UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1998

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Taking the profit out of crime [June 1998]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : Taking the profit out of crime [June 1998]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 1 June 1998.

    A national confiscation agency, which would seize cash and property obtained from the proceeds of crime, is one of the ideas the Government is considering to take the profit out of crime.

    Speaking today to Commonwealth Finance and Law officials in London, Economic Secretary Helen Liddell outlined the UK response to the threat of money laundering.

    “Money laundering is a threat to our democracies and our people. The risk that dirty money may destabilise our economies and corrupt our financial and legal institutions is apparent to all. And unless we can successfully tackle the proceeds of crime, we are not going to be effective in combatting the criminals themselves.

    “The anti-money laundering systems in place in the UK have, on the whole, been successful, but there is room for improvement. Firstly, the Financial Services Authority, our new single regulator, will take a pro-active role in regulating compliance with money laundering requirements. This will be underpinned by a high level objective in primary legislation obliging the FSA to monitor, detect and prevent financial crime.

    “The FSA will have the power to make rules in relation to money laundering and bring criminal prosecutions for breaches of the UK’s money laundering regulations that are applicable to internal systems and training.

    “Secondly, we intend to introduce a system of civil penalties for behaviour which, though failing short of criminal, nevertheless damages, or has the potential to damage, financial markets.

    “Finally, our approach to asset confiscation has not been as successful as we had hoped. We are actively considering the idea of a national confiscation agency, that would have the remit to confiscate not only cash but also all property that might be derived from the proceeds of crime. These views are still at a tentative stage, but the Government is determined to do all it can to take the profit out of crime.”

  • Alistair Darling – 1998 Speech to the FSA European Conference

    Alistair Darling – 1998 Speech to the FSA European Conference

    The speech made by Alistair Darling, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to the FSA European Conference on 1 June 1998.

    Introduction

    1. The Financial Services industry is of immense importance, not just to the United Kingdom but throughout the world. It is a global industry with millions of people depending on it. It transcends political and geographical boundaries. It has brought immense benefits. And because of its nature, it brings new risks every day. That’s the nature of the industry. And that is why the way in which we regulate and supervise the Financial Services industry is so important. In a world where the markets are continually changing, we need a regulatory system that can develop with them.

    The Financial Services Industry

    2. Here in the UK, the industry accounts for 7% of our GDP. It employs over 1 million people. Many towns and cities depend on it for employment. Not just London, but throughout the country – Leeds and Manchester for example. And in terms of funds under management, Scotland ranks fourth in Europe. Edinburgh is the UK’s second financial centre. And of course millions of people rely on its services. The industry is an example of how the UK can compete on quality and excellence at home and throughout the world.

    3. Of course, at the heart of the UK’s financial services industry is the City of London, one of the world’s three leading financial centres. The London Stock Exchange is the largest trade centre for foreign equities in the world. The Foreign Exchange market here is the largest and most important in the world, with an average daily turnover of $464 billion. Net overseas earnings of the UK financial services industry amounted to 23 billion Pounds (in 1996) – equivalent to 3.5% of national income.

    4. The City has a critical mass of expertise. It is home to 520 foreign banks. It is a major insurance centre with Lloyd’s and the London Insurance Market. The Baltic Exchange is here, trading throughout the world.

    5. Their presence has built up a formidable range of expertise, attracting investment from all over the world. There are brokers, loss adjusters, risk managers, accountants, actuaries and of course lawyers. All of them providing quality employment and generating significant earnings. And supporting considerable expertise and skills.

    6. London’s success has been built on individual flair and innovation. No Government can do that – but it is for Government to complement that process. To create an environment where business can flourish. Where business can expand and where the public has confidence in the integrity of the system. That’s why getting the supervisory and regulatory regime right is so important. Not just in the UK – but in Europe and indeed throughout the world. Before I turn to our proposals here, I want to say a word about Europe, and its implications.

    Europe

    7. The introduction of the euro on 1 January next year will also have significant implications for the financial services industry.

    8. In October last year we became the first British Government to declare that in principle, a successful single currency, like the Single European Market, would be of benefit both to Europe and to the United Kingdom. We don’t believe there is any constitutional bar to membership: the test for us is what is in Britain’s best economic interest. That’s an important point. We are the first Government to declare in principle for support for the single currency.

    9. The fact is of course that it would not be in our economic interests to join next January as there is not the necessary convergence with the rest of Europe. To join now would be to accept a monetary policy which suited other European economies but not our own. Our official interest rate is 7.25% (base rate), while in Germany and France it is 3.3% (repo rate), reflecting the different stage of the economic cycle we are at compared with them.

    10. We need a period of stability and settled convergence before we can join, and our policies are designed to achieve that. And in order to ensure a genuine choice in the future, we must also make the necessary practical preparations now. We are working closely with business to do just that.

    11. The existence of the Euro will present a huge challenge to the Financial Markets. Not just in preparation but also because of increase competition for business.

    12. The industry and the City of London must maintain its competitive advantage. We cannot be complacent. There is a lot of business in Europe. There are plenty of people and institutions that would love to get some of the business now conducted in London. We need to anticipate that competition. Business comes to London because of our competitive advantage. But no one – no institution – can rest on its laurels. The Government is determined to do everything it can to enhance London’s reputation as one of the world’s foremost financial institutions.

    13. That is why we’re preparing Britain for the euro. Indeed, why we’re modernising the governance of London itself. Modernising the Underground system. And why we’re determined to put in place a regulatory environment fit for the 21st Century. London and the UK must be the market of choice for the global industry. All of us – Government and industry need to do what we can to achieve that goal.

    The Single Market in Financial Services

    14. I said that the Financial Services market was global. It needs to be. And the Government is committed to pursuing open markets in Europe and throughout the world. The European Single Market in financial services is not complete, but its evolution has been significant. Banks, investment firms and insurance companies now have a “passport” to sell across borders on the basis of their home state authorisation.

    15. But local rules, differences in implementation, and gaps in legislation mean that further action is needed to consolidate what has been achieved.

    16. Some new and amending legislation has been identified as necessary. For example, the Commission intends to update the UCITS directive and bring forward a new directive reducing the restrictions on investments by pension funds.

    17. The Prospectus Directive has been identified as a candidate for updating to enable firms to raise capital more easily and cheaply. Something that is particularly important for small firms.

    18. But legislation alone will not complete the single market. It has to be implemented in a consistent way across the Union if we are to benefit consumers and businesses that rely on financial markets to provide the dynamic which leads to higher growth and more employment.

    19. One of the most significant changes we have seen in recent years is the recognition that regulators need to exchange information with each other all the time. The industry is global. So must be the regulators.

    20. That cooperation will be key in completing the single market in financial services. We need to ask ourselves how we are facilitating the single market, breaking down barriers, and ensuring that the regulatory system complements this process, and that it doesn’t simply add another layer of bureaucracy.

    21. Within the UK, bringing together existing regulators will mean that rules and practices will be re-examined. In many areas the rules will be similar, in others they will be very different, but the objectives will be the same. There may be a logic to some rules being different to reflect sectoral or cultural differences but in many areas best practice can be identified and a common approach agreed. National legislation, including implementation of European legislation, will be updated. That process is going on here now.

    22. The same must apply in Europe. We have the bulk of the single market directives in place. The framework is in place but differences remain. We need to examine those differences, and ask ourselves how we can simplify the system and make it more effective.

