Blog

  • John Healey – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    johnhealey

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Healey to Labour Party conference on 28th September 2011.

    Conference.

    We’ve heard powerful testimonies today in defence of our NHS from our panel, and in our debate. Thank you.

    Today we reject the Tories’ plans.

    We back the founding principles of our NHS.

    And we dedicate ourselves to winning a Labour government to protect the NHS.

    It has been a real privilege to work with an outstanding shadow health team; with many of you in our health unions; and with Norma Stephenson and the Party’s policy commission.

    But the greatest privilege has been meeting the men and women of the NHS, and hearing patients’ experiences.

    Last week I was with Margaret Pritchard – a long-time community campaigner for Whiston hospital.

    She’s never forgotten the NHS under the Tories: ”People were waiting hours on trolleys in the corridor. I know”, she told me, “I was one of them”.

    Or Anne McCormack, who I met at Conference this week. Doctors found breast cancer and she said “Thanks to the NHS and what Labour did, I’m here today and not an obituary”.

    LABOUR’S RECORD

    We take great Labour pride in the creation of the NHS. And in the great improvements people saw during the last 13 years of Labour investment and reform.

    Hundreds of new hospitals and health centres.

    Thousands more doctors, nurses and specialist staff.

    Millions of patients with the shortest ever waits for tests and treatment.

    THE NHS – BUILT BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

    But the NHS was not built by governments.

    The NHS was built by nurses and doctors, radiographers and pharmacists, porters and clerks and cleaners.

    Built over decades by people from across Britain and the world – committed to curing and caring; sharing their humanity and the high ideal of public service in our NHS.

    It was built by working people, through their taxes, willing in the knowledge that care will be there if they need it, free and equal for all.

    The NHS – the proudest, greatest Promise of Britain.

    CAMERON’S BROKEN NHS PROMISES

    Even David Cameron declares he loves the NHS. But he’s never been straight with people.

    He’s breaking each and every one of his personal NHS promises:

    “Protect the NHS”. Broken.

    “Give the NHS a real rise in funding”. Broken

    “Stop top-down reorganisations”. Broken. Big time.

    That’s why people are starting to see the NHS go backwards again with the Tories. Services cut; treatments denied; long waiting times up.

    We’ve seen over a million patients suffer long waits for treatment under David Cameron, breaking Labour’s guarantees to patients.

    LABOUR OPPOSING TORY NHS PLANS

    The Prime Minister is in denial about the damage his Government is doing.

    The chaos of the biggest reorganisation in NHS history.

    The waste of billions of pounds on new bureaucracy.

    The betrayal of our NHS in a health bill which will break up the NHS as a “national” health service and set it up as a full-scale market, ruled for the first time by the full force of competition law.

    No one wants this. No one voted for this.

    I am proud that it’s Labour that has led the campaign to defend the NHS.

    The first to expose and oppose the Tories’ plans last autumn.

    Then the long, slow haul of opposition: building alliances behind the scenes; making arguments that others come to accept, then make as well; and – yes – allowing others to claim credit to get results.

    David Cameron claimed last month: “The whole health profession is on board for what is now being done”.

    Conference, he’s in denial!

    He thinks he’s right. Doctors’, nurses’, patients’ groups say he’s wrong.

    So this summer we called on the people to help save the NHS.

    From the south coast of England, to the northern cities. Labour and union members, together, took to the high streets and the town squares with our campaign.

    It’s been a while since many of us can remember people queuing – queuing – to sign up to a Labour petition.

    NHS NEED FOR CHANGE

    The Tories and the Lib Dems are throwing away Labour’s golden legacy to NHS patients.

    Destroying the goodwill of NHS staff to support further reform.

    Piling extra pressure on the NHS to make short term cuts, rather than long-term change.

    And our health and care services do require reform.

    Yesterday Ed Miliband set out our Labour values. He said the rules for care services must change.

    People’s confidence in care was shaken by the crisis at Southern Cross. Care for some of the most vulnerable in our society, traded by predatory fund managers who saw elderly people as commodities. Dementia as a high-profit market.

    We did not act before but we will in future. So we will regulate for the best business practices as well as the best care standards.

    And let us learn lessons for the NHS. The health bill opens up all parts of the NHS to private companies, backed for the first time by a competition regulator and competition courts.

    Ministers in private conferences talk about “huge opportunities for the private sector”.

    Their civil servants hold secret talks on handing over 22 NHS hospitals to a foreign multinational.

    Privatising NHS hospitals will drive a wedge between hospitals and the wider health service.

    Companies whose bottom line depends on bringing more patients, more business into their own hospitals, will not collaborate with others to cut admissions, when the treatment for patients can be better and better value elsewhere.

    The huge challenge of changing health needs, tighter finances and a more elderly population can only be met through more reform – more say for clinicians; more control for patients; more prevention; more integration of services across hospital, primary and community care.

    Let me be clear. There has always been and will be in the future an important contribution for non-NHS providers – including private providers – towards better health care, to supplement not substitute for the NHS.

    But let me say now, hospitals are at the heart of our NHS; they should be in public not private hands; dedicated totally to patients, not profits.

    So we will oppose any government move to privatise NHS hospitals.

    We will guarantee under Labour that NHS hospitals remain in the NHS.

    Labour will look instead to develop integrated care organisations to allow primary, secondary and social care to work together. And because our values demand we’re not neutral on who provides care, we will look to promote those that share a true social ethos over those driven by narrow commercial interests.

    We make this pledge not because we want no change in the NHS but because we need greater change.

    Because our health and care system must reform, and must retain the faith of all who need and use it.

    CONCLUSION

    I had an email from a mental health nurse the other day.

    He said “you and your Labour colleagues are the last bastion of the NHS; don’t let us and future generations down”.

    Conference, the health bill has been through the Commons but the battle is not over.

    The NHS was built by the people. It is cherished by the people. It belongs to the people.

    Let us tell David Cameron today:

    We will give voice to the dissent of people who heard your promises, saw your posters; people who wanted to believe you before the election but are now seeing the truth. You can’t trust the Tories with our NHS.

    Bevan said “the NHS will last as long as there are folk with the faith to fight for it”.

    Conference, this is our faith. Our fight.

  • John Healey – 2011 Speech to National Housing Federation

    johnhealey

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Healey to the National Housing Federation on 8th July 2011.

    Introduction

    Thank you … I am glad to join you again at a NHF conference.

    A couple of years ago I spoke at the Federation’s national conference in Birmingham.

    That was almost 9 weeks to the day into my job as Housing Minister; this is now 9 months since I became Labour’s shadow health secretary.

    As before, this invitation has been a welcome spur to reflect on how we see and meet important policy challenges.

    Then I was able to set out plans for the extra £1.5 billion I’d negotiated for our Labour Housing Pledge to kick start 10 000 new homes on commercial sites stalled in recession and build an extra 20 000 new affordable homes, including the largest council house building programme for two decades.

    Now I’m no longer in Government; and no longer in a position to make things happen.

    It was Tony Blair who said there’s one essential difference between government and opposition: “In government you wake up each morning and say ‘what can I do today?’ In opposition, you wake up and ask yourself ‘what can I say today?’

    But one thing after government in opposition that’s imperative, is to learn the lessons of what worked, what didn’t and why.

    You are all housing service and policy experts. More so than I am, or will ever become. So I wanted to contribute to your conference discussion by offering my reflections less on policy debate and more on policy decisions as they are taken in Westminster and Whitehall, as well as reflections on overcoming the flaws.

    Health and housing

    You’ve brought health and housing together for debate at this conference.

    But do you know … in my 10 months as housing minister, I don’t recall a single meeting with health ministers to discuss the essential policy and delivery links.

    And in 9 months as shadow health secretary, no doctor, nurse, NHS manager or health policy expert has said to me …’we must do more to get better housing if we want better health’.

    It is an evident truth.

    You know it as housing experts from the way you run your housing and tenant services. I know it as constituency MP for part of Rotherham and Barnsley.

    Poorly heated or insulated homes can lead to hypothermia and preventable deaths.

    Overcrowded homes can lead to strains on relationships and infectious diseases spreading more rapidly.

    Badly adapted homes can lead to trips, falls, avoidable pain and hospital admissions.

    Pressure with rent payments or anti-social behaviour can lead to mental stress and ill health.

    So housing does directly affect health. Just as health affects housing.

    Addiction or mental health problems can lead to loss or work, financial problems, arrears and eviction.

    Physical disability or injury can make an existing home impossible to live in.

    The Marmot review into health inequalities, which Labour commissioned and published in government, nailed the problem of separating health and housing policy into the silos of different Whitehall departments: “Many of the difficulties in addressing the issue of cold homes is that the effects of the problem are the responsibility of one government department – the DH – while the responsibility for solutions lies with the CLG and DECC”.

    Government has not always been organised or operated like this.

    History

    When Bevan led the legislation to set up the NHS through Parliament in 1946, he was secretary of state for health and housing.

    When he launched the post-war council house building programme in the same year he said: “We must not only build quickly, we must build well. In the next year or so we will be judged by the number of houses we have put up. But in ten years we will be judged by the quality of those homes.”

    The twin responsibilities were separated by the new Conservative Government in 1951 into two different departments. And they’ve remained separated at the national level since then.

