked well together over the past decade and we will continue to do so.

    Our shared priorities must be

    • to maintain stability and flexibility in the face of financial uncertainty,
    • to break down barriers to trade in the face of increasing calls for protectionism,
    • to respond to the global challenges of competition and climate change.

    And that means taking decisions that may be difficult – just as you do every day. And having made those decisions we see them through.

    Over the past ten years Britain has been the only major economy to enjoy continuous growth.

    Indeed in that time Britain is the only major economy to have grown continuously.

    Our determination to take the difficult decisions means that even in today’s uncertain times – with turbulence in international financial markets and record oil prices – we can be confident of the resilience of the UK economy.

    Now, economic stability depends on financial stability.

    In the financial markets, it is clear that both here and internationally we need to strengthen surveillance and supervision to head off problems before they arise.

    We are working with the IMF and the Financial Stability Forum to provide far greater transparency so that institutions understand the risk to which they might be exposed.

    And here at home there are lessons to be learned. I have made it clear our response has to be proportionate and appropriate, but that we will strengthen the regulatory system where it is needed.

    And let me tackle head on those who now say that we should not have provided financial support for Northern Rock.

    This was a bank that depended on being able to raise billions of pounds on the money market. When that was no longer possible, we had a choice.

    We could have let it go down. But I believe that the consequences for the banking system, including the likely knock-on consequences for other financial institutions in which confidence would inevitably have been shaken, and for Britain would have been extremely damaging.

    That is why I authorised the Bank of England to provide support. At the time that intervention was widely supported, even by some who now imply that it was the wrong thing to do and who are not prepared to accept the consequences of that support.

    I believe it was right to intervene; that it was right to put in place guarantees arrangements to savers. And it is right to see it through.

    It was never going to be an easy decision. There were always going to be critics when the going got tough.

    But that is not the point. Far worse would have been to have done nothing, to have allowed that bank to have gone under. I believe this would have had very serious consequences for the banking system and for the British economy.

    On Monday, Northern Rock announced that it had decided to take forward discussions on an accelerated basis with a consortium led by Virgin.

    I am very clear that any proposal for the future of Northern Rock must be consistent with the principles I have set out, namely protecting the vital interests of the taxpayer, depositors and wider financial stability.

    I welcome Northern Rock’s decision to work with Virgin to turn its proposal into a hard agreement with Northern Rock and the authorities. Discussions are now proceeding urgently.

    Governments will never succeed in avoiding the unexpected and the unwelcome and this episode certainly answers to both descriptions.

    But Government should also be judged by how it responds to these difficulties when they arise. That response must be open and measured; perhaps not always the stuff of headlines but certainly the best basis of solutions.

    Take the loss of the child benefit data. It is a huge problem, but one that has to be dealt with. That is what Government has to do in the face of problems like this. It is difficult but we have to get on with it and sort it out.

    But it is also the job of Government to set out its long term vision for the country.

    A vision of a strong and successful nation with its businesses competing with the best in a fast changing global economy.

    And maintaining Britain’s stability is my priority because it is the precondition for the long term prosperity of this country. And I have set out more details on this today.

    So too is the need for Government and business to work together.

    It is for business to win orders for goods and services.

    But business rightly looks to Government to create the conditions for this success.

    If we are to compete we must ensure that Britain remains a good place to business:

    • flexible enough to adapt to change, with the right tax and regulatory approach,
    • and able, because of the strength of our economy, to make long term investment from education and skills to science and transport, supporting business at every stage.

    And we must also maintain our commitment to free and fair trade, resisting calls for protectionism, wherever they come from.

    In each, we need to make the right long term decisions and see them through.

    First, maintaining Britain as a good place to do business means ensuring we have a tax regime that is competitive, fair and simple.

    That is why in the Budget earlier this year we announced we are cutting the corporation tax main rate to 28p and simplifying the allowances for investment. The basic rate of income tax will be reduced to 20p, helping not just the self-employed but small businesses too.

    Simplification of the tax system is important. Because complexity brings increased costs.

    I know that my proposals to introduce a single rate of capital gains tax have been controversial. That was inevitable.

    We are working with the CBI and other business organisations to listen to what you have to say. I expect to publish final proposals in the next three weeks.

    But many have long called for a simplified tax system and have long complained about the complexity of the tax system.

    And we have to recognise that one person’s tax exemption is another’s complexity – simplification is not the easy option. But it is the right one wherever it is possible.

    Let me say this on the principle: capital gains like any other profits ultimately come from the strength of the economy.

    So I believe it is right and fair that they pay their share in tax as a contribution to the economy’s future strength.

    But because we want to reward investment, we are right to now tax gains at a lower rate than income – and the new single rate is among the most competitive in the world, is less than half the top rate for income, and is also less than half what it was ten years ago.
    It is also right to make the system more straightforward and sustainable, with a tax that is easier comply with.

    I am listening to what you say and will report to Parliament very shortly.

    Britain has 800,000 more businesses set up in the last ten years and OECD says UK has lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of all its countries.

    I am determined to do everything I can to keep it that way and keep Britain as a good place to do business.

    So in the run up to the Budget, I want to continue to work with the CBI and other business organisations to ensure that encouraging enterprise remains at the heart of this approach.

    That is also why we need to continue to improve the way we regulate so our approach is proportionate, competitive, and principled.

    What is needed is genuine cultural change. If you don’t need to regulate, then don’t. And if we do, do what’s necessary – no gold plating.

    All of us know that effective regulation can help business.

    All of us appreciate that it is right to help new mothers and fathers by giving them some time off at the birth of their children. Many of us would have liked that ourselves.

    And proper regulation to protect employees against exploitation from the unscrupulous.

    But that regulation has to be proportionate. Take health and safety, we have cut the number of forms by 50 per cent, my colleague John Hutton is reviewing what more we can do for small business, and the Health and Safety Executive is publishing practical suggestions that will reduce the paperwork burden firms face while protecting their staff.

    Or take the risks and procedure relating to industrial tribunals, where I set out proposals for reform when I was at the DTI, which have now been agreed and will save businesses over £100 million a year.

    Britain is a good place to start up and maintain a business. And creating the right conditions for success depends on sustained investment.

    For decades Britain’s problem was because of its inherent weakness it was never able to sustain investment in science or transport. It would start and then stop.

    As a result of ten years of sustained growth, of only making promises on tax and spend that were costed and based on what we could afford, we have been able to maintain investment year on year. We will continue to do that.

    Investing in skills and making the reforms necessary to raise our educational standards and levels of innovation, as the Prime Minister said yesterday.

    Britain is now investing as much in the intangible assets that are essential for our future – in innovation and intellectual property, in software and skills – as we are in more traditional physical assets – and as much as the United States. We will continue to support R and D through tax credits.

    And we will continue to match public sector with private sector investment. We will continue to expand the role of the private sector providing a greater diversity of supply, creating new opportunities for committed, innovative business and third sector organisations, as my colleague Peter Hain is announcing today in the jobs market.

    In transport, where public and private sectors work together, committing to investment over the long term also plays a critical part.

    Which is why in the spending review I extended the long term funding guideline for transport of annual growth of 2¼ per cent above inflation for the next ten years.

    Putting right decades of underinvestment, providing the roads and railways we need.

    I introduced the Bill to build Crossrail in 2005. I have now approved the financing package – essential for the competitiveness of not just the City of London but for the whole country.

    In 2003 I published a White Paper setting out the need for an expansion to our airport capacity.

    Last week the Government launched the consultation on the expansion of Heathrow.

    Provided the environmental and access conditions can be met, the right thing for the growth of the economy and prosperity of our country is to build a third runway. And proposals for a second runway at Stansted are already underway.

    And this is one of the tests that any Government has to meet. Has it the strength of purpose to see through difficult decisions, often ducked in the past, but which are essential for our economic success.

    There is a simple choice. Other countries are making plans for the future. So must we.

    So too in energy supply. Today’s record oil prices simply underline the challenge we face, but also that in addressing it our economic and environmental objectives are increasing at one.

    We need increased stability and security of supply from a greater diversity and cleaner sources of energy.

    And as I made clear when I published the Energy White Paper in the summer nuclear power potentially has a role to play in tackling climate change and improving energy security.
    So our preliminary view is that, subject to the outcome of our consultation, it should be part of the mix of future energy options. We will announce our final decision early in the New Year.

    And if it is to be part of the mix, it can’t be the last resort – if that was to be the case, because of the time it takes to build new power stations, by the time you have decided you need them, it would be too late.

    And, as the Prime Minister said last week, there are huge business opportunities in new markets, products and jobs here as well. Sir Nicholas Stern recognised this.

    Your report published yesterday and debated this morning did too. The value added of the low carbon energy sector could be as much as $3 trillion worldwide by 2050.

    I want to see our British Energy Technology at the cutting edge of environmental innovation and London as the centre of the global carbon market.

    There are difficult choices to be made as we seek to secure our prosperity and the environment. But ultimately there cannot be any long term trade off between strong and sustainable growth.

    Modernising our infrastructure will require difficult decisions too, as we balance our environmental and economic priorities, and national and local needs.

    The Planning Bill before Parliament is a critical part of this.

    It is a test for all political parties. Seven years to get planning permission to build terminal 5. Six and a half years for the North Yorkshire power line application. The present system doesn’t work and it needs to be reformed.

    Our proposals will mean greater debate on energy or aviation policy, the opportunities for individuals to be heard in a process that isn’t drawn out month after month year after year, and greater certainty in decision making.

    The Bill deserves support.

    It is by making these decisions we can be confident of our success in a more open global economy. And I am committed to making our economy open to trade and investment. Our future depends on it.

    The fact that over the past ten years world trade has grown nearly twice as fast as world growth is a demonstration that that those economies which are open to trade are most likely to succeed.

    And the fact that Britain is a world leader in capital markets, already the most open part of the world economy, is a demonstration that Britain is well placed to succeed.

    Our financial services trade surplus is the largest in the world, twice that of our nearest rival.

    Indeed our openness has defined our history and our past successes.

    And I am determined it defines our future and our continued success.

    It is essential that Europe too becomes far more competitive. Last week the Commission published proposals for reform of the Single Market, which we called for earlier this year.

    We must continue to argue against restrictions and unnecessary regulation which damage our competitiveness and which are holding back growth in the European economy.

    Reducing agricultural tariffs, opening up completely the energy and communications and utilities markets, and properly completing the creation of the single market for services.

    We will push for closer EU-US trade ties, including in financial markets.

    We will do all we can to help secure a global trade deal.

    We believe in breaking down trade barriers, securing free and fair trade across the world. We will continue to lead by example. But to secure the full benefits of openness for the global economy, others must follow.

    We welcome inward investment. Indeed our country depends on it. Britain wins more inward investment as a share of its economy than any other major country.

    But I also believe that all investors not only have to behave commercially but also be seen to behave commercially.

    For sovereign wealth funds, I welcome the IMF and OECD proposals to establish the international guidelines including high standards of governance and appropriate transparency.

    Just as we welcome investment here, there needs to be a level playing field for investment across the world: it benefits everyone if we all are open.

    So when I met the Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes yesterday, I agree that where a Member State fails to open the markets it has agreed to, there must be strong enforcement action by the Commission.

    It must be made easier for individual businesses to overcome artificial and illegal barriers are erected that prevent them doing their legitimate business.

    When I attend the G7 Finance Ministers meeting in Japan next year, business priorities will be the top of my agenda, I will argue that the G7 can no longer just be open amongst ourselves, but I want the G7 to become an advocate for openness between all countries.

    And when I visit China next year, I will invite British business leaders to join me, in promoting greater trade between our two countries, and working with the Chinese Government to encourage more investment, including through tackling infringement and promoting adequate enforcement of intellectual property rights.

    I will continue to do everything I can to break down barriers to trade and promote British trade.