    23. The Commission is well placed to facilitate consensus without the need for new legislation, although in examining implementation in member states and developments in financial markets it may identify areas where legislation needs to be updated through amending directives.

    24. The regulators will have to talk and exchange best practice, explain problems and accept change. Accepting change should be much easier when it is offered rather than imposed.

    25. Following the informal ECOFIN at York we are examining our implementation of the Prospectus Directive. The directive includes options which permit member states to review and update their implementation to meet tomorrows challenges. But that may not be enough and a new directive introducing the concept of a passport may be necessary.

    26. Over time we will need to examine other directives to ensure implementation keeps pace with developments in the markets and the demands of users of financial services. This is something all member states will need to do if their financial institutions are to prosper in the global marketplace.

    27. Global competition is intense but within Europe we are moving into a period of consolidation in the single market. But we must face up to the need to change and adapt if Europe as a whole is to remain competitive. It is in all our interests that the European as well as the UK market is as efficient as possible.

    The UK regulatory system – the case for reform

    28. Let me now turn to our approach here. We have in the front of our minds not just the global changes to the nature of the market I talked about but also the problems and failures of the regulatory system at home. We wanted to build a new modern regulatory system. One that would be designed for both our domestic and international needs. And we were determined that any reform would be managed efficiently and effectively.

    29. For some years now, a consensus has been developing for change. There is a recognition that change is necessary, both in terms of structure and, importantly, in terms of the nature of the regulatory system, at every level.

    30. Both the industry and the public have recognised that the present system, underpinned as it is by the somewhat misleading concept of “self regulation” could not continue. The system was not self-regulating in the proper sense. And serving two masters – the trade interest and the public interest – proved to be too difficult in many cases. The system pleased neither the industry or the consumer and general public.

    31. And reform is necessary not just because of the domestic needs of industry. As I have said, the need for international cooperation and a regulatory system that can deal with complex international dealings has become increasingly urgent.

    32. So, in the UK, it was clear that we needed a new system. One that had sufficient clout, and stature to command respect both in the domestic and international markets. One that enhanced the credibility of our financial services industry.

    33. There have been, of course, substantial changes in the structure of the industry here and elsewhere. The distinction between banks, insurance companies, building societies and other institutions is becoming so blurred that a regulatory system that is modelled on an old industrial structure that no longer exists is inappropriate.

    34. We have nine financial regulators at the moment. It isn’t uncommon for large institutions to find that they are regulated by many or most of them usually requiring several different systems to cope with their demands. The distinction between regulators, especially for consumers has become especially confusing. And the costs escalated.

    35. Many firms are currently subject to a range of statutory regimes, for insurance, investments and deposit taking. In many cases equivalent provisions relating to different kinds of business are subtly different – in some cases radically so. It is not in anyone’s interests for firms to have to consider in each case which regime they are operating under. Neither in theirs nor their customers.

    36. Also, the current system is riddled with many anomalies. Firms supervised by different regulators receive different disciplinary sanctions for similar offences. And perversely, punishment depends not on the offence but on the regulator. These anomalies are unfair and blatantly damage the credibility of the financial regulation.

    The case for a single regulator

    37. The case for a single regulator is clear. A single regulator will be able to provide effective and consistent regulation across the traditional financial services sectors. It can get away from outdated and increasingly irrelevant distinctions between business sectors.

    38. Firms will no longer be regulated by multiple bodies and have to deal with overlapping regulatory demands.

    39. A single regulator will be more effective because there will be no duplication of effort and no doubt about which body is responsible. There can be no passing the buck.

    40. Consumers will benefit because a single regulatory structure will be able to provide single points of access for the public for enquiries, complaints and compensation.

    41. Providers will benefit because bringing different regulators together should make regulation more cost effective.

    42. A single, efficient, transparent regulatory regime which commands the confidence of the industry and its customers will be of competitive advantage to the UK’s financial services industry in the global financial services market. The global market place is ever more sophisticated, changing ever more rapidly. Right regulatory structure will enhance prospects for growth in this global marketplace.

    43. But the new system will succeed only if it works in partnership with the financial services industry. And the new system of regulation must reflect the diverse nature of the industry.

    44. We promised reform at the election. And three weeks after the election we set out how we would deliver the radical overhaul to the regulatory system we promised.

    45. And in October the new Financial Services Authority was launched. It will take over the work of nine existing regulators – assuming responsibility for the supervision of banking, insurance (including Lloyd’s), investments and securities firms, investment exchanges and clearing houses, building societies and friendly societies.

    46. This is radical reform. The City of London and the UK market will be the only major financial centre in the world with a single supervisor.

    47. It will put the UK at the cutting edge of financial supervision. It will offer huge competitive advantages for us.

    48. I recognise that bringing together the supervision of banking, building and friendly societies, securities and insurance is a formidable challenge. The existing supervisors each have their own rules and culture.

    49. But the creation of a single body is the only answer to the challenge of supervising the modern financial services industry.

    The role of the regulator and the role of management

    50. It’s important to remember that regulation must be seen as a complement to business. It isn’t a substitute for individual judgement or good management. Far from it. It’s management that sets the ethos of a business. It’s management that should know the risks to which it is exposed.

    51. I have said many times before that it is not the Government’s job, nor it is the job of the regulators, to sit in the boardroom and try to run a business. Good regulation should be a complement to business and should create a climate where the industry and individuals can deal with each other with confidence and trust. That’s our objective.

    52. It’s also important to remember that the industry itself benefits from a decent regulatory system. It’s in the interests of the industry that investors, both domestically and internationally have confidence in the financial system to bring in their money.

    Flexibility

    53. It is important for the regulator to be flexible. Markets are changing rapidly and the statutory framework that underpins the regulatory system has to allow for continuous development and changes in the future. Development of over the counter products and derivatives, for example, have transformed the market. Selling to consumers has changed, with more telephone sales and direct selling.

    54. Regulation shouldn’t drive changes in the market. The market should provide what the consumer wants. And it is the job of the regulator to complement that and ensure that it doesn’t distort that process in harmful ways.

    55. One of the key functions of the regulator is to reconcile the balance of the cost of the regulatory regime and the perceived benefit. The cost of the regulatory system is borne by the industry, but ultimately of course, by the consumer. And the cost therefore must be clearly related to the benefit of the regulatory system.

    56. There is a balance between what is reasonable for the regulators to require and what becomes unreasonable because of the excessive cost compared to the gain.

    Single Regulator – what we’ve done so far

    57. For the first time ever, the regulator will have statutory objectives covering market confidence, consumer protection, consumer awareness and financial crime. The FSA will be required to pursue them in an efficient and economic way, which facilitates innovation and takes account of the international dimension.

    58. The Government is committed to strong consumer protection. But caveat emptor is an essential part of any regulatory system. It is no part of the regulator’s job to stand in the shoes of the consumer. But the regulatory system can ensure that the customer has sufficient information to make an informed decision. Customers should be aware of the risks attached to different products. And they should know what their investment will cost. And it is in the interests of the economy, the industry and the public that people have the confidence to buy the products they need.

    59. A vital part of the new single regulator’s job is to sustain confidence in the market, and assist in the detection and prevention of financial crime. We are determined to ensure that the financial markets remain open and clean places to do business.

    60. That is why we have announced a number of measures, including civil fines for market abuse and new prosecution powers, which will help ensure that those who abuse the markets, including insider dealers, do not get away with it.