    Housing and public health remained twin responsibilities of local government, however, until 1974 when public health was taken into the NHS as a national responsibility.

    We can see both changes, I think, as part of the process of the British state centralising to expand its domestic role as its foreign responsibilities diminished post-empire.

    Flaws in system

    This is not just a feature of recent years in Whitehall. It is reflected directly in Westminster and in the way policy debate and scrutiny takes place.

    Neither the Commons health select committee nor the CLG committee has done a report on health and housing, though from time to time the essential links are raised with both and referenced in their published evidence.

    The Marmot report recommended greater integration of policy and delivery: “An important step in tackling the social determinants of health at a local level would be greater integration of health, planning, transport, environment and housing departments and personnel.”

    Even when Parliament legislates for the broader view and delivery links, this is no guarantee that it happens in practice.

    Directors of Public Health have a statutory duty to assess the health needs of their area. But the Chief Executive of St Mungo’s – London’s largest provider for homeless people – told me recently in the 30 years he’s worked for the charity, not once has a public health director approached them about the health needs of London’s homeless.

    The personal consequences of this mean only 1 in 6 homeless people come away with a treatment plan when they are discharged from hospital.

    And even when the financial evidence also underlines the imperative to overcome policy and service separations, this is no guarantee that it happens in practice.

    The Audit Commission confirm “Every £1 spent on providing housing support for vulnerable people can save nearly £2 in reduced costs of health services, tenancy failure, crime and residential care”.

    The Chartered Institute for Environmental Health report health costs of £600 million a year from poor housing; and health, crime and education costs totalling £1.5 billion.

    Reflecting on five years as a minister at the Treasury, and two spending reviews, we tried joint PSA targets and jointly-held dual-key budgets between departments in some policy areas.

    These worked only up to a point. Neither were strong enough to overcome the force of the single department culture. And neither were underpinned with strong enough financial metrics to support one department spending money that reduced costs or lifted burdens for another.

    The row this week over the Government’s cap on and cuts to housing benefit offers an interesting illustration. In this case the DWP wants to cut the benefit bill and, even though the consequences and costs to local government were serious and obvious, they played no part in the decision to press ahead with the policy.

    Labour steps 

    So the separation of health and housing responsibilities makes sound, sensible policy making much harder.

    We took some steps in Government to bridge the gap over the last decade. These were necessary, but not sufficient to overcome the significant policy separation between housing and health.

    We started and completed 90% of the massive Decent Homes programme, fitting new boilers, insulation, doors, windows and kitchens for council and housing association tenants in more than 1.4 million homes by last May.

    We introduced the supporting people grant specifically to help people stay in their own homes; people who are vulnerable and with complex needs for housing support.

    And we encouraged closer local working between housing and health providers. The recent ‘Healthy Homes’ initiative launched jointly by Liverpool Council and Liverpool PCT is an excellent example of integrated, locality based, whole population commissioning.

    It targets assessment of the health and the housing needs of families living in 25,000 homes across the city. Where needed they improve properties, make appropriate health referrals and expect to prevent at least 100 premature deaths a year.

    One year on – the balance sheet

    One year on – where are we now with the new government?

    The Liverpool Healthy Homes programme is exactly the type of integrated long-term commissioning at risk in the huge NHS reorganisation.

    They – like almost everyone else – are beset by uncertainty, confusion and extra cost as more bodies and bureaucracy are being created by the  upheaval in the health service.

    Within the Government’s NHS legislation however, the move to return public health to local authorities is sound in principle, although there are important unanswered questions in practice about the powers and funding that councils will have to do the job; about the retention of skilled public health staff; and about the continuing commitment of the NHS to work on public health improvements.

    But it is impossible to ignore the scale of the Government’s cuts, which have gone too far, too fast.

    I have mentioned housing benefit already. Age UK report average cuts this year of 8% – with councils reducing care hours and raising eligibility thresholds for help.

    These are short-term, budget driven cuts which will have longer-term consequences for many people’s health and welfare, and will inevitably lead to greater cost in other parts of the system, especially for the NHS.

    There are still 400,000 non-decent homes left, and the Government will not provide the funding to finish the programme. The benefits go wider even than health – for every one million pounds of public investment in housing refurbishment, 17 jobs are created and the Labour shadow housing team has calculated that completing the programme would support 54,000 jobs.

    Finally, the supporting people grant is being squeezed and is set of a 12% real terms cut over the course of the Parliament.

    The recommendations by Andrew Dilnot on the funding of social are provide an opportunity to reverse this trend of damaging policies. I have called for, and Ed Miliband has called for, cross-party talks at the highest levels to discuss and agree a new system of funding social care, and how to pay for it.

    Opposition and alternatives – proposals

    One of the very few advantages of Opposition that you are freer from the Departmental constraints of Government, and free to think more broadly.

    So I want to use this period in opposition to look for solutions to the systematic separation of housing and health, solutions that we can push through from the word go when we are in Government.

    And today I want to open up this work to you and the NHF.

    I would like to invite you and your colleagues in the housing and health fields to let me know:

    –    First, what are the best examples of work being done on health and housing together. I mentioned Liverpool – tell me more.

    –    Second, where are the problems? Where do Government departments or the policy silos of health and housing get in the way of improving people’s health and their homes?

    –    Third, if there are the problems, what are the solutions?

    You can help shape this work which I will do alongside my colleagues Caroline Flint and Alison Seabeck in the autumn. We have a firm commitment to finding the housing and health policies that we can put in place once we’re in Government, and to give them the weight they will need to have a real impact to improve people’s health, housing and lives.

    Conclusion

    I wrote Labour’s housing manifesto for last year’s election. It was the first of the specialist policy manifestos we published.

    The first line was: “Labour believes that everyone has the right to a secure, decent and affordable home in a safe community.”

    There’s a strong social, moral and economic case for this commitment. What I didn’t properly appreciate then, but I do now, is that there is also a strong health case for that commitment too.

  • John Healey – 2011 Speech to Unison Conference

    johnhealey

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Healey to the 2011 Unison Health Conference.

    It’s fully ten days since I was last amongst so many trade unionists.

    Last Saturday, with 300 times as many of you marching in London alongside Mums campaigning against closure at their local surestart, kids campaigning to save their their youth club. Grandparents campaigning to stop cuts to their meals on wheels…and everyone, campaigning to safeguard the NHS.

    Britain’s mainstream saying the Tories are taking Britain in the wrong direction.

    Ed Miliband was right.  David Cameron would have seen the big society in Hyde Park last Saturday.

    And he can see the big society everyday in the heart of our British trade unions, convenors and stewards and Health & Safety officers and learning reps and pensions trustees ready to represent and support their colleagues at work.

    They put themselves out for others, unpaid and often under pressure because they believe in helping others, they believe no one should deal with the power of employers alone and they believe together we’re always stronger.

    I’m proud to have been a trade unionist all my working life.

    And as an MP I’m proud of my working links with trade unions, including and especially with UNISON.

    So thank you for the work you do to support nearly half a million other UNISON members across every area of our NHS.

    Thank you for the work you do to support the NHS and NHS patients.

    Thank you for the work you do to support me and colleagues in the Labour Party.

    And, to Dave Prentis, a special thanks, you made sure UNISON was out early in opposition to the Tories’ NHS plans with the Judicial Review, and you’ve not let up since.  I worked closely with UNISON as Housing Minister, and I’m glad to be doing the same now on health.

    To Karen Jennings, as she moves on to be your AGS, you have been an outstanding advocate for NHS staff and for the NHS itself.  I know Christina McAnea will be just as strong and challenging as your new national officer for health.

    And to your President, Angela Lynes, and health chair, Lilian Macer, as you look at what the Tories plan for the NHS in England, I suspect the case for devolution has never seemed stronger, especially this week in Scotland, where Labour’s backing has led to the end of prescription charges on the same day as the Tories in England put them up.

    With over 450,000 health members, UNISON has a strength and breadth of membership unmatched in other unions or other parts of the public sector.

    Andrew Lansley dismisses trade unions as vested interests fighting the loss of power.  And the Prime Minister dismisses the BMA as just another union.

    Of course unions in the NHS have a vested interest what the Tories fail to understand is that it’s precisely because trade unions represent their members, that they believe so passionately in the NHS.

    To those of us who care most about the NHS – Labour, unions, patients groups, NHS professionals – falls the heaviest duty.  The duty both to safeguard the NHS, and the duty to change and continuously improve the NHS.

    Ed Miliband described this yesterday as part of the British promise, that each generation makes and leaves the NHS better than the last.

    Labour is the Party of the NHS.  We are also the Party of NHS reform.  The status quo has never been good enough for Labour.  We have always championed change for patients.

    That’s why we set up the NHS, why we led the case for raising National Insurance to invest in the NHS, why we required reform – often in the face of resistance – getting GPs to open out of office hours or introducing the challenge of competition from new providers to help clear waiting lists and improve NHS hospitals for patients.

    But don’t fall for propaganda that what the Tories are doing now is an extension of what Labour was doing before.

    If the biggest reorganisation in NHS history was simply the evolution of Labour’s policies, the Tories would not need legislation more than three times longer than the Act that set up for NHS in 1948.