    There are difficult issues that need to be confronted if we are to maintain our competitiveness and secure our prosperity.

    • Whether it is maintaining our stability in response to financial uncertainty,
    • promoting free trade and open markets in response to protectionism,
    • adapting in response to climate change,
    • making the difficult choices – planning reform, aviation capacity, energy generation – in response to competitive challenges,
    • these are issues that have to be tackled. If we are to seize the opportunities available to us in the new global economy

    People rightly expect governments to confront these issues and have the commitment and determination to take the right long term decisions.

    We will continue to respond and deal with the unexpected and difficult decisions that confront any government from time to time.

    We have the strength of purpose to see through the current international uncertainty, backed by one of the strongest economies in the developed world.

    And we have a vision of a successful Britain underpinned by successful British businesses competing with the best across the world.

    I am determined that we keep it that way.

  • Alistair Darling – 2002 Speech on the Railways

    alistairdarling

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Darling on 2nd July 2002 at the Railway Forum.

    Introduction

    ‘Getting on with it’ is the title of this conference and that is exactly what I want to talk about today. It’s what your customers expect from you. And bluntly it’s what the public tell us too.

    I’ve been impressed at how much enthusiasm there is to work together. And importantly an enthusiasm to get on with it. That’s in all our interests. Industry. Government. And most crucially the passengers.

    Today is not for analysing how we got where we are. Rather we need to focus on how progress is made from now on. Towards a better and safer railway.

    To allow plenty of time for questions, I shall be brief. In following weeks and months I’ll set out in more detail how I believe we should take things forward from here. And at the same time, I’ll address important wider issues such as the critical balance between road and rail and how we get that right.

    You asked me to set out my first thoughts in relation to the railway. Today I’ve got three things I want to say:

    First, we must to build from where we are

    Second, you need to work together, and we with you.

    And third, the industry must look at things through the eyes of its customers, the travelling public.

    Focus on delivering existing strategy

    I’m clear the first priority must be to deliver existing objectives. So let’s concentrate on making improvements where they are needed most. We need to convert the very substantial funding going into transport through the 10 Year Plan into visible results and improvements year on year.

    The day I got this job I said I would take a good look at all the Department’s work. That’s what you would expect. But I also said that I had no intention of tearing up the 10-Year Plan and starting from scratch again.

    Just as economic stability is essential for businesses to plan investment with confidence. So we need stable transport policies.

    Of course we’ll improve on the plan. It will undoubtedly need further development. And we’ll do it. But the immediate need is to get on and see visible progress as quickly as possible.

    The railways have been through a difficult time. The legacy of years of under investment are very apparent.

    And all this alongside the public rightly demanding better standards means there is a lot to be done. And the public is rightly impatient for change.

    Now there are successes. In my first few weeks I have been struck by what is being achieved:

    4000 new carriages on order or delivered

    A substantial increase in freight and passenger numbers over the last 5 years

    And construction of the first new major railway for over 100 years ( the Channel Tunnel Rail Link) now on time and on budget

    We need to build on these. A clear programme delivering improvements across the whole network.

    Last week’s announcement which will lead to the setting up of Network Rail was crucial to get the network on to a sound footing. And I’m grateful for the welcome most of you gave it. It marks a new spirit of co-operation, working together.

    Work together

    Which brings me to my second point. ‘Getting on with it’ means working together. The fragmentation and lack of common purpose that characterised the railway system in the past few years has been damaging and destructive to the interests of both the industry and the travelling public.

    As many of you recognise, the industry needs to work together. In the same direction with a shared objective. Sorting out the small problems as well as the bigger ones. And you’ll have our support.

    And the Department will always be open to new ideas and approaches. Not just from industry but user groups and the wider public. If there’s a case for change or a new approach, let’s discuss it. But always remembering the key thing is to get on with the job in hand.

    Progress is being made. I am encouraged the industry is now working together far more closely than in the past. In particular, I welcome the good relations between the Rail Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and the operating companies.

    With the setting up of Network Rail, there’s been some comment about what this means for the relationship between Government and the industry. Of course it’s Government’s job to put the right structures in place and secure the funding we need. But let’s be clear about this: it’s your job to manage and to deliver.

    The Strategic Rail Authority has already brought coherence to long-term planning. As well as a clear commitment to getting results. The new management is making a real difference

    Network Rail will operate in the public interest. But it needs to driven by sound commercial decision-making. It must have a firm control over its costs, its assets and its contractors.

    Through the 10 Year Plan, we are providing the funding to put right decades of under-investment. But we will not write blank cheques. You’ve got to show results.

    The Train Operating Companies need to bring in the flair and efficiency they promised. And they can point to some successes – new rolling stock for example. But there are still problems to be overcome. Operating Companies account for half the network’s delays.

    For the railways to work, everyone has to work together. I want to say a word about contractors and subcontrators in that context. This is a big issue. A problem we know needs to be sorted out.

    Now there always have been subcontractors in the industry. That’s not the problem. Rather the problem is that in too many cases not enough attention is being paid to making sure subcontractors do what they are supposed to do.

    And what is imperative for safety also makes good sense commercially.

    So what’s needed urgently is end to end accountability. And it isn’t enough to put in place processes – ticking boxes to show the process has been followed. Checks are needed to see they’ve actually done what they are supposed to do. Safety is of paramount importance.

    We’ll play our part. I am going to publish proposals for a new independent Rail Accident Investigation Branch later this month. Setting up for the first time in the railway’s history, an independent railway investigator whose sole focus is to establish the causes of accidents and to learn lessons.

    Look outwards and improve

    This brings me to my third and final point. The industry needs to look out at the railways through the eyes of its customers – both passengers and freight.

    Customers are concerned about results. They want to see trains running on time. They are concerned about safety. And they want to travel in comfort. This is not rocket science. And it’s within our grasp. We just need to do it.

    But there’s more to it than that. People should use the railway because they want to. Not because they have to. As an industry you should set high standards for yourselves. We need more innovation. We need to give the customer proper choice. Reflecting the way they want to travel. Easy to book tickets which are easily changed.

    The railways have been about for a long time. But the industry needs the vigour and imagination of a new industry.

    We can learn from the way newer industries have responded to the demands of their customers. You face different problems. So your solutions will be different. But be creative. Show some flair.

    Stand in your customers’ shoes. Ask yourselves what matters to them. Services should centre around the customer. Not shoe-horn customers into operational convenience. Or because it’s always been done that way.

    We must set our sights on a railway network that is consistently reliable and accessible to its passengers. It will take time. We’re making up for years of under investment. The approach is changing. There is the beginning of a new culture of co-operation which should deliver year by year improvement. Putting it bluntly, there’s a lot more to be done.

    Conclusion

    That’s all I want to say today. There will be more in months to come. But I said I would give you my first thoughts. We build on what’s been achieved. And work together. And we put ourselves in the passengers’ shoes . If we do that I believe we can make a real difference to the railways in this country.

  • Alistair Darling – 1987 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    alistairdarling

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Alistair Darling in the House of Commons on 6th July 1987.

    I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. Before I address the subject matter of the debate, I wish to pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Sir Alex Fletcher, who represented the constituency for four years after the redrawing of the boundaries in 1983. Before that he had represented Edinburgh, North for some years. When I had dealings with him he was entirely courteous and during the election campaign there was no rancour. I am happy to tell the House that the campaign was conducted entirely on the issues, which is perhaps why I have the pleasure of being able to address the House this evening.

    Before I address myself to the Bill I take the opportunity of paying tribute to George Willis, who represented Edinburgh, North and who sadly died during the general election campaign.

    It is appropriate that in my first speech in this place I should talk about a local government Bill that affects Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I shall allude briefly to the position of Scotland and of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are not separatists, who form the majority of Scottish Opposition Members. If we are to be part of the United Kingdom, the position of those of us in Scotland must be considered and recognised. I consider that it is bad practice to attempt to legislate by what are essentially English provisions and to foist those on Scotland without giving them separate consideration, which they so richly deserve, from a Scottish point of view.

    There is a feeling abroad in Scotland that the Government do not care. That feeling will be exacerbated or will be fired if we are to see more legislation that applies to Scotland tacked onto the back of English legislation. The powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland are perhaps greater than those of any other Secretary of State and that makes the case all the more for giving Scotland and Scottish legislation separate consideration. If the Government are so proud of their record, let us hear those who speak for it. Let them proclaim the advantages that they say have come to Scotland. There is a junior Scottish Minister on the Treasury Front Bench and perhaps we shall have the opportunity during the debate of hearing what he has to say about the Bill.

    This is an unusual local government Bill, because it deals with Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland normally has separate legislation and Scottish legislation usually follows in about a year after the legislation has been introduced for the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the position until the introduction of the community charge legislation, or the legislation that imposes a poll tax on Scotland. In that instance Scotland was treated, for once, as an experiment. The poll tax has been tried out in Scotland as an experiment to see whether it will work and to see what the response is before it is tried in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    In a perverse sort of way it is possible that some good may come from Scotland being used in this way. Conservative Members know how greatly their forces were diminished north of the border and I believe that the poll tax contributed possibly more than anything else to their rejection at the ballot box just one month ago. The much criticised and much talked about yuppies, if there be such creatures, turned out overwhelmingly to support Labour Members.

    In Edinburgh, Central, as in the rest of the country, we have a sense of fairness and decency and of what is right and what is wrong. We believe that if a local authority is elected it should be left to get on with the job without interference from central Government. The hallmark of this Government is that they have interfered more than any other Administration in the way in which local authorities conduct their business. More than that, we value local services and we are willing to pay for a job well done. We do not want cheap and shoddy services. Instead, we want repairs that last and services that people take a pride in delivering and that others appreciate when they receive them. Cost cutting does not make for greater efficiency, and privatisation leads to cost cutting, which means in the long term that local authorities and the public sector must pick up the pieces.

    Part I of the Bill is clearly designed to squeeze direct labour organisations, although in many parts of the country they are extremely efficient and win a large share of the work that has to be put out to tender. Local authority services can be efficient, because the people who provide those services take pride in doing so. They know that they are providing a service on which local people rely.

    The Transport Act 1985 did more than anything else to undermine the provision of one local authority service-buses—by putting transport affairs into private hands. In the Lothian region, we had one of the best bus services in the country; now the ratepayers are paying £2 million more to subsidise a less efficient bus service. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will no doubt have some sympathy with that. When I was chairman of Lothian region transportation committee, he wrote to me again and again, more than any other Member of Parliament, asking whether I could do anything to restore services in his constituency.

    We must maintain and enhance DLOs, because they have to deal with emergencies and pick up the pieces when the private sector cannot meet the need. If the legislation is passed, DLOs will be weakened, jobs will be lost and it will cost us, the ratepayers and those who live locally more in the long term.

    Part II of the Bill is what I might term the morality part. It seeks to strike at those local authorities that choose not to do business with certain firms. I cannot see what is wrong with deciding that we do not want to do business with a firm that conducts itself in a way that we find reprehensible. I cannot see what is wrong in deciding that I do not wish to trade with a firm that mistreats its work force by not paying them properly, or by discriminating against certain sections on grounds of race, creed or colour. I should have thought that such an attitude would be lauded by all hon. Members. However, it appears that the Government intend to strike against it.

    I consider this a matter of decency. Where is the local authorities’ right to choose? Coming from a Government who support the right to choose and freedom of choice, this part of the Bill is ill founded. It strikes at the very right of local authorities to make choices, not just on cost but on matters of straightforward decency.