    61. The powers of intervention and discipline given to the regulator will be tough and effective – and they will be exercised fairly. The Bill will create a new single Tribunal, which will be entirely independent of the FSA, to consider appeals against the exercise of its regulatory powers.

    62. Having a strong and effective regulator will further enhance the UK’s reputation as one of the best regulated and attractive financial markets in the world. We are determined to maintain the UK’s position as one of the world’s foremost centres. We value our reputation as a clean market to do business.

    Phase I – Bank of England

    63. Reform is being implemented in a manageable way. The first stage of reform, is already complete. The reforms to the Bank of England come into force today. The Bank of England Act which gave the Bank operational independence in monetary policy as well as moving banking supervision from the Bank to the FSA comes into force today. And as you know, the FSA has already started work – publishing a number of consultation documents following its launch last October. The progress that it has made and the ready acceptance of its very existence is due to a large extent to the work of Howard Davies and his colleagues not just in the FSA but in the existing SROs who are all working hard to make the new system work.

    Phase II – New Financial Services Legislation – moving on from here

    64. The next stage is the new Financial Services legislation which we will publish in draft in the summer. We will publish draft legislation in the summer. There is now consensus over the broad framework for financial regulation, but it is important to get the detail right. We are committed to reform and have set out our approach. But we are also committed to consulting as widely as possible. We want a system that will endure, and time listening is time well spent.

    65. Getting the detail right is as important as getting the overall framework right. The period of consultation on the Bill will allow us to get the detail right.

    66. There remains much work to be done to ensure the single regulator works. The Government and the FSA are determined to put in place long overdue reform, and to get it right. The consultation period for the Bill is one way in which the industry can help us make it work.

    Conclusion

    67. I have covered a wide field. But that is inevitable. Regulation of the financial markets – and the pursuit of open markets are, by their very nature, objectives which are no longer domestic concerns.

    68. The rationale for change is clear. The first stage in our reforms is already complete, and we will be publishing the new financial services legislation in the summer. It is important to get this right. We are creating a new regulator for the new millennium. A single regulator to replace the outdated divisions of responsibility in the past. A regulator capable of adapting to change – adapting to a single market and a single currency in Europe and a rapidly changing global industry beyond. A regulator that is outward looking and as international in outlook as the markets themselves. And a regulator which commands the respect of the industry and enhances public confidence.

    69. There’s a lot of work to do in the meantime. But we’re making good progress. I am confident that the FSA will become a role model for the future.

  • HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : A new regulator for the new millennium [June 1998]

    HISTORIC PRESS RELEASE : A new regulator for the new millennium [June 1998]

    The press release issued by HM Treasury on 1 June 1998.

    The Government’s reforms of the financial services regulatory system are on track to deliver a new regulator for the new millennium said Alistair Darling, Chief Secretary to the Treasury today. He was speaking at the Financial Services Authority’s European Conference in London.

    On the day that the new Bank of England Act comes into force, he said;

    “The first stage of our reforms is already complete with the changes to the Bank of England coming into force today. These give the Bank operational independence in monetary policy as well as moving banking supervision to the FSA. The next stage is the new Financial Services legislation which we will publish in draft in the summer. There is now consensus over the broad framework, but it is important to get the detail right. We want a system that will endure, and time spent listening is time well spent.”

    Setting out the rationale for the Government’s reforms, Mr Darling said,

    “The case for a single regulator is clear. A single regulator will be more effective because there will be no duplication of effort and no doubt about which body is responsible. Consumers will benefit because there will be single points of access for enquiries, complaints and compensation. Providers will benefit because bringing different regulators together should make regulation more cost effective. And a single, efficient, transparent regulatory regime which commands the confidence of the industry and its customers will be of competitive advantage to the UK’s financial services industry in the global financial services market. The right regulatory structure will enhance prospects for growth in this global market place.”

    Concluding, he said,

    “We are creating a new regulator for the new millennium. A single regulator to replace the outdated divisions of responsibility in the past. A regulator capable of adapting to change – adapting to a single market and a single currency in Europe and a rapidly changing global industry beyond. A regulator that is outward looking and as international in outlook as the markets themselves. And a regulator which commands the respect of the industry and enhances public confidence. The Financial Services Authority will become the role model for the future.”

  • Queen Elizabeth II – 1998 Christmas Broadcast

    Queen Elizabeth II – 1998 Christmas Broadcast

    The Christmas Broadcast made by HM Queen Elizabeth II on 25 December 1998.

    Christmas is a time for reflection and renewal. For Christians the year’s end has a special and familiar significance, but all faiths have their calendars, their sign-posts, which ask us to pause from time to time and think further than the hectic daily round. We do that as individuals, with our families, and as members of our local communities.

    It is not always easy for those in their teens or twenties to believe that someone of my age – of the older generation – might have something useful to say to them. But I would say that my mother has much to say to me.

    Indeed, her vigour and enjoyment of life is a great example of how to close the so-called generation gap. She has an extraordinary capacity to bring happiness into other people’s lives. And her own vitality and warmth is returned to her by those whom she meets.

    But there are many of my mother’s generation still with us. They can remember the First World War. Prince Philip and I can recall only the Second.

    I know that those memories of ours define us as old, but they are shared with millions of others, in Britain and the Commonwealth, people who often feel forgotten by the march of time. They remember struggles unknown to young people today, and which they will not forget. Nor should their countries forget them.

    Memories such as these are a consequence of age, and not a virtue in themselves. But with age does come experience and that can be a virtue if it is sensibly used. Though we each lead different lives, the experience of growing older, and the joys and emotions which it brings, are familiar to us all.

    It is hard to believe that a half century has passed since our son Charles was christened, and now, last month, he has celebrated his fiftieth birthday. It was a moment of great happiness and pride on our part in all he has achieved during the last three decades.

    As a daughter, a mother and a grandmother, I often find myself seeking advice, or being asked for it, in all three capacities. No age group has a monopoly of wisdom, and indeed I think the young can sometimes be wiser than us. But the older I get, the more conscious I become of the difficulties young people have to face as they learn to live in the modern world.

    We parents and grandparents must learn to trust our children and grandchildren as they seize their opportunities, but we can, at the same time, caution and comfort if things go wrong, or guide and explain if we are needed.

    My own grandchildren and their generation have a remarkable grasp of modern technology. They are lucky to have the freedom to travel and learn about foreign cultures at an age when the appetite for learning is keen. I see them pushing out the boundaries of science, sport and music, of drama and discovery.

    Last June Prince Philip and I gave a party for 900 of Britain’s Young Achievers. Buckingham Palace was brimming with young people who, in their short lives, have already set an example to us all: they are living proof that the timeless virtues of honesty, integrity, initiative and compassion are just as important today as they have ever been.

    We hear much of ‘public life’ – the hurly-burly of Parliament, the media, big business, city life. But for most people their contribution, at whatever age, is made quietly through their local communities just like so many of those Young Achievers. To most of them, service is its own reward. Their ‘public life’ is their church, their school, their sports club, their local council.

    My work, and the work of my family, takes us every week into that quiet sort of ‘public life’, where millions of people give their time, unpaid and usually unsung, to the community, and indeed to those most at risk of exclusion from it.

    We see these volunteers at work in organisations such as the Scouts and Guides, the Cadet Force, the Red Cross and St. John’s, The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme and The Prince’s Trust.