    We were ready to use competition, we were ready to use private providers.  But always properly planned, managed and publicly accountable, to supplement not substitute for the NHS.  By the Election last year, fewer than one in twenty treatments were carried out by independent health providers.

    We are proud of our Labour achievements in the NHS.

    Many of you here will remember the NHS of the 80s and 90s.

    Trolleys in corridors.  Chronic staff shortages and annual winter crises.

    100 hour weeks with exhausted overstretched staff.

    The NHS was a service whose staff remained true to its values let down by a government that did not share them.

    1997 we set out together – to save the NHS; then to review it.

    NHS funding doubled in real terms.

    Most NHS buildings have been updated with modern equipment.

    Staffing numbers are up by 200,000 extra clinical and support staff.

    You have training and development through Agenda for Change. And your national NHS pensions protected under Labour – the country’s recognition of the years of commitment to caring for your community.

    Some of the changes I know have not been popular, but looking back I believe that we made many of the right choices for the NHS.

    Giving well run hospitals more freedom was challenging for many of us.  But Foundation Trusts are today among the best public sector employers in the country, providing world class services to the public.

    Bringing in commercial partners to finance and build new public hospitals helped us achieve the biggest hospital building programme in our country’s history.

    Allowing patients to choose to have their operation in independent treatment centres was popular and meant patients waiting less time in pain.

    We did make mistakes – every government does.

    As I have said, we did not always get the best deals and there were times when we should have been tougher in our negotiations.  We had too many reorganisations and we should have done more to relieve the paperwork and release time to care.

    Our Labour – investment and reform – plus the hard work, collaboration and commitment of staff meant real improvements for patients.

    MRSA and CDiff – tested the collaborative effort of cleaning staff, healthcare assistants, nurses, managers and pathologists but together we cut the rates three quarters and 30%.

    Cancer deaths are down by 20% and improving faster than the rest of Europe.

    Heart deaths are down by 50% thanks to paramedics and crash team nurses collaborating to provide life saving treatment after stroke or heart attack.

    In 1997 more than a third of a million people were waiting over six months for operations they needed.

    Together, by 2010 we were doing 2.5 million more operations and the average waiting time was 4.5 weeks.

    The lowest waiting lists in NHS history, alongside the highest patient satisfaction ever.

    After the Election, we were ready for further changes.  We were ready to remove back office and bureaucratic costs.  Integrate services and see a significant shift of care, especially for elderly people and those with long term health conditions, from hospitals closer to patients at home and in their community.

    We have started fresh work on Labour’s health and care policies for the long term.  And I’m proud to chair our Labour health commission jointly with your UNISON ex President and our current Labour Party chair Norma Stephenson.

    And as we listen to the public, to staff and to experts, we’re open to criticism as well as compliments, and above all we’re open to new ideas, so Norma and I invite you, as active members of UNISON, to play your part in shaping the alternative future for the NHS through the union and through the Labour Party.

    For now our main job is to oppose reckless and ideological plans.

    We’ve been making strong arguments against the NHS reorganisation since the early Autumn, and moving amendments to the legislation since it was introduced in January.

    Our arguments are hitting home.  Our criticisms about the Tories NHS plans are now coming from doctors, nurses, patients groups, the health select committee, NHS experts, Lib Dems, Peers on all sides of the House of Lords, and I have to hand it to Andrew Lansley, it takes a special talent to unite opposition from Norman Tebbit and MC NXT GEN.

    The Prime Minister is increasingly isolated on his NHS plans.

    Only 1 in 4 of the public back him in wanting profit making companies given free access across the NHS.

    Two thirds of doctors think the reorganisation will lead to worse – not better – patient care.

    And nearly 9 in 10 believe it will lead to the fragmentation of services.

    Yesterday, in the middle of confusion, chaos and incompetence, the Prime Minister has pushed the Health Secretary out of the bunker to try and tell people what on earth the Tories are doing with the NHS.

    He didn’t want to be there, he had nothing to say.

    But he was in the House of Commons, because there’s a growing crisis of confidence over the far reaching changes the Government are making to the NHS.

    Because there’s confusion at the heart of Government, with briefings and counter briefings on all sides.

    And because patients are starting to see the NHS go backwards again under the Tories, with waiting times rising, frontline staff cut, and services cut back.

    That’s why Labour has been saying the reorganisation requires a root and branch rethink and the legislation needs radical surgery.

    This Bill is not just about getting GPs to lead commissioning or looking to cut layers of management, one third of the long legislation sets up the NHS as a full scale market ruled by the power of a competition regulator and the force of competition law.

    It is designed to:

    – break up the NHS

    – open up all areas of the NHS to private health companies

    – remove all requirements for proper openness, scrutiny and accountability – to the public  and to Parliament

    – and to expose the NHS to the full force of both UK and European competition law.

    Tories are driving free market political ideology into the heart of the NHS.

    Helpfully, the government’s new chair for the new market regulator Monitor confirmed – before he was banned from doing more interviews.

    We did it in gas, we did it in power, we did it in telecoms, we’ve done it in rail, we’ve done it in water, so there’s actually 20 years of experience in taking monopolistic, monolithic markets and providers and exposing them to economic regulation.

    So what the Tories did to public utilities in the 1980s, they’re doing now to public services, including the NHS.

    Whilst I don’t want the power companies collaborating on their services and prices, I certainly do want hospitals, GPs and other parts of the NHS to do so – it’s in the best interests of patients and in the NHS DNA.

    They are making fundamental and far reaching changes to our NHS and to its ethos.

    So there are fundamental flaws in what the Government is doing, not just what it is saying on the NHS.

    The test is whether the Prime Minister will deal with these flaws.

    Tests for the Tories on NHS

    I have five tests for David Cameron; major changes that must be made to his legislation.

    These tests reflect the concerns I have heard from patients groups, experts and NHS staff criticisms.

    These tests also reflect Labour’s deeply held concerns.

    So, Prime Minister, here’s your starter for five…..

    – Keep NHS protections against the full force of UK and competiton law, drop your plan for a free market NHS and delete part 3 of the bill

    – Keep the waiting time guarantees for patients, so they’re seen and treated quickly

    – Drop plans to break up commissioning into so many small GP consortia, make them involve wider expertise and require them to be open and accountable to local patients and the public.

    – Ban GP bonuses, stop conflicts of interest where they can commission from themselves and close the loophole that lets them outsource the commissioning job to the private sector

    – Keep the cap on NHS hospitals treating private patients, so they don’t jump the queue on NHS patients and strengthen the safeguards on closing down hospital services.

    When the Health Secretary was forced to the House of Commons yesterday.

    He said Ministers would now “pause, listen, engage” on the Tories’ NHS plans

    Andrew Lansley has not been listening for nine months.  The test is now whether David Cameron will recognise the very wide concerns and respond with radical surgery to his health bill.

    They’ve failed to listen to criticisms in 6000 responses to their consultation.

    They’ve failed to listen to the same concerns in rejecting 100 Labour amendments to the bill.

    So this ‘pause’ looks suspiciously like a PR stunt to quell the coalition of critics.

    Labour will look to turn this Tory pause into a problem for David Cameron.

    We will encourage patients, staff and the public to challenge the changes, wherever and whenever the Prime Minister, deputy Prime Minister and Health Secretary go through the motions of “listening” in the weeks ahead.

    Conclusion

    For those of us who care most about the NHS – our job, our duty must be to help people see more clearly and more quickly what the consequences of these changes will be.

    This means explaining and exposing the truth at the heart of the Tory plans.

    We must together make it impossible for the Prime Minister or Health Secretary to dismiss criticisms as the concerns of vested interests or complaints of the minority.

    Nye Bevan:  The NHS “will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it”

    It’s our NHS.  It’s our duty to fight for it now.  And it’s our mission to see the NHS changed and improved in the future.

  • John Healey – 2010 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    johnhealey

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Healey, the then Shadow Housing and Planning Minister, to the 2010 Labour Party conference.

    Conference, John Healey, Shadow Housing Minister responding to the housing motion, backed first by 28 CLPs and the Labour Housing Group, now, clearly, with every speaker and the whole Conference behind it.

    The motion calls on the Shadow Cabinet and Parliamentary Labour Party to campaign with other groups against the new government’s housing cuts and policy changes.

    We will.

    We will campaign with other groups and we will campaign together with you in your constituencies, your Labour council groups and your trade unions.

    We will campa ign together because what we see from the Tories and Lib Dems offends our basic Labour belief in a decent, secure and affordable home for all.

    And our job is to help people see more clearly, more quickly not just what this Tory-led government is doing, but also why.

    Make no mistake Conference, we must be most concerned about many of the cuts; but if we only talk of spending cuts we miss something more fundamental.

    They want a smaller deficit, of course, we all do.

    They want a smaller state, of course, they’re Tories.

    But they also want a state which sheds its duty to its people on housing.

    You can see this in their:

    Cuts to national housing investment, which means thousands fewer affordable homes built this year, and the end of our new council house building;

    Changes to the planning system which remove any national requirement on local councils to plan or agree new homes for their area;

    Cutbacks in the national sy stem of help, which leaves people with less support on housing costs and more local variation;

    Plans to remove the right to long-term tenancies in public housing, which means local landlords setting their own tenancy terms;

    Questions over the national cap on rent rises for social housing tenants and over the nationally-set homelessness duty on councils.