    I find part III of the Bill particularly difficult to understand. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) paid tribute to the magnificent vistas that can apparently be seen in his constituency by anyone who visits it. I invite any Conservative Member who wishes to come to Edinburgh. Indeed, I will invite the Scottish Front Bench, and will gladly pay for the two taxis that will be required to take them round the city. The Georgian facades and the historic and beautiful royal mile belie the fact that 20 per cent. of the constituents are unemployed, many of them young people. We have young bands of nomads with nowhere to live and nowhere to go. Instead of paying money to private landlords to build accommodation, we need controls over the sort of accommodation that is provided, proper supervision and proper funding. When we consider that the public purse pays private landlords some £9 million a year in Edinburgh, we realise that the money would be better spent by local authorities to provide properly supervised accommodation to suit the needs of young people—to give them a sense of pride in their accommodation, and a chance to make something of their unfortunate lives.

    Much has been said about the part of the Bill that strikes at publicity. I will say only that it seems very bad practice that the Government intend to suppress dissent to the extent of saying that communications from local authorities, perhaps to Members of Parliament, are to be struck at if they are critical of the Government. Part IV demonstrates that no one can attack the Government without fear of retribution through the courts. This Government have spent a large amount of money, both directly and indirectly, on privatisation and advertisements. We were told that businesses that had been created by the state were shackled by the state, but when they were to be privatised they became, suddenly, a model of efficiency, and we were told that they ought to be purchased when the opportunity arose. Who paid for that? The taxpayers paid for it. If the Government can spend public money on advancing what they believe to be right, democratically elected local authorities ought to have the freedom to do exactly the same.

    The Bill is one of the worst examples of local authority repression. Scotland will oppose it, just as it will be opposed throughout the country. Scotland will not be pushed beyond the pale. The legislation is bad for Scotland, just as it is bad for all parts of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members who represent Scotland will not pull down the shutters. We shall advance our arguments for fairness, justice and decency.

    The Government say that the economic recovery is taking a long time to come north. Similarly, Labour’s argument for fairness, justice and decency is taking longer than I should like, but in the end I believe that our view will prevail. One can trample on decency and scorn consensus only for so long. This Bill illustrates what a heavy-handed, centralist approach this Government have adopted. That is why the Opposition will oppose it root and branch.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2013 Speech to the Police Federation

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth on 14th May 2013.

    Thank you for that welcome John.

    It’s a pleasure to be at the Police Federation conference – and to have been following it so far on Twitter.

    It’s impressive the way police have embraced twitter as a public forum for debate and also to get out the message on missing persons or public order.

    My experience on Twitter has not been quite so successful. I was once excited to find I was trending. Not so excited to find I had managed to tweet from my handbag:

    “Hgggg“.

    Retweeted many times. Sometimes with a sympathetic comment. Mostly with something along the lines of “what a change to hear a politician talking sense”.

    That I suspect is your concern at the Police Federation whenever you have politicians addressing you too.

    Your theme this year, 20/20 Vision, Policing the Future Together, is the right one.

    Because I don’t believe there is a vision for policing right now

    And I think one is needed.

    But let me first pay tribute to those police officers lost in service this year

    In September the whole of Manchester, and indeed the whole country paid tribute to the bravery of PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes

    Murdered answering a routine 999 call.

    Murdered because they were police officers.

    We remember too 

    Inspector Preston Gurr, DC Adele Cashman, PC Andrew Bramma, PC Bruce Stevenson, PC Steve Rawson, Sgt Ian Harman.

    And we should pay special tribute to the remarkable bravery of PC Ian Dibell.

    Off duty. And yes, he ran towards danger not away from it. Fatally shot because he went to help others. Proof that a determined police officer is never off duty. Someone the whole country should honour for the bravery he showed to protect us all.

    And we’ve seen how the policing family also stand together in tough times. The support I know the Police Federation has shown to the families of those who lost their lives.

    And the determination to keep their memories alive.

    And a particular thanks to Fed Rep Steve Philips, who has done a charity run from Manchester to Bournemouth, over six days, to raise money for the North West Police Benevolent Fund and the Care of Police Survivors charity in honour of PC Bone and PC Hughes.

    I also want to pay tribute to someone I know will be missed here in this hall, who spent his life fighting for British policing and British police officers.

    A good man who always had a serious and thoughtful contribution to make to any policing debate. Someone who loved life – which makes it so tragic he has lost it. Many of us know we miss a friend as well as a colleague. I would like to pay tribute and say thank you to a great champion of British policing, Paul McKeever.

    And he is also best remembered through his own words, in his last interview with the Fed magazine. They sum up both Paul and Paul’s vision of policing.

    When asked what stood out for him in 35 years as a police officer, Paul describes very poignantly taking the father of a young man killed in a motorcycle accident to identify his son in St Thomas’s, and he describes with great sympathy the pain and devastation for a man who has lost a son, then he says “that to me encapsulated the rawness of humanity and the rawness of some of the situations we have to deal with. It’s not just the physicality of dealing with the crime scene, it’s dealing with people”.

    And Paul is right.

    Policing is a unique public service.

    Yes the bravery and the unknown risk – as PC Dibbell, PC Bone and PC Hughes showed us.

    Yes fighting crime, catching criminals.

    But so much more than that.

    Picking up the pieces of people’s broken lives.

    And we should thank every officer out there on duty today, who is doing exactly that.

    When I first addressed your Conference, two years ago, I said we supported your calls for a Royal Commission or proper review of policing in this country, on how we could work together to prepare a police service truly fit for the 21st century.

    When the Government did not agree, we set up the Independent Review into the Future of Policing, chaired by Lord John Stevens. That review is now in its final stages, and it will report in the coming months.

    The Review has reached out to over 30,000 officers and staff.

    With surveys of staff, evidence from officers, partners, local communities, businesses, members of the public and academia.

    I can’t pre-empt the conclusions that they reach. But I want to say a bit about why it matters given the challenges policing faces:

    – plummeting morale

    – scale of cuts

    – chaotic reforms and fragmentation

    – policies which risk making it harder not easier to do the job

    – and that crucial lack of vision to tackle the challenges of the future

    For a start I think it is serious that policing morale has plummeted in the last few years.

    You will have seen some of the review research.

    Over half of officers and 40 per cent of police staff say they are considering leaving policing.

    Officers feeling they could not influence decisions or unhappy about the structure of career progression, or under pressure over pay or pension changes.

    Over 90 per cent responding, feeling they were not valued by the Government.

    That matters.

    It’s not just a problem for the Police Federation, Chief Constables or the Home Secretary.

    It’s a problem for all of us.

    When policing is under such strain from resource cuts, we need more than ever to have determined, motivated, valued police officers, able to go the extra mile.

    British policing relies on the strength and dedication of officers and staff.

    That’s why we need better training, support, career development.

    But the Government’s reforms are confused. They talk about talents and experience, but they cut starting salaries and make it harder for people with mortgages, experience or families to join the workplace.

    We support the College of Policing and think there is much more that it could do.

    But that’s not enough.

    The police are the public and the public are the police.

    Far more women now join the police. But too few make it up through the ranks.

    Parents and carers are finding their family friendly working has been ditched as shifts are restructured to meet the cuts.

    And too few black and minority ethnic officers being recruited.

    And too few black and minority ethnic officers stay on.

    We need a police force that is properly rooted in and representative of the communities it serves.

    And we need officers who feel valued, well managed and well motivated, with the discretion to get on a do a good job.

    We need Government to recognise the value of the job they do.

    The second problem has been the scale of cuts.

    As you know, we said from the start that 20 per cent cuts went too far and too fast – and we supported 12 per cent cuts instead.

    And we are seeing the consequences.

    11,500 officers cut already.

    At least 15,000 to go in total.

    These huge cuts are starting to hollow out policing.

    Having to do less with less.

    Crime falling more slowly.

    But justice falling too.

    For ten years while crime came down, we saw a higher proportion of crimes solved, and more offenders brought to justice.

    Yet now we are seeing the opposite.

    200,000 fewer arrests.

    30,000 fewer cases solved

    Officers I’ve spoken to know they can’t make arrests because too few officers on the streets and it will take them off the streets for too long when other problems might kick off.

    Officers who have told me they’ve had to use Community Resolutions to write cases off – even when they know the crime is serious because they haven’t the time and resources to follow it up.

    A quote from an officer who had to write to local businesses and residents to raise the money for a car, “at present we have to rely on lifts from our colleagues in marked vehicles, a pool car, public transport and regularly walking two miles to the nearest point or 10 miles to the farthest point.”

    Doesn’t look much like the 21st century does it? Officers thumbing a lift down the dual carriage way to get to the scene of the crime.

    Theresa May’s failure to fight for policing in the first spending review hit policing and justice hard.

    And with the second spending review looming – they need to do a better job.

    It is clear that all those promises the Government made that these cuts would get the deficit down have fallen through because they couldn’t get growth.

    Now it looks as though policing and communities will pay the price for the Government’s economic failure again.

    But the problem is not just about resources it is about the chaotic nature of reforms and fragmentation that are making it harder not easier for the police to do more with less.

    Policing needs to keep reforming to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

    But too often the Government’s reforms have been chaotic, piecemeal and confused, creating greater fragmentation and rearranging the deckchairs rather than creating a strong sense of direction and purpose.

    Consider Theresa May’s flagship reform, the Police and Crime Commissioners she said would secure “a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box”.

    Instead, she spent £100 million on shambolic elections and only one in eight people turned out to vote.

    Reforms are needed, but they shouldn’t waste money or create confusion.

    They need to be rooted in a positive vision of policing for the future.

    That is why the Stevens Review is looking at the different responses needed at local, regional, national and international level to deal with changing patterns of crime and disorder.

    And making sure that the great achievements of neighbourhood policing introduced over the last fifteen years are not lost – embedding police properly in local communities, working in partnership to prevent crime and keep order not just flying in to the 999 emergency call.

    Many police officers have told me that the Crime and Disorder Act in the late 90s was the most important and powerful reforming legislation on crime in decades. Because it forced not just the police but local councils, probation, the NHS, community organisations to work in partnership to tackle crime.

    Yet too many organisations are pulling back and pulling in – retreating to their core business, just when we need partnership more than ever. We need a new push for partnership in leaner times if we are to keep communities safe.

    For example we do need a clearer framework for raising standards and taking action when things go wrong.

    When things go wrong – as they did so terribly at Hillsborough – we need proper transparent investigations that can get swiftly to the truth, rather than denying victims justice for years, and also casting a shadow over policing too.

    That’s why we’ve asked the Stevens review to look at a better framework for standards, inspection and complaints to make sure mistakes are learnt from and not repeated too. How we set up a new Police Standards Authority to replace the IPCC.

    But let me say something two area of reforms I know many Federation members are concerned about at the moment.

    First compulsory severance, and second private contracting.

    I think everyone would agree that standards of policing need to be upheld, and officers need to maintain a proper level of training, skills and ethical standards to do the job. And of course they can’t stay if they don’t.

    But I have three concerns about the major changes to the Office of Constable built into the Government’s approach.

    First, I fear that this is just a cover for more cuts. You have to wonder why the Government are in such a rush to do this in time for the spending review.

    Second, there are insufficient safeguards to prevent abuse or the appearance of abuse in the new climate. If Police and Crime Commissioners can sack Chiefs and Chiefs can sack everyone else with very few safeguards in place, the principle of the independent office of Constable is fundamentally changing.

    And that is not something that should be done in such a reckless way.

    My third concern is that there was a compact on policing which is being carelessly ripped up without consultation. Police officers can rightly be summoned on duty at any time, as the service of last resort, with few industrial rights. In return police officers had the unique responsibility of the Office of Constable, valued by government and with no compulsory severance.

    I never supported the right to strike for police officers and I don’t now. But I do think the Government needs to show respect for the Office of Constable in return.

    Did anything exemplify the Office of Constable more than going the extra mile to deliver a safe Olympics?

    Officers came to London at short notice, had leave cancelled, holiday re-arranged, personal lives disrupted again, families putting up with it.

    And that disruption was made worse when a private contract badly failed.