    These organisations, and those who serve them so selflessly, provide the bridges across which the generations travel, meet and learn from one another. They give us, with our families, our sense of belonging.

    It is they that help define our sense of duty. It is they that can make us strong as individuals, and keep the nation’s heartbeat strong and steady too. Christmas is a good time for us to recognise all that they do for us and to say a heartfelt thank you to each and every one of them.

    Happy Christmas to you all.

  • Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on the Compulsory Acquisition of Land

    Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on the Compulsory Acquisition of Land

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 1 April 1998.

    I am pleased to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). His point about RDAs’ ability to blight gives me great cause for concern. It reminds us one of the key elements at the heart of the Bill: the centralising powers that lie within it. That ability to blight is, effectively, the means by which the Secretary of State can cast a shadow over a constituency such as mine, which consists largely of green-belt land at the narrowest point between Coventry and Birmingham, the so-called Meriden gap.

    My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) mentioned the Secretary of State’s ruling that green-belt land in the west midlands could be used for an industrial purpose. That caused local people concern at many levels. Industrial development on green-belt farm land was opposed by the local council and by the local Member of Parliament. When the public inquiry decided that it should not be used for that purpose, that decision was overturned. That area is close to my constituency. Hon. Members can understand why that case has caused great concern in relation to the sort of power that might be given to RDAs. In fact, it has resulted in a loss of confidence in the planning process.

    I shall illustrate that. Currently, there are two planning applications for the building of motorway service areas alongside the M42 in my constituency. Having seen what happened in the Peddimore case, my constituents are concerned that, although the application has gone to and been rejected by the council, the Minister might simply overturn the decision, which was supported by the local community. That has resulted in perhaps a premature presentation of petitions on the part of my constituents to the Minister. The Government have only themselves to blame for that loss of confidence in the planning process.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker

    Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this is about not the planning process in general, but the compulsory acquisition of land. She should direct her remarks specifically to that.

    Mrs. Spelman

    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was illustrating merely that that decision has given rise only to concern in relation to RDAs’ power of compulsory purchase of green-belt sites.

    There is a risk that blight will result from a conflict between the planning authority—the local authority—and the right of compulsory purchase of a future RDA. I should like to illustrate where I believe the tension may arise.

    There are several installations and developments of regional significance to the west midlands. There is the airport, Birmingham International railway station and the national exhibition centre. Indeed, they are of national significance. All have gently expanded over time as a result of agreements between the various planning authorities.

    My concern arises from the fact that a regional development agency may rule that one of those strategically important sites should be expanded and find itself at loggerheads with the local community and local planning authority. The RDA may indeed make use of a compulsory purchase order and fail to get planning permission from the local authority.

    If the compulsory purchase order remains at the disposal of the RDA, we shall see only an increasing number of conflicts between the RDA and the authority that has the power to grant permission, which may result in land compulsorily acquired resting idle. There are already many examples of that in my constituency, where it is difficult to obtain planning approval in a green-belt area. If the clause is not amended, I envisage only increasing conflicts. It would seem logical for the reference to compulsory purchase orders to be deleted.

    Mr. Lansley

    Does my hon. Friend agree that blight under these circumstances can also apply the other way round? If a body does not have planning powers, it might none the less seek planning permission in relation to a specific site or collection of sites. That might in effect blight that area because of the knowledge that, at some subsequent point, in pursuance of that planning application on land that it does not own, the body may seek a compulsory purchase order from the Secretary of State, so devaluing the prospects for that particular ownership of land.

    Mrs. Spelman

    I thank my hon. Friend for that illuminating point. It serves me well as it relates to my next point. Blight is currently tightly defined. In a constituency such as mine, much of which is blighted by the transport network that runs through it—the many motorways and the installations to which I referred earlier—when constituents seek redress for the way in which their property is affected and find themselves just the wrong side of the blight line, they are in an unenviable position. My concern is that that will be only aggravated by the potential conflict between an RDA that has the power to acquire land or that may threaten to acquire land, and its inability to get the matching planning powers from the local authority. It seems more logical to remove the provision than to leave the tension inherent in the Bill.

  • Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on Road Tolling

    Caroline Spelman – 1998 Speech on Road Tolling

    The speech made by Caroline Spelman, the then Conservative MP for Meriden, in the House of Commons on 30 January 1998.

    I was aware that a range of charges was being considered and I would be interested to know whether there are plans for other such schemes. If there are, I should like to make a plea on behalf of the retailers in the heart of the city of Birmingham who are concerned about the prospect of road pricing as they feel that it might deter retail customers.

    Perhaps it would be useful to consider toll-free times and zones. There is no doubt that the heaviest congestion on the west midlands motorway network occurs around commuter times. Shoppers can arrange to travel to the city centre during off-peak times. I should be most concerned for the overall economy of the region if shoppers were deterred from supporting retailers in the city centre because they were penalised by the road-pricing system.

    Where road-pricing systems operate on the continent, particularly in France, the local communities benefit from toll-free zones. The peage system on French motorways that pass close by major cities is often suspended at certain times. Local people have to put up with so much pollution, noise, nuisance and congestion that it would be hard for them to bear most of the burden of the cost.

    I invite the Minister to tell us about some of the studies that the Government might be carrying out in relation to best practice elsewhere in Europe. The city of Zurich in Switzerland has managed to stabilise traffic growth, so it would be interesting to take a lesson from that major European city. I should also draw the Minister’s attention to the success of the Umweltkarte in Freiberg in south Germany that has limited the access of heavy goods vehicles to city centres by introducing a scheme to encourage synchronised deliveries. Instead of several lorries travelling to the city centre each day, one lorry distributes to a variety of outlets. If that is too complicated, it is often possible to have a depot outside the city from which short-distance distribution facilities are arranged. That reduces the number of large heavy goods vehicles and their attendant pollution in city centres.

    I should like to commend what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said about pollution. Although the subject is outside the remit of the Minister’s Department, let me draw her attention to the health aspects relating to the composition of vehicle fuel.

    We should re-examine the effects of pollution on health and the development of cleaner fuel. In that respect, British legislation has mirrored that in the United States. The removal of lead from petrol under the previous Conservative Government was a major success and represents an important contribution to the nation’s health, but vehicle fuel still contains components that are detrimental to health. In the United States, progress has been made in the reformulation of gasoline—particularly the removal of benzene, which scientists tell us is just as carcinogenic as lead. Perhaps there is a case for taking another look at the health aspects of fuel composition as part of the general objective of the Bill.

    The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) advocated the use of bicycles. I recall from my days in that city that the greatest danger to health was being run over by one. She drew attention to the pollution in Parker street in Cambridge city centre. I recollect that that is also largely due to the variety of fuel used by the public transport fleet—notably buses—as diesel fuel has a high level of particulates. Perhaps as one of the more general objectives of the Bill and our efforts to improve the nation’s health, we should look again at the composition of fuel.

    Finally, to return my point about land use in relation to transport, let me make a strong plea for the on-going study on the allocation of additional homes to different parts of Britain. Last Friday, I visited a wire rope manufacturer, Webster and Horsall, at Hay Mills in Birmingham. When the company was looking for more staff, it advertised for recruits who could walk to work. The factory’s shift pattern and the availability of public transport meant that people coming from Chelmsley Wood in my constituency had to take at least two buses, and spent at least an hour and a half getting to work. That led to reduced reliability and many staff resorted to bringing their cars to work.