    On every front they are looking to withdraw national government with Tory and Lib Dem ministers washing their hands of any national role or responsibility for meeting people’s housing needs and aspirations.

    Meanwhile, local councils – increasingly Labour local councils – will be left to pick up the pieces, and, if we don’t help people see clearly what’s happening and why – local councils will also be left to pick up the blame.

    Conference, what difference a year makes, what a differe nce a Labour government makes.

    Last year, I reported to you as Labour’s Housing Minister.

    Last year, as a Labour government, we didn’t cutback housing investment, despite and because of the deep recession, we stepped it up.

    Last year, we:

    Kept Britain building through recession, starting more new affordable homes than before the downturn;

    Launched the largest council house building programme for nearly 20 years;

    Made apprenticeships a compulsory condition of getting any government contract;

    Set up special help on mortgages, so repossessions have been half the rate of the last recession;

    Gave councils new powers to clamp down on the worst private landlords and control the spread of bedsit-barons.

    Ed Miliband told us on Tuesday to be proud of what we did well in government.

    I am.

    He also said he’d back the new government when they’re right.

    So will I.

    But Conference, I have to tell you that in five months I’ve not found a single change I can support.

    Their latest plan is a “new homes bonus”, matching the council tax on any new home built with extra funding for the local council for six years.

    They’re right to want to a strong incentive system for councils and communities ready to see new homes built in their area.

    But this isn’t it.

    There’s no new money. And the government will take a top-slice cut across the grant to all local government to cover the cost.

    This scheme robs some councils to pay the rest.

    So I’m publishing a detailed analysis of their plans today, which shows:

    It will cause chaos in the council tax system, and more cuts to many hard-pressed council budgets.

    It blows a huge hole in George Osborne’s promise to freeze council tax.

    And our big towns and cities will be hardest hit, as they will have to see many more new homes built every year in their area to “break even” under the new system.

    This is the latest in the long line of damaging cuts and policy changes.

    This motion and this Conference is right to say we must campaign harder on housing.

    Our debate today is a start.

    Our duty tomorrow is to fight to stop the worst of what’s to come, and to show there is an alternative, a Labour alternative, a better way, the Labour way.

    With you, we will do that, every day until the last day of this Tory-Lib Dem government.

  • John Healey – 2009 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    johnhealey

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Healey, the then Minister of State for Housing, to the 2009 Labour Party conference.

    So Conference, we’ve heard from the people on the panel.

    Powerful words about the ways that we – your Labour government – are acting to offer real help through tough times in recession.

    Help for firms to stay in business.

    Help for people to stay in work.

    Help for families to stay – where they should be – in their own homes.

    And today Conference, I can announce that we are tightening the rules to help protect those struggling with their mortgage.

    From this week lenders will have to tell local councils, as they file for repossession action in the courts. Councils can the offer advice, or help with our special rescue schemes.

    If the Tories had their way, there would be no special help on mortgages, no extra jobs and apprenticeships, no boost for building affordable homes.

    If they’d had their way, the recession would be deeper and longer.

    But we’re Labour.

    We’re different.

    We believe we have a duty to help when people are struggling.

    We believe in using the power of government to protect the poorest and discipline the market.

    We believe in the progressive power of public investment.

    You know when Gordon Brown asked me to do this job in June,  the first thing he said was:

    “John – we must do more”

    He backed me as I put together the deal for an extra £1.5 billion in our Housing Pledge – a centrepiece of our Building Britain’s Future plans.

    So this year and next we’re backing developers to kickstart housebuilding sites which have stalled in recession.

    We’re backing housing associations to build more affordable homes.

    And we’re backing councils to build new council homes again – more new council homes starting this year than in any year for nearly two decades.

    But Conference we can do more.

    So today, I am launching a second round of funding for councils that are ready to help build the new affordable homes we need in this country.

    I’m inviting bids by the end of next month.

    And before Christmas I aim to give the go ahead to at least 1200 extra council homes.

    At this time of all times, with pressure on the public finances, I want to make sure we use the power of public investment to the full.

    So I’ve told all private developers and all housing associations that we will now require apprenticeships and local jobs as a condition of public funding.

    And I will require the same of councils.

    A total of 3000 extra apprenticeships over the next two years.

    This is what it means to get the most for every taxpayers’ pound, as we – your Labour government – invest now to help the country through recession; invest now in the homes and jobs and skills the country needs for the future.

    And what of the Tories?

    They don’t believe in building affordable homes.

    Their council leaders describe them as “barracks for the poor”.

    Their shadow minister tells Tory councils to block planning for new homes.

    This is what they say now, in public before the election. What they plan in secret is even more serious.

    Forced by FoI, we now have the record and names from these discussions.

    I quote:

    “The priorities identified were:

    Equalise rents between sectors

    Create one form of rented tenure using the assured shorthold tenancy

    The private rented sector needs to be cultivated.”

    Conference, these are the conclusions of:

    4 Tory council leaders

    2 Deputies to the London Mayor

    and The Shadow Housing Minister.

    Secret plans that would double or triple rents for 8 million people in council or housing association homes, and put their homes on the line with two months notice.

    If I am wrong, David Cameron can say so.

    But he won’t.

    I challenged him two months ago, and two weeks ago.

    I’m now publishing my letters, and I challenge him again today to come clean.

    He owes council or housing association tenants the truth about the Tories plans.

    There are two faces of the Tory Party.

    The spin, the smiles, the soft words of the Leader, frontman for a fresh Conservative brand.

    The harsh ideas and harsh ideology of those behind him; uncompromising, uncaring, unchanging.

    Conference, nothing is more important to all of us than our home.

    It’s where we are warm.

    It’s where we’re safe.

    It’s where we eat, laugh and cry with our family and our friends.

    It’s where our children sleep at night.

    This is why decent, secure and affordable homes for all has always been at Labour’s heart.

    It’s what Ben Tillett stood for 100 years ago. It’s what we stand for now.

    Proud of our action. Proud of our values. Proud to be Labour.

  • Geoff Hoon – 2003 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, to the Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth on 1st October 2003.

    Conference, we have heard today from an outstanding president of Afghanistan. I would like to tell you now about one man from Iraq.

    Muff Sourani was born in Northern Iraq in 1942. His father was in the army, and as a result, as a child, he moved to Southern Iraq, where he went to Secondary School in Basra.

    Mr Sourani first came to Britain in 1962 to complete his education. In the 1970s he returned to Iraq as an engineer. Saddam Hussein’s regime falsely accused him of being a British collaborator. They imprisoned and tortured him for eight weeks.

    It was only after urgent petitioning by the then Member of Parliament for Workington, the late Fred Peart, that Mr Sourani was released.

    Mr Sourani has lived in Britain ever since – with his wife Ahlam, who is also an Iraqi.

    The Souranis have experienced at first hand the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s regime.  Yet they also know of Iraq’s enormous potential, not least its educated, sophisticated people.

    Mr Sourani’s determination therefore, at the age of 60, is to see a better Iraq.  He has worked for over thirty years for the engineering unions.  He is currently a Regional Officer for AMICUS and sits on the Board of the West Midlands Labour Party.

    I am delighted that with the help of AMICUS, the TUC and the Ministry of Defence, Mr Sourani will soon be returning to Iraq to help organise free trade unions, beginning in the south of the country where he was brought up.

    Trade Unions were banned by Saddam Hussein in 1977. With the help of Mr Sourani, and others like him, trade unions will have the opportunity, once again, to recruit and to organise.  Free trade unions are a fundamental part of the civilised democratic society that we are determined to develop in Iraq.

    Conference, I am delighted to introduce you to Muff and Ahlam Sourani.

    Conference, we all know that there are different and passionately held views about the military intervention in Iraq.  There was a vigorous debate in Blackpool last year.  We have heard strong speeches today.

    But I do want to emphasise that no-one takes a decision to use military force lightly. Whether and when to intervene militarily is always the most difficult decision to take. I have spoken to bereaved family members too often lately. I will never take their loss lightly. The decision to commit Britain’s armed forces is never one that I, or anyone else in Government, takes without carefully considering all of the arguments.

    But whatever differences exist on the question of military intervention – now is the time to agree on a shared vision of the way forward for Iraq.

    Muff Sourani is determined to help rebuild the country of his birth.

    We want to work with him, and others like him, to help build that better Iraq.

    All of us should share that determination.  Whatever our sincerely held differences about the military intervention

    surely all of us want to see:

    – an Iraq that respects human rights.

    – an Iraq that respects democracy.

    – an Iraq, free and prosperous restored to its rightful place in the international community.

    Our Armed Forces are just as determined to go on playing their part.

    I want to pay tribute to the fifty-one British service personnel who have died since the conflict began.

    They died to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime – and in doing so, to disarm Iraq of its illegal weapons of mass destruction.

    They died to provide the opportunity we now have to build a better Iraq.

    We, and the people of Iraq, are indebted to them. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten.

    Nor should we forget the hard work and professionalism of all those people, both military and civilian, who have helped to support operations in Iraq.