    Yet Ministers are pushing for big private contracts to replace much of the work police do. Nothing ruled out. Not even detective work or neighbourhood patrols.

    Massive contracts with single companies for complex work.

    And many forces are looking at how to use it for the police.

    Be clear, public private partnerships can be valuable – new contracts will be needed for example on information technology.

    But contracts must pass tough tests:

    – On value for money.

    – On resilience and security.

    – On transparency and accountability.

    – And most of all on public trust.

    For the Labour Party, and for people across the country, there are red lines – or perhaps we should say blue lines.

    Policing by consent means the police need the confidence of the public.

    And the public need to trust that policing is being done in the interests of the justice not the corporate balance sheet.

    We should be blunt about this. We don’t want private companies patrolling the public streets of Britain, we want police officers and PCSOs doing the job.

    The Government’s job is also to make it easier not harder for the police to do their job.

    Too often the reverse is happening.

    The DNA of 4,000 rape suspects being destroyed – even though we know rape is a hard crime to solve.

    And under their new plans ASBOs will no longer include any criminal sanction if they are breached.

    And worst of all, they want to ditch the European Arrest Warrant just because it has Europe in the title.

    This is the real consequence of the Conservative party’s frenzy and infighting over Europe.

    The European Arrest Warrant allowed us to swiftly deport 900 foreign citizens suspected of crimes in their own country.

    And it helped us catch terrorists, kidnappers and serious criminals who fled abroad and bring them back to face justice.

    This weekend Spanish police tracked down and arrested Andrew Moran – the Salford man who has been on the run for four years after a £25,000 armed robbery involving guns and a machete.

    He was found sunbathing in a villa in Alicante.

    Under the European Arrest Warrant he was rapidly arrested and should shortly be returned home.

    But remember Ronnie Knight the East End armed robber.

    He fled to the Spanish coast too – before the European arrest warrant came in.

    He spent his time sunbathing in a luxury villa down the coast from Alicante in Fuengirola.

    But unlike Andrew Moran he didn’t have to hide or change his appearance. He opened an Indian Restaurant and R Knights nightclub.

    Because we could not get the Spanish police to arrest him and we could not get the Spanish courts to send him home.

    The Home Secretary needs to listen to the police and to the evidence on the European Arrest Warrant, not to the hysteria of Tory backbenchers.

    If they decide sound tough on everything with Europe in the title, the Government will end up being soft on crime.

    Be it about policies on crime, chaotic reforms, resources or morale, in the end the real problem remains in your conference title – where is the 2020 vision?

    And where is the plan for policing together for the future?

    I don’t believe this Government has a vision for policing.

    We want to build a vision for policing with you. Together.

    That in the end was what we set up the Stevens commission for. We will look forward to its conclusions.

    Building on the international reputation that British policing can be proud of.

    From forensics to neighbourhood policing, from counter terror to the Olympics, decade after decade this country has led the way. We want to do so again.

    Reforming together.

    Protecting the public together.

    Cutting crime and getting justice for victims together.

    But only if we have the vision of policing together – 2020 policing.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2012 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to Labour Party conference on 30th September 2012.

    Conference, we have heard in today’s debate from delegates on a range of issues, from diversity in our Party and the challenges faced by women, to the impact of the Government’s policies on disabled people.

    But Conference, we, in this Party will not just be debating equality today.

    Yesterday, 800 women gathered for Labour’s Annual Women’s Conference.

    Tomorrow when we debate the economy, we’ll talk about child care, jobs for young people and support for disabled workers.

    On Tuesday our Party Leader Ed Miliband, who has done such a great job for our Party this year, will talk about making the economy work for everyone not just the privileged few.

    And on Wednesday and Thursday we’ll debate our public services.

    The importance of Sure Start in giving all kids a better start in life.

    And the future of our NHS – one of the most important institutional embodiments of fairness and equality in British society. One of Labour’s proudest achievements, now under threat from the Tories. An institution that we will strain every sinew to defend.

    And Conference, as we talk about equality, not just today, but throughout the week, we’ll also talk about why the police need to challenge racism and pursue hate crimes which have been rising.

    And we will remember that in six weeks the country will vote for the Government’s new Police and Crime Commissioners. Our chance to send a message to the Tories about policing.

    But also an important campaign in Bedfordshire, where we are backing Olly Martin’s campaign against a candidate from the EDL.

    Because Conference we must never, never let policing be taken over by racists or extremists. Policing must be fair for all.

    Conference, all week we will talk about Labour’s belief in fairness, in justice, in equal life chances, equal respect for individuals, wherever they come from, whatever their background.

    And our anger that this Government time and again is turning the clock back, widening the gap. Reinforcing, rather than challenging discrimination.

    Look at the way unemployment among young black men has reached over 50 per cent.

    Look at the way David Cameron is taking more money from disabled people than he is from the banks.

    Look at the way 80 per cent of the rise in long term unemployment is among women.

    And the way the squeeze on child care, social care, and universal credit are all penalising women who work.

    And with women bearing the brunt of the tax and unemployment changes, we, Conference, are more proud than ever, because it is more important than ever, that we now have the first woman General Secretary of the TUC – who made a fabulous speech at Labour’s Women’s Conference yesterday – Frances O’Grady.

    Sometimes it is the double discrimination that is hardest.

    For example, for older women, who now face a toxic combination of ageism and sexism.

    They’ve seen a 30 per cent increase in unemployment since the election, compared to 5 per cent on average for everyone else.

    And even in the Cabinet.

    David Cameron told Caroline Spelman she was too old for the job, aged 54. Then replaced her with Owen Paterson, aged 56.

    That’s why Labour has set up an Older Women’s Commission led by our Harriet Harman.

    Because the generation who fought for equal pay, for childcare, for maternity leave, will not be silenced now.

    We know too that many disabled workers are getting a bad deal. The Work Programme is missing its target for disabled people by 60 per cent.

    And Conference, it is shocking the way this Government has closed so many Remploy factories with no jobs for people to go to. They have turned their back – we will not turn our back. We will keep campaigning for those Remploy workers because they have a right to work.

    Perhaps the most disturbing thing of all is the rising child poverty that we are seeing across the UK. Families in Britain forced to depend on food banks. That is the shocking state of Britain under David Cameron and Nick Clegg. No child should have to grow up in our country in the twenty-first century feeling hungry, cold or left behind.

    Conference, this isn’t an accident.

    It is the direct result of deliberate policies.

    Economic policies that push Britain back into double-dip recession.

    Fiscal policies that help the richest in the country and make everyone else pay more.

    And an approach to equality which sees positive action as somehow a burden, as opposed to the opportunities and doors that we know positive action can open.

    So the action we took to tackle discrimination is now being dismantled.

    Abandoning Labour plans for pay audits, even though it will take another 65 years for the gender pay gap to close.

    Ending requirements on employers to protect their staff from racist or homophobic abuse.

    Repealing laws that could help older women fight the toxic combination of ageism and sexism.

    Introducing a new thousand-pound price tag to purse an equal pay claim.

    Stopping the Equality and Human Rights Commission from assessing whether policies affect the poor.

    Bit by bit they are eroding the protection people have – salami-slicing here and there. And Conference, the Labour Party must not let them get away with it.

    We can build a fairer society. We’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. Progressive campaigning against prejudice and discrimination has changed our country.

    When we brought in Civil Partnerships for lesbian and gay couples there was huge opposition.

    Now the majority of the public agree with finishing what we started – and introducing same sex marriage. Ministers mustn’t chuck this into the long grass because they are afraid of the Tory right.

    When people who love each other want to get married, we shouldn’t discriminate we should celebrate.

    It is time to change the law now.

    But the Government should go further. We respect freedom of religion and that means different faiths will make their own decisions.

    But freedom of religion means we should support the Quakers, the Unitarians, Liberal and Reform Judaism and other faiths who want to celebrate same sex marriage.

    And Conference this is the year of London 2012.

    Britain put on the best Paralympics ever. Ever.

    An amazing spectacular of sporting excellence – role models from Ellie Simmonds to Hannah Cockcroft, Johnny Peacock to David Weir – we celebrate their achievements and stand in awe of their excellence.

    Because, the truth is Team GB made politics look small.

    We have to be inspired by them. Our Paralympians changed Britain this summer – as a result of the Olympics and Paralympics that the whole country built together.

    We mustn’t let it slip back now.

    Because we know how much more all of us can achieve, whatever our circumstances, when we support each other, rather than leaving people to sink or to swim, alone.

    And Conference, I think this – the spirit of the Olympics and the Paralympics – underpins Labour’s vision for equality.

    It is a vision of a society that supports those who care for children or for elderly relatives, who are getting older, or who have a disability, to do all they can do. Be all they can be.

    Equality laws that create a can-do society.

    An economy that works for the working people.

    A government that works for all the people.

    Conference, this is Labour’s pledge on equality.

    This is the kind of Britain we know we can be.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2012 Speech to the Police Federation Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, to the Police Federation Conference on 15th May 2012.

    Can I thank Paul McKeever for the invitation to speak at the Police Federation Conference.

    It is 12 months since I joined you in Bournemouth.

    12 months on Thursday to be precise. Today being Tuesday.

    I always have to check what day it is, shadowing Theresa May.

    Or Theresa April as she’s known in the Home Office now.

    When last I came, and when last you gathered, I said then I was worried about the perfect storm building around policing.

    At that time we feared 12,000 officers would be lost

    We feared the frontline would be hit.

    We feared morale was falling.

    We feared that Ministers were not listening.

    Turned out we weren’t afraid enough.

    The Home Secretary told your conference last year she was on “a rescue mission, to bring the economy back from the brink and to make sure the police come through not just intact but better equipped for the future.”

    Since then the economy has gone back into double dip recession. And 5,000 police officers have gone from the frontline.

    Some rescue.

    But as we reflect on the last 12 months, we should also pause to reflect and pay tribute to the serving officers who have lost their lives in the last twelve months.

    Ian Swadling.

    Scott Eastwood-Smith.

    Perviz Ahmed.

    Anthony Wright.

    Stephen George Cully.

    Ramin Tolouie.

    Mark Goodlad.

    Neil Jeffrys.

    Andrew James Stokes.

    Karen Paterson.

    David John Rathband.

    Preston Gurr.

    The whole country was deeply moved and saddened by the tragic death of PC David Rathband.

    He became Raol Moat’s target simply because of the job he did and the public service he gave. Shot and left in darkness by a murderer because he was a police officer.

    An officer who inspired so many by his battle to return to service and to stand up for others injured in the line of duty.

    We must make sure the Blue Lamp foundation stands as his legacy and his tribute now.

    But I also want to pay tribute to PC Mark Goodlad whose funeral I attended in Wakefield at the end of last year and who lived just outside my constituency in West Yorkshire.

    PC Goodlad was a traffic officer. Stood at the side of a motorway helping a woman who had broken down by the side of the road. A lorry driving on the hard shoulder knocked him down and took his life.

    PC Goodlad wasn’t fighting crime when he fell. He was helping someone in need. Like so many officers day in day out. Doing his job. Taking risks to keep the public safe. And he gave his life.

    Police officers are crime fighters yes, but they are so much more besides. And I want to pay tribute and say thank you to all the police officers across the country working hard, taking risks every day of the week to keep us safe.

    But so many police officers and staff are now are worried about the future of policing.

    Over 30,000 police officers gathered on the streets of London last Thursday.

    Constables, sergeants, inspectors, superintendents and chief constables.

    Police officers on their rest day, taking annual leave, slipping in before the night shift. Over 2,000 from the West Midlands, Over 1,000 from Greater Manchester, 650 from Thames Valley. Officers from Devon and Cornwall getting on coaches at 2am and travelling through the night to make their voices heard.