    As part of the Government’s strategy to provide new homes, I urge them to consider urban regeneration, not just for the sake of the urban economy but to benefit the country overall by relieving congestion on our arterial and commuter roads.

  • Gordon Brown – 1998 Speech to the British Retail Consortium

    Gordon Brown – 1998 Speech to the British Retail Consortium

    Extracts from the speech made by Gordon Brown, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 13 October 1998.

    Just as we must work with our international partners to secure global stability and growth, so we have been taking action at home to set in place a long-term and credible platform to achieve the stability that is an essential pre-condition for long-term investment, growth and jobs.

    It is in pursuit of our long-term goals – high and stable levels of growth and employment- and the rejection of the short-termism and stop-go policies that have undermined the UK economy in the past- that we have taken tough decisions.

    In the face of rising inflationary pressure and the large structural deficit we inherited, we made the Bank of England independent, the MPC raised interest rates and we tightened fiscal policy by 20 billion pounds last year, amounting to 3.5 per cent of GDP from financial year 1996-97 to financial year 1999-2000.

    There must be no return to the boom-bust we saw in the late 1980s and early 90s, when interest rates reached 15 per cent, 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost, nearly 170,000 businesses went under and thousands who faced mortgage misery and negative equity are even now not yet recovered from it.

    We are committed to steering a path of stability based on a stable monetary framework and sound public finances.

    And it is because of the reduction in borrowing and tough action on inflation, which has today seen us meet our inflation target for the second month in succession, that Britain is now better placed to steer a path of stability in these troubled times for the global economy.

    We have consistently taken a prudent and cautious approach to managing the public finances and we will continue to do so. Our projections have been based on cautious assumptions which have been audited by the independent national audit office and our plans have built in margins to cover uncertainties, including the risk of slower growth. We have worked within the previous government’s spending plans for the first two years and our careful plans mean that current spending is now set to grow in real terms by less over this parliament than the last.

    As I have said, slower world growth makes it inevitable that growth in Britain next year will be more moderate than previously expected.

    But because of the prudent approach we have followed, even with more moderate growth next year we remain on track to meet our strict fiscal rules over the economic cycle while maintaining our commitment to an additional 40 billion pounds for improvements in health and education.

  • Mo Mowlam – 1998 Speech to TUC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mo Mowlam to the 1998 TUC Conference.

    Can I say it is good to be here, particularly to open the debate on Northern Ireland as part of the International Affairs debate. Before I speak on what I have planned to do, can I just, in terms of the TSSA, David, and Keith from ISTC, add my comments that one of the important things – and I think it is symptomatic of what the TUC has done over the years – is that the cross-community representation in the different delegations makes a difference. It is sometimes difficult but it always has helped when the unions have remained organised across the divide – a very important situation to have.

    Also in relation to what Mark Healy said from the POA, of course we will have our differences and I would just like to say, through him, a ‘thank you’ to his members for what they have done because, as he says, they have not had an easy time with the deaths that they have gone through, and working in certain prisons in Northern Ireland is tougher than elsewhere for the very simple reason that when somebody threatens you in the Maze there are people outside who are prepared to carry it out. That is tough not just on the POA members but on their families too. Hopefully we have got a time of change ahead and it is change for everybody. So I thank them for what they have done in the past and thank them also for the difficult times that we will face in the future, because change is hard for everybody.

    Just a final note on the brothers and sisters in the Probation Service: it is not easy in Northern Ireland. I think the Probation Service is one of the harder jobs around. They make some very tough decisions and not many of them people acknowledge. They have worked hard in Northern Ireland and it has made a big plus. (Applause)

    In terms of the welcome you very kindly gave me earlier, can I just share that with the people who have done the work over the years. I think it is important to acknowledge that it has been a joint effort over many years – previous Governments, Tony Blair, Bertie Aherne, the Taoiseach – and one of the big differences is we have worked together, the British, Irish and the Americans, to build the coalition to move the process forward, an important point in getting us going when the Labour Government took over.

    But over the years the work has been put in by people like Peter Cassells from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, an all-Ireland body as many of you are aware, and by people like Terry Carlin and Tom Gillan from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress. They have put that work in. We also have people like Bill Atlee here from SIPTU. Again this did not happen in 16 months, it has happened over 16 years and it is the people who are not represented here today that I would like to share that acknowledgement with.

    I do not think it will come as any surprise to anybody here to learn that trade unions, which have been at the forefront of much of the progressive social changes that have taken place throughout the world, were also at the forefront of social change in Northern Ireland and we should say ‘thank you’ to them.

    Let me just give you some examples in Northern Ireland of how the trade unions have worked over the years which have helped us get to where we are today. The first – and you do not often think about this – is over the last 30 years most of the focus by the press has been on the violence, and it has been appalling and atrocious for people to live with, but the trade unions, to their credit, kept up campaigning on those issues that affect people’s lives day in and day out as well as the violence. They have campaigned on health, education and, above all, employment. They never let those fall off the agenda in Northern Ireland and I think that is terribly important to remember. One of the phrases they used as a campaign phrase was “A Better Life for All”, and that really encompasses everything that they have fought for over the years gone by.

    The other thing they have done is work tirelessly to build up relationships across the communities. A good example is money came from Europe for Northern Ireland to help try and build the peace – Peace and Reconciliation Fund – and they gave it to Northern Ireland and said, “How can we get this through to the people?” So Monika Wulf-Mathies, who is a wonderful Commissioner in Europe, set up these committees, 26 throughout Northern Ireland, and on them are politicians right from DUP to Sinn Fein, trade unionists, business people, community groups, voluntary sector, and they allocate the money for different areas. Throughout all the difficulties those committees have kept meeting, kept talking and delivered things for the local people – over 11,000 community groups set up.

    Crucial to those were the trade union members and when the politicians found it difficult, which they inevitably did, they were there to keep the process alive. I can never prove it, but I have no doubt that those partnerships and the schemes they have set up over the years have helped people on the ground get to know each other and get the kind of results we have got now because it is people in Northern Ireland who want peace. They will keep pushing which is why I am so sure we will get there because people want a future that is non-violent and that is a way that the trade unions have helped tremendously. They have got their own projects, like Counteract, in the workplace to try and deal with inter-communal strife that arises – again trade union instigated, again slow, subtle. People do not necessarily notice it first time but again it makes a difference.

    Can I just be cheeky for one minute because it is my own union and that is UNISON, just to say what I think UNISON has done and I would like particularly to mention Inez McCormick and Patricia McEwan and lots of the other folk there who worked on the ground to get lots of people, particularly women, involved. They have done an amazing job and I know how effective they are because I remember the first time when I was Shadow in this job I went to Inez’s office and said, “Inez, I just need you to talk me through what the issues are, what I need to know”, and she said nothing, took me down to the Royal Victoria Hospital to the basement, put me in a room for an hour with cleaners, cooks, porters and they told me what they expected me to do without any doubt. That is the way the work has been done on the ground and I would like to acknowledge particularly what they have done.

    Other examples of what the unions have done: the campaign that they have organised on what we call the Fairness Equality agenda again has been central because inequality, discrimination, has been a crucial part of the backdrop of what has happened in Northern Ireland, and the work they have done on fair employment legislation has made a big, big difference.