    There are many unsung heroes – from planners to logisitics experts, from TA drivers to theatre nurses.  All have worked long hours, often in the most difficult and demanding conditions.  Proving once again that Britain’s armed forces are amongst the best, if not the best, in the world.

    Over 10,000 British service men and women are in and around Iraq today, working hard to secure that better future for the people of Iraq.  Demonstrating, now, their excellence at peacekeeping and their skill in the demanding and sensitive task of reconstruction.

    British service personnel are helping to stabilise the security situation.  The number of security incidents in the south has been declining.  Our work with local councils, schools and religious leaders is increasing public support – assisting the operations against those terrorists and criminals that remain.

    British service personnel are helping to train the Iraqi police. Some 45,000 police have been recruited across Iraq, with thousands now operating alongside coalition forces.  Together with over 2,000 Iraqi border guards they are providing vital improvements to the security of the country.  Every day enabling Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own country.

    And British service personnel are providing practical assistance to the international development efforts to rebuild Iraq. Too often those efforts have been thwarted by criminals and looters – literally stealing copper cable from power lines. That is why we still need a military presence. That military expertise is helping to deliver a more stable power supply and to significantly improve the delivery of fuel and water – securing the everyday necessities of life for the Iraqi people.

    Legitimate concerns remain. About security. About infrastructure. About the political process.

    But real progress is being made. Thanks to the determined efforts being made right across Government.

    Surely no-one would want us to fail.

    The fact that Britain’s armed forces are amongst the best in the world – able to make such a difference in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere – does not happen by chance. Their excellence is the result not only of the inherent qualities of service personnel, but also of the decisions taken by Government on how they are trained, organised, equipped and supported.

    This Labour Government is providing our armed forces with the investment they deserve. The Tories cut the defence budget by nearly a third between 1985 and 1997. In contrast, last year’s spending review settlement produced an extra £3.5 billion for defence. Thanks to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the defence budget is rising.

    And a growing defence budget means that we will be able to invest more money in the people that serve in the forces and in the modern technologies they need. For it is those people that ultimately define our armed forces.

    The extra money will be invested in better, more integrated training.

    The extra money will be invested to improve accommodation.

    And the extra money will be invested to provide better pay and fairer pension entitlements, where there will no longer be discrimination against unmarried partners.

    The extra money is also being invested to improve the quality of the armed forces’ equipment – equipping our forces to be the best.

    Thanks to the excellence and competitiveness of British manufacturing industry, and all those who work in manufacturing, our forces are equipped to succeed.

    We are helping the revival in shipbuilding by building over 30 ships and submarines in the next 20 years. This has given new hope to proud shipbuilding communities on the Tyne and Tees, on the Clyde, at Rosyth and at Barrow.

    And two weeks ago I was delighted to open Vosper Thorneycroft’s new shipyard in Portsmouth – the first new shipyard in Britain for 100 years.

    And this Government’s decision to choose Hawk as the next Advanced Jet Trainer for the Royal Air Force – securing over 2000 jobs on Humberside – is a further example of our commitment.

    When I visited BAE Systems at Brough last week, I was able to offer my thanks to the workforce.

    Hawk is an example of where we in government listened and where we in government have delivered.

    Talking to the shop-stewards, I was able to congratulate them on  their consistently constructive support and the support of the trade union leaders of AMICUS, the GMB and the T and G.

    They, like me, are committed to British manufacturing excellence.

    A commitment that delivers the best equipment for our armed forces when they need it.

    This is the real difference a Labour Government makes.

    With extra money for defence, there is renewed pride in local manufacturing communities, working together to build the best equipment for our armed forces.

    There is renewed pride in our armed forces, recognising the sacrifice they make on our behalf.

    And there is renewed pride in our Party’s internationalist tradition.  A tradition that ensures that the United Kingdom makes a real difference in the world.

    This debate is called “Britain in the World”. It is about Britain’s place in that world.

    This Labour Government is taking difficult decisions. Decisions that make a difference to real people’s lives.

    Providing medical and practical help to the orphans of Sierra Leone who lost limbs at the hands of vicious rebels.

    Rebuilding schools in Afghanistan to give girls – some for the first time – an education.

    And freeing the people of Iraq from a murderous and oppressive regime to give them back their rights as citizens of what is once again a free country.

    Conference, Ernest Bevin, said a generation ago:

    “We regard ourselves as one of the powers most vital to the peace of the world.” It was true then and it’s true now.

    That is Labour’s role in the world – contributing to peace, a force for good, upholding our values at home and around the world.

  • Meg Hillier – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Meg Hillier to the Labour Party conference on 27th September 2011.

    Thank you.

    Conference, we’ve had an excellent debate, proof that the Labour Party understands the threat to the environment, and we’ve the political will to protect it.

    There are people – some of them in the Conservative Party – who are climate change sceptics. They dispute the science, downplay the risks, denounce us as cranks.

    Conference, they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Under Labour, Britain signed up to the toughest carbon reduction targets in the world. We enshrined them in law.

    And we did it with Ed Miliband in charge of the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

    As Energy Secretary, Ed displayed leadership on the world stage on climate change.

    He understood the audacity needed to meet the challenge.

    What a contrast with the Department for Energy and Climate Change today. Humiliated almost daily. The laughing stock of Whitehall. Trampled by the Treasury. Undermined by No. 10.

    Just look at the government’s record since last year:

    The Green Investment Bank – promised in Labour’s manifesto, but hobbled under the Coalition. Delayed, and unable to borrow capital.

    Research into bio-fuels – scrapped.

    Zero Carbon homes – scrapped.

    Charging points for electric cars – scrapped.

    Low carbon businesses watching their orders disappear abroad.

    A ‘green deal’ for home insulation which promises the earth, but few have even heard of.

    Ministers call this the ‘greenest government ever’.

    Never has a claim been so much hot air.

    The great tragedy is that it doesn’t have to be like this.

    The economic recovery could be built on low-carbon growth: growing green firms, world-beating inventions, more apprenticeships, and most of all, what the country is crying out for: new jobs.

    Jobs in manufacturing, design and engineering.

    On Sunday I met some of the workers at Cammell Laird just across the River Mersey from this conference centre. They’re famed for building battle ships. Now they are gearing up to build wind turbines.

    Off-shore turbines the height of the Gherkin in London, blades the span of a jumbo jet’s wings, a diameter the same as the London Eye.

    The best of British engineering, delivering green energy.

    That’s the way forward.

    We need energy security in a dangerous world – a mix of renewables, clean coal, gas and nuclear.

    And we should never forget the price some families and some communities pay for coal.

    This Movement has always stood shoulder to shoulder with the mining communities. We pay tribute to the four miners who lost their lives. We offer heartfelt condolences to their families and communities.

    We should also pay a tribute to their local MP Peter Hain, for his compassion and support in the worst of times.

    Safeguarding our environment is not a cost. It is an opportunity, to be seized if we want real growth to return.

    The next Labour Government will put the fight against climate change at the top of its agenda, not just because it is the morally right thing to do, to save the lives of millions around the world, but also because we can lead the world in new technologies and create green jobs at home.

    We will campaign for poverty and climate change to be tackled at the international summit in Durban this autumn. It’s a vital meeting.

    The Energy Secretary didn’t even mention it in his speech last week.

    I hear the Prime Minister is not even showing up.

    Social justice. Economic efficiency. Environmental protection. The three pillars of the next Labour Government.

    And if you have any doubt, look into the eyes of these child workers in Manila Bay.

    This stunning, shocking picture is called ‘Where The Pellets Of Poison Are Flooding Their Waters’, words from Bob Dylan’s song ‘A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall’.

    The lives and communities of these little children are being damaged by actions on the other side of the world. Actions we could do something to stop.

    Hard Rain is the name given to an amazing series of photographs by Mark Edwards. He’s been documenting the effects of pollution and climate change for over 20 years.

    For the sake of children like these, we must stem dangerous climate change.

    It’s a hard rain that doesn’t have to fall.

    Finally Conference, I must turn to a great national scandal that’s brewing up in every community, every household. Labour has been warning about it for months.

    I mean, of course, the scandal of soaring gas and electricity prices.

    One after the other, the Big Six energy companies have hiked their prices this summer.

    This winter we’ll all start to pay.

    There’s a winter fuel crisis coming down the track, and ministers seem helpless to prevent it.

    Increasingly, people think the Big Six energy companies are behaving unfairly.

    As Ed Miliband said this weekend, they represent a vested interest – a stark example of unaccountable power.

    They may be private companies, but they should deliver a public service.

    This winter, many thousands will be unable to heat their homes. Many will find their pre-payment meters running out. Many more will struggle to pay the bills.

    The people shivering under blankets need an Energy Secretary who can act, not just talk.

    This Government has not moved on since Edwina Currie told cold, poor people to put on an extra woolly jumper.

    So I am putting the Big Six on notice – the next Labour Government will break up your strangle-hold. More powers for consumers. More players in the market. More Co-ops and social enterprises.

    Fairer prices.

    And we will insist that they make their tariffs and their bills crystal clear so we can all see the true cost of our energy.

    Fair energy prices, green jobs, action on climate change.

    A decisive shift to a low-carbon economy.

    Leadership on the world stage.

    That’s Labour’s promise – one worth fighting for, one worth winning for.