    Officers from across the country who know that their forces are facing a cliff edge, worried that the service to the public is falling, and afraid that crime and public safety are being put at risk.

    Because the Government is cutting too far and too fast. Hitting jobs and the economy. But also putting public safety at risk.

    Labour MPs have voted four times in Parliament against the 20% cuts.

    David Hanson, former Policing Minister many of you know and here today as Labour’s Shadow Policing Minister has called repeatedly in Parliament for the Government to change course.

    Last week we supported your march against 20% cuts.

    You are right, communities are being put at risk.

    Cutting 16,000 officers is criminal.

    Thank you for gathering last week to stand up for the communities you serve.

    Because we are seeing the real consequences now.

    In the Midlands, officers told me about a 999 call that came in about a hit and run involving a child. Thanks to cuts in response units, the nearest officer was 45 minutes away. He got there as fast as he could. But he arrived to a slow hand clap from the gathered crowd.

    And in the South West, officers told me about a 999 call from a woman who was afraid because her partner was making threats. She was told to go round to a neighbour’s because there wasn’t a car to send. She called a second time as she became more worried and afraid. Only when she called the third time to report an assault was the response car dispatched.

    Eighteen months ago, the Home Secretary promised that the frontline would not be hit.

    Yet now we know 16,000 officers are being cut.

    16,000. That’s the number of officers it took on the streets of London to take back control of the streets after rioters burned Tottenham and Croydon, and looters ransacked Clapham and Hackney.

    The Prime Minister promised:

    “We won’t do anything that will reduce the amount of visible policing on our streets”.

    But over 5,000 police officers have gone already from 999 response units, traffic cops, and neighbourhood police.

    So when 30,000 officers took an hour and a half to march ten abreast past the Home Office to demonstrate the strength of anger and concern, I think the Home Secretary should have answered you.

    We called the Home Secretary to Parliament to respond. It is an utter disgrace that on police cuts she had absolutely nothing to say.

    Everyone recognises the police have to make their share of savings.

    Labour has said repeatedly since before the election that the police budget would have to be cut.

    We supported 12% cuts. Based on expert work in the Home Office and by the Inspectorate. But not 20% cuts.

    We supported £1bn annual savings over the course of a Parliament. And yes that would require pay restraint, reforms and back office cuts to achieve it. But it would also mean you could protect the frontline rather than watching 16,000 officers go.

    Ministers would have you believe that means we support their plans. Quite the reverse. Instead of the £1bn cuts we accepted, they are cutting £2bn. Going too far too fast. And that’s why so many officers are being lost.

    I know and you know that we won’t always agree.

    Labour in government had disagreements with the police.

    And there will be issues we disagree over in future too.

    On pay and pensions, we believe further reforms are needed.

    But they should be done through fair negotiations.

    Some officers I know now support the police having the right to strike.

    I strongly don’t. The police are the emergency service of last resort.

    But there’s a flip side to that.

    Government should respect and value the office of constable on which we depend.

    When I spoke last year I supported your call for a royal commission

    Not because policing in Britain is broken. But because to cut crime and keep the public safe, we should always seek reforms and improvements to make policing better.

    I said then we would press the Government for a royal commission or major independent review of the long term future of policing in the 21st century.

    And I said that if the Government refused to set up any kind of overarching review, then we would do so instead.

    We have done so.

    Lord Stevens, former Commissioner of the Met, has now begun work. Drawing on expert advice and contributions from serving officers, members of the public, academics and top criminologists, former Chief Officers, business people, local government workers, even our security and intelligence agencies, from Britain and across the world.

    Looking at:

    Challenges of the future – more national, international and high tech crimes. Greater expectations for fast and responsive local policing.

    The talented, flexible and professional workforce needed.

    Accountability, checks and balances.

    The balance between national and local policing priorities.

    But this Government has no positive vision for the future of policing.

    Instead we have just chaos and contradictions:

    Scrapping the NPIA with no proper plan for national training and development when it goes.

    Abolishing the Forensic Science Service before sufficient quality services are available in its place.

    Fragmenting forces with elected police and crime commissioners just when forces need to co-operate more.

    Major cuts in service, yet £100m for elections in November that no one wants.

    Promising less bureaucracy yet forcing officers to do more paperwork because so many police staff have been cut.

    Undermining neighbourhood policing – one of the most important and successful reforms Labour introduced – as some areas consider removing officers and leaving PCSOs alone to do the job.

    And demoralising the officers and staff who we need to be highly motivated by the cack handed approach to Winsor reforms.

    The detail of the Winsor proposals is of course a matter for you and your representatives to pursue in the negotiations.

    But let me raise some general points.

    I think there should be reforms to pay and conditions to support modernisation of the police. Many police officers I’ve spoken to recognise that too.

    I think there should be greater emphasis on skills, and the development of talent, faster track promotions, greater flexibility. We supported the Neyroud report. Fitness tests make sense too.

    But the Home Secretary was completely wrong to give whole sale backing to the Winsor report when it raises so many concerns.

    For example:

    Regional pay is likely to cost more not less.

    Calling for higher qualified recruits whilst cutting starting salaries makes no sense at all.

    Too little consideration has been given to the impact on individual officers at a time when family budgets are already being squeezed.

    Compulsory severance looks frankly like a plan for another huge round of cuts to policing or contracting out police work.

    Time and again the Government is failing to value the office of constable or to recognise the complex mix of skills, experience and judgement the police workforce need.

     

    We see it too in their plans to force through widespread privatisation of core public policing with no safeguards in place.

     

    Public private partnerships can be very effective. The police can and should work closely with business on new technology and developing new ways of working. There is important work for the private sector to do.

     

    But government needs to draw a line – in the interests of public confidence and public safety too.

     

    Core public policing – such as neighbourhood patrols, serious criminal investigations, or assessing high risk offenders – should not be contracted out, no matter how cheap the contract price.

     

    British policing is based on consent and it depends on the confidence of the communities being policed.

     

    The public need to be confident decisions are being taken in the interests of public safety, the community or justice, not distorted by contract or profit.

     

    We don’t want private companies on the beat on our public streets, we want crown servants, public servants, police officers doing the job to keep us safe.

     

    Chaotic, fragmented, contradictory changes.

    Cuts and confusion putting at risk the very best of British policing.

    With no vision in its place.

    That’s not reform. It is destructive chaos.

    This Government is giving reform a bad name.

    Reform should make the police service better.

    Reform should improve the quality service to the public.

    Reform should make it easier not harder to cut crime or keep the streets safe.

    And reform should create a highly motivated, talented, committed and professional police force.

    We want to see reforms from the Stevens review that support good policing rather than undermining it.

    And that also means giving police officers the confidence that they will get the backing of the public and the force when they go the extra mile to keep people safe.

    There is one reform the Government could sign up to straight away.

    Doing more, not less, to help those officers injured in the line of duty who want to get back to work in the policing jobs they love.

    Like PC Guy Miller from Kent Police who was run over by a car driven by two men he tried to arrest. At the time it was said that PC Miller would never recover from his injuries.

    Yet less than three years later, PC Miller was back working for Kent Police.

    He has since received recognition for his work in the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, solving crimes, and helping to protect the public.

    Or PC Gareth Rees, a traffic officer for Hertfordshire police, hit by a car at the scene of an incident. Now back on full duties. But only after many operations and two years recovery.

    As he told a journalist, “We are in harms way, but if it all goes wrong you hope you will be put back together again”.

    Under the Government’s plans officers who want to return, but who need time to recover and rebuild will be penalised and probably forced out.

    I believe we owe a duty of care to officers like PC Miller, PC Rees, or PC Rathband hurt working to keep us safe.

    When a police officer, seriously injured in the line of duty, is determined to return to the policing job they love, they should not be penalised. I think they deserve the confidence of knowing their force will back them all the way.

    And we need more action too from the Government to make it easier for the police to do their jobs – cutting crime and keeping people safe.

    Because in the end that is what policing is all about.

    In thirteen years of Labour government, crime fell by 40%.

    That was the result of hard work by police and communities. Reforms that built partnerships with councils and housing associations to prevent crime. More police. New PCSOs. Neighbourhood policing to get back into the community. New powers on anti-social behaviour, domestic violence, knife crime or counter terror.

    Most people think crime is still too high and they want it to come down further.

    And that in the end should be the joint aim of communities, the Government and the police.

    Instead the Government is making it harder for the police to do the job:

    Fewer police.

    Fewer powers.

    Making it harder to get CCTV, taking rape suspects off the DNA database, ending ASBOs, watering down counter terror powers.

    More bureaucracy not less.

    And no over-arching strategy to cut crime.

    Yet in the end, that means it is communities that pay the price.

    Victims of crime who get less support.

    Families who feel less safe.

    Personal acquisitive crime already going up by 13%.

    Other crimes have stopped falling when they should still be coming down.

    I believe we can work together again – the police and communities, forces, councils, voluntary sector, businesses and government all pulling in the same direction to do more not less to keep people safe.

    But it needs the Government, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to change course before it is too late.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2011 Speech to Police Federation Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper to the Police Federation conference on 17th May 2011.

    It’s a great pleasure to be here. Can I thank Paul McKeever for the invitation to come to your conference.

    And I want to take this opportunity as well to thank you and many of your members I have met since I became Shadow Home Secretary who have talked to me about the work you do and the challenges you face across the country.

    From London to Leicester, Leamington to Leeds, West Midlands to West Yorkshire, the neighbourhood officers, the towncentre beat officers, traffic cops, public order police, detectives, counter terrorism officers, dog handlers and mounted police.

    All doing their best to deliver good service in the face of new pressures.

    For me, our Shadow Policing Minister Vernon Coaker and all our Shadow Home Affairs team, the perspectives of police officers across the country are extremely important.

    And I want to thank Paul, Ian, the national and regional team and the reps across the country for the work you are all doing to stand up for your members. The Police Federation has always been straight with us.

    In Government and out. You’ve always told us when you agreed with us, and also when you didn’t. Sometimes loudly.

    Of course in thirteen years we didn’t always get it right. And we have to learn lessons from that.

    On targets that lasted too long.

    On force reconfiguration that people didn’t want.

    And on arbitration too.

    We didn’t get the pay process right in 2007, and you made clear the anger officers across the country felt at the time. Not least at this conference if I remember right.

    And we did learn lessons from that. That’s why the following year, the Home Secretary and the Police Federation leadership worked hard together to get a three year deal that everyone could support.

    But over thirteen years, the work you did, the extra 17,000 officers, 16,000 PCSOs and other staff we supported, the work together on prevention, on fighting crime, on counter terrorism, tackling anti-social behaviour, street crime, domestic violence.

    It delivered results.

    43% drop in crime.

    Violent crime down.

    Theft down.

    Burglary down.

    The risk of being a victim of crime at its lowest since the British Crime Survey and rising confidence in the police.

    Because of the work you did.

    That’s not the sign of a failing police service. It’s the sign of police officers committed to their communities and to the job.

    And I know too this is about more than just fighting crime.

    The traffic cops attending a bad crash. The search teams looking for an elderly man with dementia who wanders off. The officers working in schools. The officer I spoke to in West Yorkshire an hour after he’d faced a man threatening suicide from a third floor balcony – and had to take the potentially life or death decision when negotiations failed to send officers in to rush him and pull him back.

    The police who have to pick up the pieces – the service of last resort when other things go wrong.

    And I want to pay tribute to the police officers who have lost their lives in service, and those who have fallen since the Conference last met.

    Detective Sergeant Terry Easterby.

    Constable Sean Peter McColgan.

    Constable Daniel Alastair Gibb.

    Constable Scott Eastwood-Smith killed on Saturday on his way to work.

    And from our colleagues in Northern Ireland, I woul d like to pay tribute to Constable Ronan Kerr, who was the victim of a terrible and cowardly murder, by terrorists who want to take the people of Northern Ireland and the peace process backwards.