    Finally to thank them, when we had the referendum in Northern Ireland back in May I kind of had a free front of panic for the first week because not many people were saying anything, and because of the difficulties that have happened in the past people are sometimes reticent to speak out. It takes a lot to have the confidence to stand up and say, “I’m going to support this side”, or the other. It is a bit of a risk. It is not easy in Northern Ireland. That “Yes” Campaign, which won the Referendum, was due in large part to, as always, the union leaders in Northern Ireland having the guts to stand up, put their head above the barricade and say what they believed. That got it going and that made a difference. I do want to put that on record because they were crucial in getting us to where we were.

    The second thing I want to touch on, briefly, is the degree of violence and the degree of divisions which exist in Northern Ireland – that sectarian bigotry which you see at different times manifest itself. That is not going to disappear overnight. It is going to be there for years. We must slowly edge away at dealing with that. You deal with that by building up people’s confidence and getting them closer and closer to respect each other to hope that the future will be very different.

    One of the central difficulties is the degree of exclusion that divisions create. The deprivation which exists in parts of Northern Ireland is worse than anywhere else in the UK. That fuels the difficulties of the past.

    Let me give you a very bland statistic. Out of the unemployed in Northern Ireland, more than half of them are long-term unemployed. That is double anywhere else in the UK. It gives you an idea of the extent of how there is a group which is marginalised on both sides of the divide, and that needs addressing. We are beginning, in the first sixteen months, to address that.

    Let me give you a quick example so that you get a feel of what is actually happening in Northern Ireland. First, New Deal is working and making progress. We have a thousand employers signed up. Do not forget that Northern Ireland comprises 1.5 million people, similar to Greater Leeds, so that is a good bit of progress in terms of getting people off the dole and into a better future.

    Policies which will be implemented here by the middle of next year, such as the minimum wage and Fairness at Work will all help. We have many policies, thanks again to the equality agenda which has been pushed, on TSN – Targeting Social Need – so that policies in terms of fair treatment are directed to the most deprived.

    The Gordon Brown “the Chancellor’s package”, as we call it, which is a specific effort to put money into infrastructure to make it more attractive to get investment, has helped again. One of the big differences is that the people of Northern Ireland are at the moment putting together their own economic strategy to grow local businesses. In the past 24 hours there has been , 5 million worth of investment between two local companies in Craigavon and Dungannon. Again, that is real progress alongside the talks which will help make them work.

    The other and final area which we have been working in is trying to get more inward investment. We have not done too badly. We are off again next month to try and get more investment from the United States, who have been quite positive in their investment in Northern Ireland. Eleven cities will be visited and Gordon Brown will launch it. The important point about this tour is that it is headed by David Trimble and Seamus Mallon, together in partnership symbolically saying “We are working for a different future in Northern Ireland and we are leading it to show that this is where the future lies”. That is a real big plus because it shows to people Unionists and Nationalists working together to build for the future.

    In terms of that visit in October, we have had a lot of support from the AFL-CIO, particularly John Sweeney, who has worked with us in what could otherwise be a difficult area to facilitate that trip.

    While I am on the subject of leaders, one of the things which has helped in Northern Ireland is the relationship between the trades union Movement in America, in Ireland and here, in Northern Ireland, in the UK. The co-operation between them makes work easier. John Monks is an important part of that. His contribution — do not look so embarrassed — has been important because he is there in public when you need him. He went after the Canary Wharf bomb to Derry and spoke. When we were having the Referendum, he came to Belfast and spoke. That counts.

    But in addition what also makes a difference is, privately, when we are going through tough times he is there behind the scenes, over the years, working consistently to try and move it forward. We all have bad days. I have had some pretty bad days in the past 16 months. It makes a difference when people like John phone you up and says “It happens to all of us. Keep going”. I did just want to take this opportunity to thank him, too, because that has made a difference.

    Let me just touch on some aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. I also ought to say that of symbolic importance is at the Labour Party Conference at the week after next. We have a fringe meeting at which David Trimble and Shamus Mallon are speaking. It is sponsored by the TUC and the CBI, which shows that in Northern Ireland it is about partnership and working together. That is happening.

    I hear a mobile phone! I have a rule with the press in press conferences in Northern Ireland. That is that if a mobile phone goes off I stop and refuse to speak until the sinner leaves the room. They do not thank me for it but it is pretty awful.

    Let me talk about a couple of things that we are doing in the Good Friday Agreement. It is quite important in terms of the fairness and equality agenda which you, as a Congress, have committed yourselves to over many years. One of those aspects is that we are setting up a Human Rights Commission, which will be a new and powerful body. It is about changing the culture, to a human rights culture from one of injustice and discrimination. When people are threatened, they go back into their own culture and people. We are saying that if we have a human rights culture where everybody is treated fairly, then that will make a difference. That is part of the Good Friday Agreement and it is being set up. It will exist not just to advise people about the rights that they are entitled to but to help them when they believe their rights have been abused, or they have been denied rights, but it will give them assistance in taking it through the courts. I think the Human Rights Commission will be an important and powerful body. It is part of the “new” politics which is going to be the future as Northern Ireland begins to change.

    One of its priorities, for example, is to look towards consulting with all the parties in Northern Ireland to examine the possibility of a human Bill of Rights, which would, again, be an important and symbolic backdrop for making progress in Northern Ireland.

    Another part of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which again links in with your interests, is, as part of that, a commitment to introduce a legal duty on all public bodies, which is legally binding, to be sure that there is the promotion of equality of opportunity, not just a fairness for Catholics and Protestants, and that will be for men and women, people of different races, people with different disabilities, sexual orientation and age. It will be a pretty comprehensive equality of opportunity portfolio together. The point is that unless we deal with those underlying inequalities, we will never deal with the fundamental problems. That is why I have highlighted those two because I think they are important.

    As to that equality commitment, in terms of equality of opportunity, we are putting in an Equality Commission to implement it. I know, from talking to a number of you, that that is not terribly popular because we are merging some of the different inequalities. People feel that some may be treated as second class rather than the importance they have as individual agencies. We are still consulting on it and I hope that we can find an agreement so that everybody will get a bit of what they want. In the nature of compromise, nobody ever gets everything they want. I hope we get there.

    Let me, briefly, emphasise where we have got to and where, I hope, we are going in the next couple of months. At present we are indulging in implementing all the different bits of the Good Friday Agreement. The only way we are going to continue to make progress is if it is implemented in total, because those Parties which signed up to it did not sign up to it because they agreed 100 per cent with it — nobody agreed 100 per cent — but they all got something which they wanted. The only way that we are going to be able to move it forward now is that the bit which they wanted moves in unison with everything else. Otherwise, they will say “Why have you got it and I have not?”, and we will be back to where we were for many years.

    At the moment we are putting in place the Assembly in the North, the North-South Ministerial Council and the Civic Forum, which is a chance for other voices to be heard in Northern Ireland from other communities apart from the political parties. I noticed, as I was coming in, I saw one of those voices, Monica McWilliams, who is a T&G woman, who had her voice heard in the Women’s Coalition, which did very impressively and gained a couple of seats, and also May Blood, who is one of those women who have been there for years and worked on the ground to make it happen.

    I have to mention some other bits because if I do not, people say “You are not doing that which we are implementing” in parallel with the ones that I have just mentioned. At the British Irish Council we have Commissions working on criminal justice review, on policing and where that will go in a year’s time, and a decommissioning independent body, which is a difficult one. Nobody doubts that the decommissioning of weapons has been one of the stumbling blocks in previous years with previous Governments. It is hard. It is part of the Good Friday Agreement and it has to happen in unison with the other parts of that Agreement.