    Thank you, Conference.

  • Harriet Harman – 2013 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, to the 2013 Labour Party conference.

    Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, speaking to Labour Party Annual Conference 2013 in Brighton, said:

    Conference, this week, we’ve packed in hours of debate; hundreds of fringe meetings; and most importantly delivered a One Nation fiscal stimulus for the bars of Brighton.

    We began on Saturday at our fantastic Labour Women’s Conference – with 1,000 women. The biggest political gathering of women at any party conference, ever.

    Proving, once again, Labour is the only party for women.

    And what a contrast with the other parties.

    David Cameron believes that women should be seen and not heard – and that’s especially when it comes to his Cabinet.

    And as for the UKIP conference – where to begin?

    What can you say about the human car crash that is Godfrey Bloom? A man so unreconstructed, he makes Jeremy Clarkson look like a Fabian.

    But Godfrey, all is not lost.

    You’ve got some time on your hands now – so we’ve arranged a special emergency session for you.

    At the “Harriet Harperson Institute of Political Correctness”.

    And Godfrey, the good news is that I, myself, will be there to give you some advanced ‘one to one’ training.

    And we’ll start with you whisking that Dyson round the back of my fridge.

    And as for the Liberal Democrats – Lib Dem women are an endangered species.

    Our Women’s Conference was a women-only event. But Yvette and I decided we would do a bit of positive action and let one man in – our leader Ed Miliband and he got a fantastic reception.

    The Shadow Chancellor wanted to come too – but we had to say to him “sorry we’ve already got a man on the platform – and he’s called Ed.”

    Conference, in Ed Miliband we have a great leader.

    Ed, we hoped you’d do a good speech yesterday, but you gave an amazing speech.

    Ed has an unerring ability to understand the concerns that people have in their everyday lives.

    It was Ed who warned that we are seeing, for the first time, a generation who won’t do as well as the one that went before. That’s something every parent worries about.

    Then while Cameron and Clegg wallowed in complacency, Ed was the one who spoke up about the cost of living crisis.

    And when Ed sees something’s wrong, he will not shrink from the challenge.

    He will never say:

    – it’s just too difficult;

    – or the odds are stacked against us

    – or you’ll have to put up with it – because the energy companies are just too powerful.

    Ed fights for what’s right. People often feel that in this day and age there are forces which are just too big and powerful for politics to make a difference.

    But Ed has shown – even from opposition – the ability to make change.

    He stood up against phone hacking.

    He averted David Cameron’s rush to war in Syria.

    And he has shown that politics can make a difference.

    But Ed is about a new kind of politics. And that shines through in everything he does. Like when he got egged.

    You can really see the change.

    When John Prescott got egged, he was massively angry and threw a punch.

    When Ed Miliband got egged, his immediate thought was ‘Oh God – I really hope this is free range’ That’s just the kind of guy he is.

    And Ed is a leader who listens. To the people he meets and the party he leads.

    And that’s why yesterday on this stage, he moved Labour from being a party of protest which understands people’s concerns – to a party of policies which will address those concerns.

    Better childcare – for mothers who tear their hair out trying to balance work and home.

    Freezing fuel bills – how can you feel the warm glow of recovery if you can’t turn your heating on.

    And helping the next generation get their first home by putting housing at the heart of our mission and getting Britain building again.

    So now – every single one of us – our shadow cabinet, MPs, MEPs, Peers, Councillors, our great parliamentary candidates, representatives from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, trade unionists, our members and supporters.

    Our whole Labour team in every part of this country, will get out on the doorstep and give people hope that their lives can be better than this. Britain can do better than this.

    Our momentum comes not just from our policies – but from the people in our party – the whole Labour team. We are a party that has grown.

    Just look at the membership.

    Since the General Election, our membership is up by 17 per cent.

    Since David Cameron became leader of the Tories their membership is down 40 per cent.

    We now have more members than the Tories and the Lib Dems put together.

    We are working hard and campaigning in communities all around the country.

    But we all know that we could be doing more – particularly to reach out to and involve people at work. After all, Labour is the party of people at work.

    The plan for party reform that Ed is proposing is not to weaken the relationship between Labour and trade union members – it is to make it a reality – especially at local level.

    And I want to spell out what is obvious and what is true but needs saying.

    We are fiercely proud of the link between our party and trade unionists. That link is at the heart of our history and will be an essential part of our future.

    Because while the Tories are bankrolled by a handful of millionaires – we are a movement of millions of working people.

    But these men and women are under attack.

    And so when David Cameron attacks trade unionists and stokes up hatred against them we will stand up for them.

    Because we know with the Tories – it’s one rule for them and their privileged friends – and another for everyone else.

    The rich will work harder if you cut their taxes.

    Make the poor work harder by slashing their benefits.

    Under – occupy a mansion – well you need protecting – so of course we can’t have a Mansion Tax.

    Under occupy a council home – tough – pay the bedroom tax or face eviction.

    Well, not under a Labour Government. We will axe this cruel, useless, hated tax.

    And speaking of cruel, useless and hated, let’s spend a moment thinking about how good it will feel to kick out this miserable government.

    When it came to austerity, they said “we’re all in it together”.

    But they’re not saying that about the recovery.

    It cannot be a recovery that’s only for the rich and not the rest.

    And what about the Lib Dems?

    They say they are in coalition. But look what they do in Westminster?

    Week in week out – the Tories bring forward their nasty policies and the Lib Dems – they vote them through.

    They call it coalition – we call it collusion.

    And then Nick Clegg had the nerve to stand up at his conference and claim that he had been a brake on the Tories.

    With the Lib Dems, it’s not just collusion – it’s delusion.

    Here’s a little reminder of just some of the things the Lib Dems voted for.

    – putting up VAT,

    – slashing tax credits,

    – cutting police,

    – trebling tuition fees,

    – tax cuts for the richest

    – the bedroom tax and

    – let’s not forget the top down reorganisation of our NHS – which no-one wanted and no-one voted for.

    One thing they did announce last week at their conference was they were going to bring in free school meals.

    But when Southwark Labour Council did exactly that last year – the Lib Dems bitterly opposed it.

    So, Nick Clegg, come to Southwark for a free school meal – and I’ll serve you a very large portion of humble pie.

    But it’s just not fair to say that Clegg has got no principles at all.

    He has got one principle – one that means a lot to him.

    That is, regardless of who’s in government, Nick Clegg must be Deputy Prime Minister.

    He wants to go on and on and on.

    No wonder Vince Cable looks so miserable – you almost have to feel sorry for him.

    So Conference – let’s have no talk about us being in coalition.

    Labour is not fighting for a draw.

    Labour is fighting to win.

    Conference, we know we face a huge task.

    It’s barely three years since we were kicked out of government.

    The Tories will fight a dirty, vicious campaign.

    And Lynton Crosby will be the ring-master for the right wing press.

    But remember – this is not a popular government.

    They stand up for the wrong people.

    They’ve failed on the economy.

    They’re ruining the NHS.

    And people know it.

    So yes – it is tough.

    We will not lose our nerve.

    Because the polls which are most important, are the ones where people actually vote.

    And in local councils up and down this country, the Tories are losing seats, the Lib Dems are losing seats and it is Labour who is making gains.

    Since Ed Miliband became leader, we have gained 1,950 new Labour Councillors.

    Conference – those are the polls you won’t read about in the newspapers but those are the polls that count.

    So it is tough – but we can do it.

    The General Election is there for the taking.

    So, Conference, while we are in no doubt about the scale of our task, we leave here determined to do whatever it takes to kick out this miserable coalition and fight for a Labour government.

  • Harriet Harman – 2013 Speech to Labour Arts Policy Event

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, to the Labour Arts Policy Event held on 12th February 2013.

    Introduction

    Thank you all for coming today and for the Soho Theatre for hosting us.

    I think we all feel that we meet at an important moment for the arts and our creative industries

    A moment of huge opportunities – matched only by the scale of the threats.

    Arts are successful

    Stepping back, there is no doubt that the arts are hugely successful, internationally admired and rightly self confident, creating jobs, generating revenue, earning foreign currency, reaching into all parts of the country, extending opportunities and generally doing what art and culture does – enriching the life of the nation and developing the human potential of each and every individual.

    Art is something we are very good at in this country. We’ve got great cultural and artistic traditions and are at the cutting edge for the future – the Olympics opening ceremony reminded everyone of that.

    There is no shortage of success to marvel at and enthusiasm to go yet further.

    But no-one here is lulled by that into a false sense of security. We know that the success that we see now has been built over many years. Above all, by the talent and determination of our artistic and creative community but also, critically, nurtured with the support of public policy, backing from government and local government.

    And it is that essential support which is now threatened

    Why did Jeremy Hunt think it was alright to cut the Arts Council by 30 per cent?

    Why did Gove think it was OK to kick the arts out of the curriculum?

    Why did Osborne think it was alright to stigmatise arts patrons as tax dodgers?

    Why is Eric Pickles getting away with crushing local government’s ability to support arts in their communities?

    And why doesn’t Maria Miller realise that it’s her job to fight back against this – instead just telling the arts they’ve never had it so good?

    My worry is that what we have here is a brazen and wholesale government retreat from public policy backing for the arts and our creative industries.