    People across the country have great respect for the risks you take and the job you do.

    And that respect is important. It is an essential part of policing by consent – a founding principle of British policing centuries ago.

    But that is why it is also so dangerous the way this Government is attacking the police now.

    Paul is right to raise serious concerns about the campaign of denigration.

    The persistent briefings and distorted information straight from Downing Street and the Home Office about the so called “police gravy train”.

    The Prime Minister’s claim in the House of Commons that the police are “completely inefficient.”

    You are right to be angry about attacks that are untrue, unfair and that undermine the work you do.

    But there is a greater risk.

    That kind of campaign of denigration undermines respect for the enforcement of law. It makes it harder on every estate, in every community, for the police to command the respect you need to do your jobs and to enforce the law.

    You know I won’t always agree with you. You won’t always agree with me. We won’t always agree on the shape of reform. But I will always engage with you, and I don’t believe in undermining the job you do.

    I do believe in continued police reform.

    Not because I think policing is broken, but because it can be better, and we always should go further to do more for the sake of the communities we all serve.

    Police officers I’ve spoken to across the country want to be part of a sensible, responsible debate about improving policing for the future.

    But you are not punch bags. You are not material for cheap headlines. The Government should stop acting as if you are.

    And the truth is the Government is not introducing sensible reforms. Quite the opposite.

    I believe David Cameron and Theresa May have made the wrong decisions and the wrong judgements about the future of policing – and I fear it is communities across the country who will pay the price.

    For a start they are cutting too far too fast and the police are among the hardest hit.

    Overall the scale and pace of deficit reduction is being driven by politics not by what’s good for the economy. It’s hitting growth, hitting jobs and will end up costing us more.

    I also fear that policing is among the worst hit. The Home Secretary failed to fight her corner in the Spending Review. And now we are seeing the results.

    20% cuts with the steepest cuts in the first few years.

    12,500 police officers will be lost, and thousands more support staff too.

    Of course the police can and must make savings. But let’s be clear about the difference in our plans.

    Labour’s plans were set out by Alan Johnson; a 12 per cent cut over the course of the Parliament, which the HMIC have said could be achieved without hitting frontline services and which Alan believed would have given chief constables the cash to maintain the numbers of police officers and PCSOs.

    So yes, we would have cut £1 billion over the course of the Parliament and that would have been tough.

    But the Government is cutting £2 billion, with the steepest cuts in the first few years.

    The Home Secretary is still in denial.

    Three times she was asked on Sunday whether 12,000 police officers would go. Three times she refused to answer and to take responsibility for the cuts.

    Time and agai n Ministers tell us that the frontline won’t be hit. They clearly haven’t talked to the frontline officers in Warwickshire forced now to cover back office jobs, the neighbourhood officers being cut in London and Birmingham, the domestic violence units and traffic units across the country that are being squeezed.

    Time and again they tell us that it is for Chief Constables to decide.

    Yet the truth is Chief Constables are being put in an impossible position by the scale and pace of the cuts.

    They tell us cutting bureaucracy will solve it. I welcome more work to cut bureaucracy. But they shouldn’t pretend it’s going to compensate for 12,000 officers lost. It is playing the police and the public for fools.

    Government ministers are completely out of touch with the reality in police forces across the country.

    As for the A19s. You couldn’t make it up.

    A Government that says on the one hand everyone has to work for longer, and on the o ther hand, those who want to keep working have to go.

    Officers forced to retire, then asked to come back and do the same job as specials instead.

    That’s David Cameron’s Big Society.

    But the greatest insult of all is that now we know it won’t even save any money.

    The lost tax, national insurance and pension contributions means it will end up costing the taxpayer more.

    But it’s not just the cuts. The Home Secretary is undermining leadership and morale with her cack-handed approach to reform.

    Bringing in American style elected police chiefs which concentrate power in the hands of one politician with no checks and balances is putting centuries of impartial British policing at risk.

    The uncertainty over commissioners and the chaos surrounding the national policing framework is making it harder for forces to make long term plans.

    And the handling of pay and pension reforms – briefing and pre-empting the Winsor and Hutton reviews – has left police morale at an all time low.

    But perhaps most important of all, the Government is making it harder for the police, the courts, and local communities to fight crime.

    Youth services, family intervention projects and other prevention programmes cut back.

    ASBOs abolished.

    DNA use curtailed.

    CCTV in a bubble wrap of bureaucracy.

    Dangerous loopholes in child protection.

    Chaos over the National Crime Agency, CEOP and the SFO

    Sentencing reduced at the same time probation is cut back.

    And now their latest plan to let criminals do half the time just for pleading guilty, no matter how serious the offence. That won’t fight crime and it’s not justice either.

    They used to be the party of law and order once. Not now.

    These are the ingredients for a perfect storm. Fewer police, fewer powers, weaker prevention, weaker sentencing, no checks and balances.

    And no vision for the future.

    No strategy to keep crime falling.

    No bigger picture.

    Through the Police Federation, you have called for a Royal Commission on the future of policing to turn things round.

    You know the next election may not be for 4 years

    I can’t promise you a Royal Commission after that – to pronounce in five or six years time. It’s too long to wait.

    But I do think there is a strong case for an independent review – be it Royal Commission or other form of overarching review to start now.

    On clearing up the mess of the current reforms.

    On the challenges for the future – from counter terrorism to cyber crime.

    On ensuring the police are flexible enough to respond, promoting not stifling the talents of officers and staff.

    On putting communities at the heart of the fight against crime and delivery of justice.

    On increasing accountability, transparency, checks and balances and remedies when things go wrong.

    And on how, in the modern world we maintain what is precious about British policing – it’s impartiality, international reputation , sense of public service and policing by consent.

    The Government should set up that independent review now and they should talk to you about how it should be done. And if they won’t we will.

    Policing is too important to get it wrong.

    For thirteen years, I believe Labour’s approach – “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” – delivered results. Now the Tory-led Government is putting that progress at risk.

    Officers on the frontline say they fear crime will go up as a result.

    And it is victims and communities across the country whose lives are wrecked and who pay a terrible price when things go wrong or when justice is denied.

    We have to do everything we can to stop that happening.

    We are determined to do everything we can to force the Government to change course.

    They’ve done it before.

    They’ve paused on the NHS.

    They’ve u-turned on forests.

    If they can do it for trees, they can do it for police and crime.

    That’s why we will keep up the pressure in Westminster and across the country.

    Along with hundreds of thousands of people across the country already raising their voices in alarm.

    The fight against crime, the work for safer communities and the pursuit of justice are too important to put at risk.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the Labour Party conference on 27th September 2010.

    Conference,

    Last week I talked to a mother in my constituency.

    Her daughter Ellis is 16.

    She got her GCSEs this summer. Her mum said she worked really hard.

    She was due to start an apprenticeship this September at a local nursery school.

    In August they told her the coalition Government has cut the funding.

    Her mum was told Ellis can still do her training.

    But only if she forks out £1,200. That’s £1,200 she and her family haven’t got.

    Conference this is the Britain David Cameron and Nick Clegg want to build.

    Hopes betrayed.

    Ambitions abandoned.

    Young people left to sink or swim.

    Unless you can afford to pay yourself.

    This is what the Big Society really means.

    And this is why, for Ellis and thousands like her, we have to fight to get the Labour Party back into Government as soon as we possibly can.

    And that is why we need to come together now, behind our new leader, Ed Miliband, who will lead us in:

    – exposing the madness of the Tories’ attack on jobs,

    – challenging the deep unfairness of their plans,

    – and fighting the biggest assault on families in any of our lifetimes.

    Conference, throughout our history the Labour Party has fought for jobs.

    Remember as recession started, economists said unemployment would reach 3 million.

    That is what happened in the Tory recessions of the 80s and 90s.

    But this party vowed we would not let that happen again.

    Government, businesses, unions , councils, voluntary groups all pulled together.

    Backing jobs building new schools and homes.

    Guaranteed work or training for young people.

    Working together to keep Britain working.

    Look at the results.

    The dole queue started coming down last autumn.

    Far earlier than in any other recession.

    Far below the 3 million predicted.

    One and a half million fewer people on the dole than in the 80s and 90s recession.

    One and a half million more people in work supporting their families. That is Labour’s achievement and this party should be proud of it.

    And Conference I saw the pressures Labour’s Chancellor faced, the decisions Alistair and Gordon took, that:

    – stopped banks crashing,

    – stopped millions of people losing their savings,

    – saved jobs.

    Conference we should pay tribute now to Gordon and Alistair for the work they did for this country.

    Over the summer, the world economy ha s slipped back into more dangerous waters.

    In Ireland the sharp austerity drive has triggered a double dip recession.

    Here at home private sector job growth is still too weak.

    Vacancies have dropped in the last three months.

    And the number of people on the dole has gone up for the first time since January.

    So what is David Cameron’s answer?

    To cut jobs just when we need them most.

    George Osborne’s own Budget said 100,000 more people on the dole each and every year, just as a result of the decisions they made.

    Over the next few years, Treasury’s own papers show:

    – Half a million jobs lost in the public sector,

    – Over half a million jobs lost in the private sector,

    – Half a million fewer jobs and opportunities for the unemployed.

    So what do ministers have to say to the 90,000 young people now being denied a job on the Future Jobs Fund.

    David Cameron said the Future Jobs Fund was “a g ood scheme” and “good schemes we will keep”.

    But he didn’t keep it. He abolished it.

    Nick Clegg was asked whether these job cuts were fair. He said “of course it isn’t…. It’s a decision taken by the local council.”

    But Nick, it wasn’t a council decision, it was a decision announced by a Liberal Democrat Government Minister.

    Doesn’t this tell you everything you need to know about this coalition.

    David Cameron tells people whatever they want to hear.

    Nick Clegg tells them it’s someone else’s fault.

    And we in the Labour Party must make sure every conceit and every deceit is exposed for what it is – a betrayal of young people across Britain.

    And what reason do they give for cutting so many jobs?

    They say they need to do this to get the deficit down.

    Conference, of course the deficit does need to come back down. And that will mean some tough and unpopular decisions.

    But cutting jobs to get the deficit down?

    More people on the dole to bring the deficit down?

    What planet are they on?

    We’ve heard the Tories say this before.

    In the 90s they told us that “unemployment is a price worth paying to bring inflation down”.

    20 years later they are telling us again unemployment is a price worth paying to bring the deficit down.

    Both times they were badly wrong.

    Unemployment is never a price worth paying.

    Rising unemployment pushes the deficit up not down.

    Every 100,000 people on the dole costs us £700 million in lower tax and higher benefits.

    Unemployment isn’t the price of bringing the deficit down.

    Higher unemployment means we all will pay a higher price.

    Nick Clegg claims the public finances are like a household budget, and we have to cut back quick.

    But think about it. Because this is a family with a choice to make.

    It’s a family with a mortgage who cut the rep ayments when dad lost his job in the recession – to make sure they could get by til he found work, and to make sure the family didn’t lose their home.

    And now they have a choice.

    Make good those repayments steadily, bit by bit. Go for some extra overtime or promotion, tighten their belts a little. But spread the payments sensibly.

    Or follow the George Osborne plan. Pay it off all at once. Sell the furniture, the car that gets mum to work, sell the dog, even the house itself – whatever it takes to get the debt down.

    The truth is that every family knows cutting back too far too fast causes deep damage and ends up costing you far, far more.

    Unemployment won’t get the deficit down, more people in jobs will get the deficit down.

    Conference, our task is getting more people into work

    That means supporting jobs and yes it also means going further on welfare reform too.

    We brought in extra help and stronger rules. We cut the numb er of people stuck on out of work benefits. But we need to go further.

    We know from the doorstep, we talked to parents worried about whether their children could find work, neighbours worried that other people weren’t playing by the rules.