    I believe that in the two year stretch we have we will see not just the decommissioning, but another tough issue which has started and that is the accelerated release of prisoners. Again, it is very difficult for victims who have lost people – victims’ families – to cope with that. We have a counselling service in place and constraints. Anybody who committed anything after April 10th cannot qualify. None of those who committed the atrocities at Omagh or those who murdered the three Quinn brothers will qualify. But that accelerated release, however difficult people are finding it to be, is part of the Good Friday Agreement. My job is to honour that Agreement and implement it in full, and that is what we will be working at.

    Alongside that, and Tony has worked very hard — I did not think the Prime Minister would have as much time as he has had to work on this — on this. When we have had difficulties and could not anybody, it has been very useful to call on the Prime Minister to come in and knock heads together, which he has done on more occasions than I believed possible, but he has made a difference.

    The other person who has made a difference is, when we have worked with the President of the Irish Republic, Bill Clinton. I do not think that many people know but during the talks he used to stay up all night because of the time difference. When we wanted a call from the Prime Minister, a call from the Irish Taoiseach or a call from the President of the United States, when we were trying to move along in those last days, everybody played their part, but none of that has hit the media. That helped us push people along to get to where we did.

    Finally, let me talk briefly about the security situation because, as a Government, one’s real job, first and foremost, is to make sure you protect citizens, and that is our first job. We are doing everything we can on that front to achieve as tight a level of security as we can. Two weeks ago we put through the House of Commons legislation which now matches the Irish legislation — legislation for legislation — to do all we can to catch the very small numbers still engaging in violence. The advantage of that is for the first time ever — the Irish Dail passed legislation at the same time as the Westminster Parliament — terrorists cannot go from one side of the border to the other, which they have in the past, to escape. This should put us in a much stronger position.

    Contrary to some of the things said in the wonderful press, everything we have put in place is in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am sure we will be challenged but we would not have done it otherwise. It is time limited and focused on the specific groups which are still committed to violence.

    I consider myself a libertarian. I do not have any trouble with that legislation. We are dealing both north and south of the border with — I do not know — maybe 100, 200 or 300 people who are directly or indirectly still involved with violence in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we should let them ruin what 99.9% of people in Northern Ireland want to see.

    The final way to rid a community of terrorist activities, of people who indulge in violence, is to make the Good Friday Agreement work. Only when the community reject them and does not give them any hiding place ‑‑ that is, everybody’s mum and granny says, “If he is involved, they are not coming in this house” ‑‑ do you begin to root them out. That is why making the Good Friday Agreement succeed will take out those men of violence quicker than anything else. That is also why, in the weeks and months ahead ‑‑ it is going to be tough; nobody said it was going to be easy ‑‑ we have to make sure, even though the formal talks are over, that the talking continues because that is the only way we are going to find a way to build a better future. The good part of that is that most of the decisions now are devolving slowly to local people during this transitional period ensuring that by next year it is not us but the representatives of all the communities in Northern Ireland making those decisions.

    David Trimble made the best point when the Assembly met last week: “I want this to be a pluralist Parliament for a pluralist people in Northern Ireland in which all of us, Unionists and Nationalists, work together for the benefit of all.” When David Trimble says that, and Seamus Mallon immediately afterwards says “A peaceful path has been created”, it is up to all of us now to walk down it.

    That is why I am hopeful. I am very pleased that we are walking down that path step in step with the unions in Northern Ireland to deliver what people in Northern Ireland deserve, which is a future based on equality, justice, opportunity, but, above all, hope. Thank you.

  • Peter Mandelson – 1998 Speech to TUC Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Mandelson to the 1998 TUC Conference.

    Thank you very much for that welcome. May I say that this is a very poignant moment for me indeed. I was one of the TUC’s brightest eyed young staffers when, 20 years ago to the month, I attended Congress. I will always be grateful to the TUC for the introduction it gave me to the world of trade unions, to practical politics, and to the values of systematic filing. Those were the days when I thought of John Monks as my boss. You can all take comfort from that. Old habits die very hard.

    Then too another GMB General Secretary, the leader of my own union, was President of Congress, David Basnett, a man who had a similar reputation for choosing his words very carefully.

    Then too there was a Labour Government and the Prime Minister came to address us, and you will be relieved to know that I am not going to take a trip down memory lane by trying to sing you a music hall ditty as he did, but those were times when you had to keep your spirits up.

    In the mid 1970s an economic whirlwind of unprecedented ferocity had hit the world economy. The labour Movement faced that whirlwind with great fortitude and great solidarity. Inflationary collapse was averted. Unemployment began to fall. But, as the fatal winter that followed that Congress was to prove, Labour’s achievement was fragile. Tony Blair is determined that in the 1990s we will not repeat the mistakes of the 1970s. No one in this hall ‑‑ not you, not me ‑‑ will complain at that.

    This Labour Government has good relations with the trade unions, but there is a key difference with 20 years ago. Those relations are now not too close for comfort. Today we have dialogue, good dialogue, but not under any duress. We should be able to agree and disagree without either being in hock to one another, or at risk of falling out — a mature practical relationship based on shared values and a shared agenda.

    For example, we both believe that a workplace, based on mutual respect and minimum standards of protection, safety and consultation, is one which works better and more productively. That is why we have signed the Social Chapter, why we are introducing the national minimum wage, and why we are implementing the Working Time Directive without delay. It took a Labour Government to make these momentous changes, a New Labour Government.

    The Fairness at Work legislation will be the central building block of this legislative package. This legislation will not turn the clock back to the days of strikes without ballots, flying pickets and mass actions. None of us want that; nobody is calling for that. What it will do is demonstrate that it is possible to have flexibility in the workplace, and to treat people well. Be under no illusion, these are controversial changes for which we still have to argue and win the case, particularly in light of the growing pressures on British business, but argue for it I will — for legislation that is seen by all to be fair and to be balanced if it is to win enduring support, as I am confident it will do.

    To support this, to do this, I can think of no better ally than Ian McCartney to help me take this Bill through Parliament. You all know Ian McCartney very well. When I arrived at the DTi I will admit to being a little worried about Fairness at Work and I called Ian in to talk about it. I said “Ian, you know, it is a tall order this Bill” and he said “Don’t worry, Peter, I will make short shrift of the critics”. This reassured me enormously. This Bill will strengthen partnership at work. In today’s economy partnership is key to competitive strength. Britain is in a non‑stop race to boost that strength, to create comparative advantage, to add value ‑‑ all against the background of our current economic difficulties.

    I understand the concerns that are being expressed about the level of the pound. We are all well aware of how tough life is out there, particularly for manufacturing industry and for exporters. Nonetheless, John Prescott was right on Monday to say that we should not talk ourselves into recession. Employment is not going down. The economy has generated over 400,000 jobs since Labour came into office. The Government’s policy for Britain is clear: a strategy for stability amidst instability in an uncertain world; a commitment to end once and for all the dismal record of stop‑go, and of boom and bust, the roller coaster of economic activity that has so damaged confidence and investment in the British economy over the past two decades.