    Role of government

    No-one thinks that the role of the state is to control or direct art, but the state must play its part:

    –  ensuring the curriculum has arts and creativity running through it so that for every child and in all schools, education includes the arts

    –  ensuring that all children have out of school opportunities – after school, in school holidays.

    –  ensuring that the Arts Council is well supported and funded

    –  ensuring that local government is able to support the arts locally and regionally, and

    –  that all of this has to be championed and protected by a strong central government department .

    It’s government’s role to underpin the platform on which the arts build other support and to ensure that it is available for all people in all areas.

    Importance of speaking up for the arts

    But even if the culture department is failing to speak up for the arts – you are – and all credit to you for doing so.

    Your voice is strong and important and you have our backing.

    If we don’t fight to protect the arts, the price will be paid in the future. Arts and culture takes years to build up. But can easily be so quickly destroyed. The price will be paid in inequality – arts increasingly the preserve of a privileged elite – concentrated in London.

    What needs to be done 

    So, what are we going to do about this?

    Or should I say, what next?

    I think it’s of the utmost important that you are not only doing your day jobs but also working together for the arts.

    You have the authority, the legitimacy, the commitment, to do that and with the respect you command, you are a powerful movement. Gove’s backdown on the EBacc was in no small part due to the leadership you gave from the arts against it.

    But because I don’t think he’s genuinely changed his mind we’ll have to keep a close eye to make sure he doesn’t just pause and try and sneak it in again.

    Remaking the argument for the arts

    I think it’s right that you are remaking the arguments for the arts. The case has always been there – we made it, together, in the run up to 1997. It was the reason we trebled the budget of the Arts Council, strengthened the DCMS, empowered artistic renaissance in the great cities of our regions.

    But there is a new generation who’ve emerged during a time of flowering of the arts who now need to hear and be confident in making the case. And there’s a generation of the public who have no idea about the scale and importance of public funding in the arts.

    Perhaps it was because no-one felt they needed to draw attention to it, because the funding could be relied upon. Or was it, perhaps, partly out of a hesitation about drawing attention to public subsidy it in case that might jeopardise it.

    But whatever the reason, go to any institution or read any programme and the names of the donors are up in lights but the contribution – the collective contribution of the taxpayer – is all but invisible. So the irony is that the cuts have been made easier because most people remain unaware of the important role of subsidy in the arts.

    Fighting back against the cuts

    I think it’s right that we fight back against the cuts. Even though it’s a very difficult time because the Government’s austerity programme is choking off economic growth and threatening public services. It is a difficult time. When the police are being cut, when home care support for dementia sufferers is being cut back, there is a fear that speaking up for the arts sounds like special pleading, or people not realising how tough it is out there, or that you’ll be making it worse by biting the hand that feeds you.

    But it’s not special pleading. You are not doing it for yourselves – you are doing it for all those children who still don’t have access to the arts; for the regions which will get left behind; for the opportunities it affords for economic growth; for the part it plays in our national identity.

    And even when it’s tough we still have to think about investment for the future in jobs, growth, opportunities, regeneration – which is what we know arts investment is.

    And, as for “biting the hand”, make no mistake, if there is no fight back against the cuts the Government will take that as a clear signal that they can come back for yet more.

    There is a great deal of support for that – including many on the Tory back benches concerned about the arts in their own area. So we will be highlighting that in the House of Commons, not just in oral questions to the Culture Secretary, but also make sure that every time Gove and Pickles answer oral questions they are challenged about what they are doing to the arts.

    And because there is concern in parts of the Tory backbenches as well as massive concern on our side, we will have, in opposition time in the near future, a full scale debate and vote in the House of Commons and bringing the Culture Secretary to the House to answer all the arguments you are making.

    Survival strategy for the arts

    As well as making the case for the arts and fighting back against the cuts we need to forge a survival strategy for the arts. And I know you are doing that through innovative thinking and partnerships between you, with the Arts Council, through philanthropy and with local government.

    And to help and support our local councillors in playing that role with you, Dan and I have set up the Creative Councillors Network with the LGA Labour group, to bring together, brainstorm and lend support to the Labour councils and councillors to ensure that whilst facing the biggest cuts to local government in a generation they are able to continue to sustain the foundations for the arts in their area.

    As their ability to give grants diminishes, they will all be doing more of the non-revenue things that can make such a difference, such as:

    –  Using the grant of planning permission to leverage investment into the arts

    –  Using public spaces, buildings, parks, empty shops for the arts

    –  Allowing their capital assets to be used as security for loans

    –  Sharing their back office facilities with arts organisations

    –  Bending over backwards to grant licenses for the performing arts

    –  Offering market stalls at peppercorn rents.

    And they have just set up Core Cities which brings together Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield and which will discuss how councils – even in the most challenging of times – can and will continue to support the arts.

    Planning for a future arts policy 

    And we need to plan for the future.

    We’ve been working on our 5 point plan for jobs and growth in arts and the creative industries:

    – young people and skills

    –  access to finance – including scope for crowd funding of equity and loans as well as gifts

    –  a strong championing of intellectual property

    –  a specific focus on our regions

    –  exporting and inward investment.

    In all our discussions on this we work together with Chuka Umunna on Business, Ed Balls on Treasury issues, Stephen Twigg on Education and of course Hillary Benn on Local Government who will be here with us later.

    We hope to get back in to government – so now is the time firmly to re-establish the case for the arts in public policy and work up a clear plan for a 21st Century arts policy.

    2015 is when we want to start doing it – so the thinking and the planning must be now.

    So I hope that we can work together to forge a programme for our manifesto for the vision for arts policy for 2015 and beyond.

  • Harriet Harman – 2013 Speech to the Oxford Media Convention

    harrietharman

    Below is the text of the speech made by Harriet Harman, the Shadow Culture, Media and Sports Secretary, to the Oxford Media Convention on 23rd January 2013.

    This time last year when we met:

    Lord Justice Leveson was conducting his Inquiry.

    Mark Thompson was Director-General of the BBC.

    Jimmy Savile was a national treasure.

    Jeremy Hunt was Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and;

    We were eagerly discussing what might be in the Communications Bill.

    Today,

    We’ve got the landmark Leveson Report.

    Mark Thompson is no longer the Director-General of the BBC – and nor is the man who replaced him.

    Jimmy Savile is now a national monster.

    Following my calls for the sacking of Jeremy Hunt he’s been promoted – Maria Miller is now our Secretary of State.

    And it looks as if the Communications Bill is never going to materialise.

    What hasn’t changed

    But some things haven’t changed.

    We still need to tackle the longstanding problems of wrongdoing in the press.

    We still need to support the BBC, one of our most important national institutions.

    We still need a strong DCMS. The department must not be weakened: if anything, its voice needs to be even stronger at the Cabinet table.

    Leveson: the victims

    The families who suffered press intrusion and gross violations of their privacy are still pressing for the changes that will protect people in the future from what happened to them.

    The harassment, the character assassinations – laid bare before the Leveson Inquiry. These were not mere technical breaches of the rules, victimless crimes.

    Just think for a moment about what those victims have been through.

    Can you imagine anything worse than your three year-old daughter going missing – you pour your heart out into your diary as you struggle to live your life day to day – and then the most intimate contents of that diary are spread over a national newspaper?

    Can you imagine anything worse than to be at your daughter’s bedside as she fights for her life and struggles to cope with paralysis – only to have newspapers reveal she was pregnant?

    Can you imagine anything worse than fearing your missing teenage daughter has been murdered – your hopes rise that she might still be alive. But she wasn’t. And you then discover that the News of the World was hacking her voicemail?

    These victims have gone through and are still going through unimaginable suffering. But despite that, they were prepared to relive those experiences in the full glare of publicity at the Leveson Inquiry, because they want change.

    We often talk of walking a mile in someone’s shoes; none of us would want to walk even one step in theirs.

    They remind us why the status quo, unsatisfactory for decades, can no longer be an option.

    They want the implementation of the Leveson Report – and so do we.

    We must act on Leveson’s proposals for substantial and lasting change.

    Importance of a free press

    Another thing that hasn’t changed is our strong belief in, and commitment to, freedom of speech and a free press.

    Leveson’s proposals are not a threat to the press. They strengthen, not weaken, our press.

    For the press can only be strong if it is clean.

    How can the press hold to account those who abuse power if they are abusing their own?

    How can they have the legitimacy and moral authority, necessary for the press in a free democracy, if they are breaking their own rules and breaking the law?

    Leveson’s proposals

    Lord Justice Leveson proposes a framework which provides for the continuation of self-regulation by the press, but – and this is the key difference – with a legal guarantee that that self-regulation will be effective, independent and continue to meet high standards.

    The role of the law – the legal underpinning – would be limited to setting up a body whose task would be to recognise the self-regulatory system and to check it once every 3 years.

    Leveson said this was essential to ensure that, despite all the protestations of change and good intentions, the press did not once again slip back into their old ways – as they have always done after all the other inquiries and reports.

    Labour’s support

    We strongly support that.

    It cannot be just the good faith of the press that ensures the new system remains independent and effective. There was good faith after previous Royal Commissions and after the Calcutt Reports, but they have always slipped back.

    The new system must be guaranteed by law.