    We should have started sooner on reforms to help people off long term sickness benefits and into work.

    And we should go further to guarantee more jobs, but to require more people to take them up.

    Opportunities alongside obligations.

    But that’s not what this coalition is doing.

    Iain Duncan Smith says he wants more people in work.

    But George Osborne is cutting jobs for them to go to.

    Iain Duncan Smith says he wants people to be better off in work.

    But George Osborne cut working tax credit.

     

    Iain Duncan Smith says he wants more conditions on claimants.

    But the Government is ending the requirement for young people to take work.

     

    Iain Duncan Smith says a lot. But no one else in Government seems to be listening.

     

    He said himself, he was the quiet man.

     

    So quiet no one else can hear.

     

    They’re not setting out welfare reforms to help people into work. They’re just setting out old fashioned cuts that hit the poorest hardest.

    George Osborne is swaggering round like the playground bully – working out who won’t fight back, picking on the weakest – and that’s just Iain Duncan Smith.

    Hitting the poorest harder than the rich.

    Women harder than men.

    Hitting the sick and disabled.

    Pensioners and children are being hit hardest of all.

    The nasty party is back, and this time they’ve brought along their mates.

    From this April, over 50,000 of our poorest pensioners will lose an average £11 a wee k from their housing benefit.

    Thousands of pensioners who will struggle to pay the rent.

    Conference this party believes people who worked all their lives have a right to a secure home in their retirement.

    And we should be proud of action we took to lift 600,000 children out of poverty. But the government is trying to turn back the clock.

    Cutting maternity allowance, ending the child trust fund, the baby tax credit.

    Taking £1200 from working families with new born babies in that important first year of life.

    At least Margaret Thatcher had the grace to wait til the babes were weaned before she snatched their milk.

    That money is what lets a new mum stay home with her little one a bit longer before she goes back to work to pay the bills.

    It lets new dads cut back on the overtime so they can spend more time at home.

    For thousands of new parents across the country, that money means precious, precious time at the start of a family’s life.

    David Cameron said this would be the most family friendly Government ever.

    In fact they have launched the biggest assault on the family in the entire history of the welfare state. And this party must fight it all the way.

    This is a Government which just doesn’t understand women’s lives.

    They’ve halved the number of women in the government – and let’s be honest we needed more women before.

    George Osborne’s Budget hit women three times as hard as men.

    £8 billion raised, £6 billion of it from women.

    Even though women earn less and own less than men.

    Nick Clegg says things like working tax credits, child benefit, carers allowance make people dependent and should be cut back.

    For millions of women across Britain the opposite is true.

    The tax credits help mums pay for child care so they can go out to work.

    The carers allowance helps daughters look after their elderly parents.

    That support doesn’t make them dependent. It gives them greater independence, greater choice about how to cope with the different pressures of work and family life.

    Conference, all my life I have assumed that each generation of women would do better than the last.

    I know I’ve had more choices, more opportunities than my mum and my grandma, not least because of the battles they won.

    With each generation, I assumed, we would break more glass ceilings, change more of the world.

    But now for the first time I worry about my daughters, about all our daughters. For the first time I worry that our daughters will have fewer chances in life than we did.

    Conference, for women across Britain, backed by the Labour Party, the fight back starts here.

    Throughout our history the Labour Party has fought for equality.

    Fought for working families.

    Fought for dignity in old age.

    And throughout our history – from the Jarrow marches to the New Deal – we have fought for jobs.

    Fighting for jobs, backing our economy, standing up for fairness, united behind our new leader; this must again be Labour’s crusade.

  • Yvette Cooper – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    cooper-300x300

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the 2009 Labour Party conference.

    Conference.

    12 months ago we gathered in Manchester with the world economy on the brink of disaster

    Think back for just a moment

    Banks bigger than nations teetering on the edge of collapse.

    Fearful families moving their savings from bank to bank.

    The madness of markets in crisis.

    The terrifying realisation that things people had taken for granted might all come crashing down

    And yet in the midst of that crisis we learnt something else:

    The strength of peoples, governments and nations standing together, arms stretched from country to country;

    First to calm the wildness of the storm

    And then to stop recession turning into slump;

    And we learnt too how much we owe to the strong leadership of our Chancellor and our Prime Minister. And we should start our debate by thanking them now: Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown.

    Never forget how close we came to catastrophe last year.

    And never forget how easy it would have been for governments to stand back, to turn their backs, to retrench.

    That was what governments across the world did in the thirties. And for years working people paid the price.

    That was what the Tory government did here in the 80s. And for generations entire communities paid the price.

    And that is what David Cameron and George Osborne wanted us to do again.

    Conference we know unemployment is never a price worth paying. We will never leave people to stand alone.

    Our Labour government will never turn its back on those hit by recession or global crisis.

    We know unemployment hurts. Unemployment scars.

    That’s why we are putting an extra £5bn into jobs and training.

    And conference that support and our welfare reforms have made a difference. In just three months this summer more half a million people who were out of work found jobs.

    But it’s still hard. Now is the time to increase – not cut back – on the programmes that help people get jobs.

    Programmes like the Local Employment Partnerships between Job Centre plus and businesses that are getting people off benefit and into jobs in every one of our constituencies.

    Helping people like Anthony in Castleford, who got a job after 14 months on the dole and told me its transformed his life — he’s got his own place, started management training, and been on his first ever holiday abroad.

    I spoke to Rebecca Robertson, at Job Centre Plus in Castleford who helped Anthony get work about how she does it. She said; “I like to get under the employers skin – know what they really need. Then I can make sure I get people ready for the job.” She gets people training, boosts their confidence, and even goes to the interview with them if they need it – and she takes a spare tie and a spare pair of tights along just in case.

    Conference, its people like Rebecca, going the extra mile to help people not just get a job but build a future. That’s public service.

    But we need still to be much more ambitious. There are thousands more people like Anthony.

    So we will do more. I can announce today that we will expand those successful local partnerships to help far more people. Already they’ve helped over 250,000 people into jobs. Now we will treble our original plans to help a total of over 750,000 people into jobs by the end of next year.

    Because no one should be denied the dignity of work.

    Across the country, major employers have been signing up to the Backing Young Britain campaign.

    From Bradford to Brighton, Coatbridge to Cardiff, councils, housing associations, football clubs and countless community organisations are signing up to our £1bn fund to deliver over 100,000 youth jobs, as we guarantee no young person is stuck on the dole more than 12 months.

    Even Tory Councils are signing up. Praising the programme and claiming the credit in their local papers.

    But hang on. Where do they think the money is coming from for those jobs? I’ll tell you where. Its coming from £5bn extra this government has provided to boost the economy.

    £5bn that George Osborne believes should never be spent.

    £5bn the Tory party is determined to cut.

    Conference we need to challenge every Tory MP, every Tory councillor and candidate to tell young people why their party wants to destroy their jobs.

    Conference the Tory party want to turn their backs on young people again. And we must not let them get away with it.

    So what would David Cameron put in place of training places and support he would cut?

    Just one policy. As he told Tory party members in July: “50 of our candidates, MPs and councillors are setting up job clubs.” Instead of 100,000 youth jobs, 50 Tory job clubs.

    Imagine it. Job clubs run by Tory MPs.

    David Cameron might have some useful advice on interview techniques.

    William Hague would certainly be able to help on getting second jobs or making extra cash on the side.

    But what about the rest?

    John Redwood on how to look interviewers in the eye.

    Ken Clarke on how to dress for success.

    You know what Norman Tebbit’s advice would be: take a cycling proficiency course.

    Conference, may be there’s a reason why David Cameron doesn’t get the importance of training and employment support.

    For his first job he got a royal equerry to ring up on his behalf. For his second job he got his mother in law Lady Astor to put in a good word.

    Conference, that’s not how people like Anthony in Castleford get jobs.

    Back in the real world thousands of people rely on the help from training colleges and Job Centres the Tories want to cut.

    Conference, the Tories say we can’t afford to invest in the unemployed. I say  we can’t afford not to.

    Look at the facts. For every 100,000 people we get off unemployment we save £700m.

    There is no better way to cut the deficit once the economy is growing than to get people off benefit and back into work.

    That is why we will make sure no one is written off.

    Keeping up the employment support and the welfare reform that is getting people back off long term benefits and into jobs.

    Helping disabled people overcome discrimination to work.

    Helping parents get the child care they need.

    More support and also making sure everyone does their bit.

    Working with businesses, the voluntary sector in the Flexible New Deal.

    Not a passive welfare state, but active support for work.

    David Cameron doesn’t believe in active government to help the unemployed because he doesn’t believe in active government.

    Their campaigns for Broken Britain, for an age of Austerity, all designed to break people’s faith in a brighter future.

    He wants us to despair of purpose of politics or the role of government so they can roll back the bounds of government – a counsel of despair that would have run Britain into ground if we had followed it last year.

    We know things are tougher in recession. But we know if we stand together we can come through it stronger.

    And we know there will be tough choices on the public finances. But we will make those tough choices guided by our vision of a fairer Britain, for our parents, children, neighbours.

    That is why we will increase the top rate of tax and we won’t cut inheritance tax for millionaires.

    It is why we will keep helping families.

    Backing Sure Start and child benefit.

    Making sure mums and dads can balance work and family life.

    Helping carers.

    Putting into law our commitment to end child poverty for ever.

    That is why we will keep doing more to help pensioners.

    Tackling decades of unfairness so millions of women can get full basic state pensions that should be their right.

    Requiring employers to make pension contributions for the first time for millions of low paid workers.

    And conference, because fuel bills are still high, as well as paying the Winter Fuel Allowance at the higher rate again, I can announce we will also pay Cold Weather Payments at the higher rate again cold

    But conference you can’t do any of those things if you don’t believe in the role of government.

    You can’t do any of those things if you don’t believe in standing together to help build a fairer country.

    You can’t do any of those things if you have a Tory government

    In the thirties one of the first ever women Labour MPs, Ellen Wilkinson, marched with our fore fathers from Jarrow to fight for jobs.

    In the eighties I marched with my father and with many of you under the Union Banners to fight for Jobs.

    But Conference. We marched then in vain. Because we didn’t win the arguments. We didn’t win power. And there was nothing more we could do.

    That’s why we have to fight now. That is why there is so much at stake. That’s why the Labour Party today has more to fight for than ever.

    We owe it to the young people today, but also to the Jarrow marchers we couldn’t help, to the 80s unemployed we couldn’t support.

    We owe it to them to fight for every vote, to fight together to win the next election and to build a fairer Britain.

  • Nick Clegg – 2014 Speech at BIS Manufacturing Summit

    nickclegg

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, to the BIS Manufacturing Summit in Liverpool on 19th June 2014.

    Growing optimism

    For the first time, I think, since these summits began, there’s a real sense of optimism emerging – albeit cautiously – about the future of British manufacturing.

    Our economy is growing again – with Britain forecast to grow faster than any other G7 economy this year.

    We have more people in work than ever before – with your businesses adding around 10,000 new manufacturing jobs to our economy every month.

    Orders are increasing. Exports are rising. Output is up.

    And, to take just one example, Britain now has the most productive car sector in Europe. We’re exporting more vehicles than ever before – with a new vehicle rolling off our production lines every 20 seconds. By 2017, UK industry predicts that Britain will be producing 2 million cars a year, beating our all-time peak of 1.92 million in 1972.

    That’s no accident. It’s down to your hard work, your expertise and the close partnership you’ve built with our government – especially Vince and his team – to help Britain get back on its feet.

    Why manufacturing matters

    Yet, of course, whatever these results, there’s always going to be an economist or statistician ready to point to a pie-chart and question the ongoing importance of British manufacturing. Some talk about global shifts in demand, the rise of lower-cost competitors and say that manufacturing is only around 10% of our economy.