    Arguments in favour of statute

    The press have strongly opposed the key recommendation that recognition should be underpinned by law – that statute should set up the recognition body. They say it would cross the Rubicon and pose a fundamental threat to our democracy.

    Let me address each of their arguments in turn.

    The first is that any statute affecting the press automatically ends a free press. But there are already statutes affecting the press.

    The press themselves asked to be included in section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

    The press themselves asked for a Defamation Act.

    The first argument—that any law mentioning the press undermines freedom—therefore does not and cannot hold.

    Secondly, the press argues that the statute Leveson proposes would be the regulation of the press by a ministerially appointed quango. But this is not what Leveson recommends. It does not set up the self-regulatory system. It would be limited to guaranteeing the system of self-regulation. No newspaper would be required by law to join. It would remain voluntary to join, on the basis of incentives.

    In that, what it proposes is similar to the Irish system, which has been in place since 2009. That covers all the newspapers operating in Ireland, which volunteer to be part of the Irish Press Council, which includes the Irish editions of the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Star, The Sun, The Sunday Times, The Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Mirror.

    Why have those newspapers signed up to the Irish system? Why, if as they say, any press law would end freedom of speech, have British editors not chained themselves to the house of the Taoiseach? Why, if they are so worried that any press law crosses the Rubicon, has our Government not summoned the Irish ambassador for a dressing down?

    If the Irish system really posed a threat to the freedom of the press, where were the protests in Ireland, a country known for its passionate commitment to human rights?

    Thirdly, there is the argument about a press law being the thin end of the wedge, the start of a slippery slope, the beginning of our descent into Zimbabwe.

    A central feature of our democracy is that it is the responsibility of elected representatives to make and change laws, and we can do that at any time.

    If that is a slippery slope, so is the very existence of Parliament. The only way to address that concern is to abolish Parliament, and we have yet to hear anyone proposing that.

    Fourthly, there is the argument that the legislation proposed would inevitably be complicated and cumbersome. But that is simply not the case. We have drafted and published a short bill. Hacked Off have published a short bill. The Government has drawn up two draft bills.

    All of these show that a Bill can be drafted in a way to give effect to what Lord Justice Leveson recommended.

    Finally, there is the civil liberties argument. I do not believe that Lord Justice Leveson’s central recommendations, for an independent system of press self-regulation guaranteed by law, would undermine freedom of speech.

    This is not about politicians determining what journalists do or do not write. The freedom of the press is essential.

    But so is that other freedom: the freedom of a private citizen to go about their business without harassment, intrusion or the gross invasion of their grief and trauma. Those two freedoms are not incompatible.

    Royal Charter

    Since the publication of the Leveson Report, we have been engaged in cross party talks with the Tories and the Lib Dems.

    And into those talks Oliver Letwin has brought the proposal that the legal underpinning of the recognition body should be provided not by a single statute, as suggested by Leveson and as agreed by us, but through a combination of a Royal Charter and accompanying statutory provisions.

    The most straightforward way of implementing Leveson is to have a single statute.

    While the statutory route is straightforward the Royal Charter route is anything but. It is untried and untested and we are unpersuaded that it can do the job that Leveson proposes.

    Government has never before sought to legislate through a combination of statute and Royal Charter rather than through a bill in Parliament.

    It is as yet unclear how the body established by Charter could be funded.

    It would clearly need statute to stop ministers on some future occasion toughening or weakening its provisions by edict of the Privy Council.

    There would need to be statute to provide for the exemplary damages regime which would incentivise newspapers to join the self-regulator.

    Perhaps the most fundamental concern is whether the recognition body established by Royal Charter would survive the inevitable legal challenge.

    As we entered the cross party talks we set the government a deadline of the end of January to publish Leveson-compliant measures.

    While the Government has shared their Royal Charter and accompanying clauses with us in the talks, and with the newspaper industry, most MPs, peers, lawyers and others with an interest have yet to see them.

    It is now time for the Government to have the courage of its convictions. We have – and have drafted and published our bill.

    I now challenge the Government to publish their Royal Charter and accompanying draft clauses by the end of this month, and let them be subjected to public scrutiny.

    And while the talks have been useful and will continue, the elephant in the room – statute alone or statute and charter – must be discussed openly and agreed on by parliament.

    The public must be able to scrutinise the proposals.

    And Parliament – to whom Lord Justice Leveson trusted a key role in setting up the new system – must be able to decide.

    That’s why we will ensure that this will come back to Parliament – with, if necessary, a debate and vote at on one of our Opposition Days in February.

    Ownership

    We all know that it wasn’t just the impunity from the lack of a proper press complaints system that led to phone-hacking and media intrusion.

    It was a sense of invincibility arising from the power of the concentration of media ownership.

    Monopoly ownership inhibits a diversity of views, and competition. It is bad for our democracy and bad for the consumer.

    Above all, it places too much power in the hands of one man.

    Rupert Murdoch owns too many newspapers. 34 per cent of national circulation – two of our biggest daily papers, and two of our biggest Sunday papers – is too much.

    Despite the financial pressures facing newspapers and people now getting their news online, newspapers are still powerful, still wield significant political influence, and still set the news agenda.

    The failed News Corp bid for the whole of BSkyB focused attention on cross-media monopoly. But owning too much within one sector – owning too many newspapers, for example – is also a problem.

    The Leveson Report made recommendations on media ownership and plurality. And it is a key issue which we must address.

    Work needs to be done. Much important work has already been done. We propose that the Government returns to previous work and builds on it.

    A notable example of that is the Joint Committee of Both Houses, chaired by Lord Puttnam, which scrutinised the Communications Bill in 2002. That report made a number of recommendations about the role of Ofcom, about ensuring plurality was a consideration in mergers, and about the level of ownership that should be permitted.

    Their expertise must be put to work on the Leveson recommendations on ownership.

    BBC

    The future of the BBC remains of critical importance.

    It is impossible to overstate its importance to us at home, and abroad.

    It is an essential part of our national life and our media landscape.

    It is a source of national pride, and one of our most trusted and valued institutions, with its unparalleled breadth, depth, reach, and appeal, from Saturday night entertainment to sport, from world-class drama to top-drawer comedy, and of course its news.

    We all think we raise our own children, but it’s in partnership with Auntie.

    And that’s why the sexual crimes committed by Jimmy Savile were so shocking.

    It was so horrifying above all because of what Savile’s victims had suffered and what they still suffer.

    But also it was so shocking because the public trusts and values the BBC so much.

    No doubt the enemies of the BBC will take this as an opportunity to pounce. Question its funding. Challenge its independence.

    We must protect the BBC. This is a time for cool heads and for the BBC to take the steps to restore confidence.

    Tony Hall was an excellent choice as the new Director-General, bringing experience from working within the BBC but also from outside it.

    He is the right person to bring stability to the BBC, and I hope that he will lead the change mapped out by George Entwistle in his short stint as Director-General, about there being too many executives. Too many at the top and at the expense of a focus on content and output.

    I also hope he will address the executive pay situation at the BBC.

    Working for the BBC is prestigious, professionally satisfying and it is public service.

    When you work for the BBC – paid for by the licence fee payer – you are making a choice not to work in the private sector and to get the huge benefits of working at the BBC.

    Tony Hall will have to address the high pay for executives, and especially how much they are paid compared to front line producers.

    As the Public Accounts Committee has shown, there must be transparency about BBC pay and pay offs. And if the public object – which they do – then the current system is simply not sustainable.

    Communications Bill

    Finally, the Communications Bill. Or rather, the lack of the Communications Bill.

    We haven’t had a Bill – or even a White Paper – or even a Green Paper – since we met last year.

    Just a series of roundtables.

    This leaves individuals and our creative industries in a state of uncertainty.

    And it is bad news for swathes of our country – particularly rural areas – who still don’t have access to decent speed broadband.

    Labour made a pledge – which all judged to be reasonable and achievable – that everyone would have access to 2 megabits per second broadband by the end of 2012.

    The Government abandoned that target and instead promised to deliver superfast broadband to 90 per cent of premises by the end of 2015.

    But having abandoned our target, the Government looks set to fail to achieve their own.

    Too many people across the country are losing out, particularly rural communities.

    2.6 million households, 10 per cent of UK broadband connections, still don’t receive basic 2 Megabits per second broadband.

    Had Labour been in power almost all of those 2.6 million households would have had access to basic broadband.

    Rural areas are almost 50 per cent less likely to receive broadband of at least 2 Megabits per second.

    In Ceredigion in Wales, a quarter of premises have no fixed line broadband.

    In Teesdale, some farmers have to make a fifty minute round trip to an internet centre to file their online cattle returns.

    Conclusion

    The Culture, Media and Sport brief is a wide-ranging one.

    But we need to keep in mind the common themes.

    The need to support innovation and nurture creativity.

    The need to make sure that opportunities are available to everyone.

    The need to protect people from abuse of power and to hold vested interests to account.

    The need to build One Nation, where everyone has a stake, whether that’s giving everyone the opportunity to work in the creative industries or making sure everyone has broadband.

    Where prosperity is shared fairly, and the powerful – like Murdoch – are held to account.

    Where we protect the institutions – like the BBC – that bind us together as One Nation.