    In truth, its impact is so much more. I only need to look at Sheffield, the city where I’m an MP, to see how much your success still matters. In fact, travel anywhere in the UK and ask people about the place they come from and they’ll talk with pride about the industries and products that put their communities on the map.

    To name just a few – in Sheffield it’s steel. In Sunderland, Birmingham and across the North West it’s cars. In the Highlands, it’s whisky. In County Antrim, it’s buses. In Broughton, it’s planes. And hopefully in years to come, here on the Wirral, it will be building renewable technologies.

    Your industries create a whole network of businesses that keep our local communities’ economies alive.

    Take the good news that Jaguar Land Rover will be investing a further £200 million in their Halewood plant, near Speke. This investment will bring production of the new Discovery vehicle to Halewood in 2015, creating 250 jobs. And will increase Halewood’s workforce to 4,750 – trebling it since 2010.

    Currently, this plant is producing a new Range Rover Evoque and Land Rover Freelander at the rate of one vehicle every 82 seconds. Over 80% of everything they build at Halewood is exported to markets including Brazil, India, China, the US and Hong Kong.

    Yet this is only part of the story, with countless local businesses supporting the plant across its supply chain. Companies like GETRAG, which produces transmissions for these vehicles and recently received investment from the Regional Growth Fund to expand its Merseyside plant.

    Beyond that, we also have the hundreds of service companies that contribute. Whether it’s the accountants or legal services used by Head Office, the building services teams that maintain JLR’s factories and offices, the sales teams that market their cars around the UK or the local pubs, cafes and shops that serve their employees after a hard day at work. The reality is your companies are creating jobs, driving growth and boosting productivity in manufacturing and services.

    And, as a sector, you delivered around £140 billion in GVA (gross value added) last year alone. You produce over half our exports in goods; invest more than anyone else in UK business R&D; and employ millions of highly-skilled people.

    With figures like that you’d never get a French politician talking down their manufacturing industry. And the UK’s manufacturing base is growing faster than France’s right now!

    Our commitment to you

    That’s why, when we joined this coalition government, we were committed to sitting down with you to set out what Britain’s long-term industrial strategy should be.

    It’s a conversation that had been long overdue: tackling the big issues that impact your companies – skills, access to finance, procurement, innovation and technology – and identifying the levers government could pull to help you grow.

    And we’re delivering on our promises – with globally competitive taxes, less red tape and more generous capital allowances.

    We’re establishing the British Business Bank to help make finance markets work better for small firms. And we have set up the Green Investment Bank – which is leveraging extra private sector investment for major green projects. This includes the partial conversion of the Drax Coal Power Station to biomass fuels – which when completed will provide around 10% of the UK’s 2020 renewable electricity target.

    We’ve created our Catapult Centres – a national network of cutting-edge business research facilities, dedicated to commercialising the latest processes, materials and technologies.

    Earlier this month, Vince and I opened a new Rolls-Royce facility in Washington, Tyne and Wear, which uses innovations developed at our Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in Sheffield: to radically cut the time and energy it takes to produce essential engine components.

    And Vince’s announcement today of a new £7 million grant to support research into cutting-edge aerospace technologies at Sheffield’s AMRC will help secure the UK’s global lead in this sector also.

    More widely, we’ve expanded our apprenticeships programme, with 1.7 million new apprentices since 2010.

    And, wherever possible, we’re giving power back to local councils, colleges and businesses like yours – through our Local Enterprise Partnerships, our Regional Growth Fund, as well as City Deals and the billions of pounds worth of Growth Deals we’re now negotiating. Together, this is helping to boost local skills and kick-start local infrastructure projects like the development of new transport systems and roads to support your business.

    I’ve also established a new Local Growth Committee – which brings together ministers from across government to speed up the critical decisions needed in Whitehall to get projects in your local area moving.

    Planning for the future

    But despite all the progress the job’s not done.

    And I know that, as the economy improves, many of you are questioning just how committed Whitehall will be to sticking to this strategy in the long-term.

    You work in industries where it can take you years to develop your next big idea: whether it’s 3 to 5 years to develop a new car, 10 years to produce a new drug and up to 15 years to design and build a new aircraft.

    These long timescales do not sit easily with the minute-by-minute demands and 5-year election cycles of the political world. And, over and over again, in Britain, we’ve seen politics not business drive the focus and scope of our country’s industrial policy.

    And it’s staggering to see that, in the 10 years of the last government, the importance of our manufacturing base to Britain’s economy was left to decline 3 times faster than it did under Margaret Thatcher – shrinking from 20% as a proportion of our economy to a little over 10%.

    Compare this to France, Germany and Asia where, for decades, your competitors have benefited from governments committed to preserving their countries’ industrial strengths, whatever the global challenges.

    Taking the politics out of industrial policy

    In my view, it’s time we had that same kind of certainty and stability here in Britain. The way I see it is like this: if this 5 year parliament was about rescuing the British economy, the next will be about renewing our economy. If this parliament was about reviving our economy, the next must be about finishing the job of rebalancing our economy.

    It is about ensuring that we’re never again reliant on just one sector, just one region or over rely on simply boosting public sector jobs to shore up growth across our country. And, to make that happen, we need British governments – now and in the future – to act in a more strategic and less short-term way.

    To put it bluntly – we need to take the politics out of Britain’s industrial policy. The country needs us to establish a cross party consensus – strong enough to last in this parliament and beyond – which isn’t about picking winners, on the one hand, or leaving it all up to the market, on the other. But, instead, builds on the work of individuals from across parties – such as the Conservative’s Lord Heseltine, Labour’s Lord Mandelson and Vince in the Liberal Democrats – to lay the best possible foundations for the future.

    I know as much as anyone about trading blows in the Westminster bear pit. And I’m not going to pretend that’s going to end anytime soon. Yet, as we’ve seen in the last 4 years, there are times when – in the national interest – we need to put the political point scoring aside.

    And whether it’s tackling the deficit, securing long term pension reform, creating the Office of Budget Responsibility or delivering the biggest programme of economic decentralisation in a generation – we are committed to pushing through the big, ambitious reforms Britain needs to make its economy stronger and prospects brighter, working with others across party lines where needed.

    We’re committed to governing for the long-term – guaranteeing a government that is ready, on the one hand, to get out of the way of your businesses, so you can generate jobs and growth.

    And that, on the other, is equipped to step in – where needed – to tackle market failures and create the best possible conditions for securing your success.

    So, today, I want to set out 3 possible policy areas where, I believe, we could achieve the long-term, cross-party agreement we need. It starts with government’s industrial strategy.

    Supply chain strategy

    Over the past 4 years, working in collaboration with you, this government has been able to set out a long-term plan to boost Britain’s competitiveness and secure jobs.

    The importance of this work shouldn’t be underestimated. For example, Richard Parry Jones – co-chair of the Automotive Council – has talked about the critical role that our industrial strategy is playing in securing that sector’s recent success.

    Businesses have confidence in our industrial strategy, because they have helped to develop it and they’re helping us deliver the strategy. And this powerful partnership gives us the chance to rectify some of those mistakes of the past – notably, by strengthening Britain’s supply chains.

    Every time a UK manufacturer has moved overseas in the past 40 years, we’ve seen the local companies that support them disappear too. Company by company, this has led to a hollowing out of the UK’s domestic supply chain – meaning that over half of the materials and components used in British manufacturing are now sourced from overseas.

    But, if we move now, I believe that trend can be reversed. As you know, the Fukushima earthquake 3 years ago heavily impacted global supply chains – forcing factory closures in Japan and months of production delays across the world. That’s led to companies like Nissan taking a serious look at basing more of their supply chains here in the UK to mitigate problems like this in the future.

    I believe a new UK Supply Chain Strategy – developed in collaboration with your core UK suppliers – would help us identify how we can turn that intention into long-term investment. These supply industries are huge, important sectors in their own right – our steel makers, petrochemical companies, glass producers and so on – all of which employ thousands of people and generate millions for our economy.

    Leading business organisations, including the CBI, believe that real potential exists for the UK’s share of global supply chains to be much higher. And, to help make that achievable, I believe this new strategy should focus on answering 3 central questions:

    What exactly are the big issues your sectors face in basing more of your supply chain in the UK?

    What are the common barriers to investment and growth in the UK’s supply chain sectors – such as access to finance, regulation and research etc?

    How can we tackle these issues to make the most of opportunities like major government-supported infrastructure projects?

    Take our offshore wind industry – which is so important to this region’s future. By 2020, it’s estimated that there will be around £40 billion worth of renewable electricity projects in the UK. Yet only around 20% of the components needed to build our offshore wind farms are currently being sourced in the UK. Think of the opportunities for local jobs and growth, if – together – we could increase that figure. Siemens are already paving the way, with their £160 million planned investment in UK turbine manufacturing.

    The other major weakness of the past which needs addressing will be familiar to you – skills. We’re already doing a lot of work to increase the number and quality of apprenticeships available, by giving you greater input into these qualifications, and also to make it easier for you to recruit and train the young people you need for the future.

    And, recently, Vince announced his plans for a new network of National Colleges – centres of excellence dedicated to giving people the high-level technical skills required to work on huge projects like the development of High-Speed 2.

    We’re now consulting with you on the priority projects and skills gaps that you think these colleges should address. For instance, boosting the skills and training needed in the offshore wind industry will give people highly transferable skills which they can use not just in one sector but across our economy as a whole.

    These kinds of skills are highly transferable, giving people a greater shot not just at employment in one sector but also across our economy. And this could be another critical opportunity for businesses like yours to help develop Britain’s future workforce.

    Regional Growth Fund

    Finally, with public finances likely to remain tight in the next Parliament, we also need to look at where government can best focus its money to continue that rewiring of Britain’s economy.

    Gradually, we’re repairing the economic mess of the previous government – but it can’t be fixed overnight. Between 1998 and 2008, cities like Birmingham and Nottingham actually saw their private sector workforces shrink even in the boom years. This has left behind a profound imbalance in our regional economies – increasing their reliance on public sector employers for jobs.

    That’s why we established the Regional Growth Fund (RGF) to help kick-start private sector investment and jobs in areas like this. And, over the past 4 years, government has committed to invest £2.9 billion in over 400 projects focused on increasing business competitiveness across our regions. This includes companies in Merseyside like Glen Dimplex Appliances, where I visited recently, a manufacturer of cookers and ovens, which secured £3 million in RGF funding to expand their operations – creating 300 new jobs.

    And I’m pleased to announce that Round 6 of the RGF opens today, with over £200 million available. We’re encouraging bids directly from companies that require grants of more than £1 million, as well as from organisations like Chambers of Commerce, universities and others to help support SMEs who require funding of less than a million. So, if that’s you, please apply.

    Of course, there are some who complain that our RGF money isn’t getting spent fast enough. They’re comparing it to the days when the last government would just hand over money to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to spend as they saw fit. But we’ve changed that – we’ve put the businesses that secure this funding in the driving seat. They decide when this money is spent in line with the growth plans for their companies.

    And this is proving a powerful stimulus for business investment in those regions that need it. In total, for every £1 invested through the RGF, we’ve leveraged over £5 in extra private investment: creating and safeguarding over half a million jobs across the UK. This compares to the RDAs which only leveraged 65p for every £1 they spent.

    But, we’ve still got a way to go to clear up the damage done to our long-term competitiveness. That’s why I believe there’s such a strong case for extending the RGF beyond this parliament to 2020.

    Conclusion

    So, in conclusion, together, we’re building a better future for British manufacturing.

    We’re delivering results, but we mustn’t stop now.

    Together, we’ve got to ensure that the hard work of the last 4 years continues to pay off.

    And this is my commitment to you – that I will do everything I can to build a long term political consensus focused on helping your sectors thrive, your companies grow and securing a stronger economy for Britain’s future. Thank you.