    This is why we have taken the politics out of interest rates by vesting authority in Eddie George and his colleagues at the Bank of England. That is why Gordon Brown has taken the necessary tough action to clear the Tories overdraft and to put the public finances back on track. Gordon’s is not an enviable job. He puts the interests of the country before those of any pressure group. He has the honesty to say “no” when others are tempted to let it be known that they might have said “yes”. I fervently believe that we will reap the benefits of the tough but wise decisions he and the Government have taken.

    Nobody is saying it will be easy; it won’t. Asia, Japan, Russia, Latin America, jitters on Wall Street, collapse of the real economy in Indonesia — we face constant reminders that we live in a global economy. What effects one country affects us all. There is no magic fix of Government intervention or extra money that can solve these problems.

    That is why economic cooperation between countries has never been more important than now and why we must strengthen Britain’s position in Europe, now our natural home market. On Europe the people who threaten to cut Britain off from this home market are the leaders of today’s Tory Party with their head in the sand policy on the single currency.

    Congress, in yesterday’s debate you proved yourselves far more sensible than them. On this issue, Government, business and unions are at one and we are working in partnership in Europe. Now, at the DTi I know that John Monks believes that my new role is actually the first real job I have had since leaving Congress House. I would not go that far but the job is certainly a real challenge. Some have scoffed that under the Tories the DTi was the Department of Timidity and Inaction. Under my leadership I can tell you, no more. My mission at the DTi is to use all the tools at our disposal to strengthen industry, enhance business performance and to create an environment in which enterprise flourishes.

    Britain can do better — much, much better. As a nation we have a world class science base. We have talent and creativity galore. What we lack are the entrepreneurs to turn these natural strengths into products and services that customers want. We must overcome these weaknesses. For unless we do, Britain will never succeed in exploiting the potential of the knowledge based economy of the future. In that knowledge based economy scientific discovery and technical progress will reach more directly and much more swiftly into every aspect of our lives. The key to competitive success will lie in the exploitation of knowledge for commercially profitable ends, as much in manufacturing as in services. In the knowledge-based economy, the increasing reality of liberalised markets and open trade will destroy the tradition sources of competitive advantage. Once that stemmed solely from the skills and techniques of production. Now it depends much more on the creativity that surrounds it; the know how that dreams up new ideas; the innovation that brings forward new products and the marketing that builds new brands.

    In this new world, Britain has a simple choice. To move with the times or be swept away by them. My clear view is that we must make change our friend, not our enemy. That is how in simple terms I define the mission of my department. It is a task in which I want your full support; because together we can put the future on Britain’s side.

    But I know many of you in this hall will have an even bigger question at the back of your minds. “Where do you think, Peter, the trades unions fit into your bright, knowledge-based vision of the future? I can be very clear where I stand. I believe in trades unions, not just for reasons of sentiment – though when your first job opportunity was working for the unions, that sentiment is real enough – not just either because I will always remember how the trades unions helped Neil Kinnock save the Labour Party in the 1980s, just as in my grandfather’s time the trades unions saw the Party through the upheavals of the 1930s.

    No, it is much more than sentiment. For millions of people, trades unions are both relevant and necessary in today’s world. The relationship between employer and employee is by its nature a fundamentally unequal one, one that the unscrupulous employer can exploit.

    We all know that individuals at work still need the protection of trades unions against the arbitrary abuse of management power. We all know that a good relationship between trades union representatives and an employer can help to promote flexibility and productivity at work. Yes, I believe in trades unions. It is precisely because of that belief that you will always get from me honest, straight talking and candour. No grandstanding, no playing to the gallery, no more spin, honest.

    Let me set out my vision of the role in society which I sincerely believe the unions can and should play.

    Friends, a new economic future is beckoning for us in this country. For industry, it means adaptability, willingness to change, flexibility of working and a constant drive to modernise. If the trade unions want to be part of that future, then it means the same thing for you. In the 1980s the debate raged about whether the trades union were too strong or too weak. For some, that is still the dividing line. That is not a choice I accept, or one that the Government accept. For us the choice is between modern trades unions and those which are frozen in time, between effective trades unions and ineffective ones. I want to see modern unions working with successful companies in shaping Britain’s future.

    I recognise that the trades unions have already made huge efforts over the years to change and modernise. Modernisation through the New Unionism project and the Organising Academy which is bringing a modern, business-like approach to the unglamorous but vital role of recruiting new members. I recognise that in many companies industrial relations have been transformed from the old-style battlefield of “them and us” to the new-style of co-operation in achieving shared success – shared success.

    Good managers and good trades unionists have been responsible for that transformation. They need each other. But that modernisation and transformation must go further still. Indeed, if my analysis is right, it is never ending. I realise that this is not an entirely welcome message in a hall where in the past two decades so much painful change has had to be swallowed by so many. I know that to some of you I am seen as a non-stop moderniser, hell bent on change at any cost. I make no apology. I passionately believe that modernisation is essential in the trades unions’ own interest.

    I saw some staggering statistics the other day. Only 6% of young employees are members of trade unions; only 18% of employees under the age of 30. The density of trades union membership is lowest in the fastest growing sectors of the economy. Of course I accept that there are rogue employers who actively discourage trade union membership, but for too many people trade unions appear only marginally relevant.

    Many companies have built honest and credible partnerships with their employees with no involvement by trade unions at all. And if employers and employees are content with that, it is not the job of government to order them otherwise. Of course, it is not. As trade unions you can make the difference yourselves. To meet fully the challenge of modernisation, I suggest that you need to focus on three key areas.

    You need to focus on delivering quality services to your members; helping achieve employers’ success and being seen as responsible to the general public.

    First, delivery on behalf of your members. You are absolutely right to have put the emphasis back on what your members really care about – protection against arbitrary management behaviour or discrimination; fair levels of pay; safe working conditions; a pension to look forward to and the other essentials of decent conditions of employment. If together the trade unions and the Labour Party learnt one lesson from the 1970s and the 1980s it was the imperative to respond to the needs of individual members, not a vocal minority.

    Trades unions cannot rely, and should not, on governments to deliver them a bigger membership. Unions have to win their position by demonstrating their value to members and potential members, but the Government do have some role in helping unions to represent their members in the most effective and most constructive way.

    For example, in the Fairness at Work White Paper we said we intended to set up a Partnership fund to promote best practice in employee relations and their involvement.

    You will be pleased to hear that I can today confirm that we are going to establish such a fund. Money will be made available for a series of projects to give employers and employee representatives a much better understanding of the challenges each face and what can be achieved by working together as companies like Tesco, Boots, Unisys, Blue Circle and European Gas Turbine are doing.

    Working in partnership with employers brings me on to my second point: the need to focus on employer success. No union benefits from harming the companies its members work for. In the private sector that means actively working for and welcoming profits. In the public sector it means delivering ever better services of higher quality.

    By the way, contrary to what you have read in the newspapers, no decisions have been taken to privatise the Post Office.

    Congress, success in the public or private sector means awareness of labour costs. No one now deceives themselves that we can compete on costs regardless of quality. So no one should deceive themselves that we can compete on quality regardless of cost. It means sharing in the company’s success but also showing moderation in wage demands and flexibility in pay levels in times of economic difficulty. I say this every bit as much to company boards and to their directors as I do to trades unionists. By all means enjoy the rewards of success in the good times, but make sure those rewards are merited and make sure you are willing to share pain in the bad times, too.

    The third test is being seen to be responsible to the public. I believe that unions have an important role which extends beyond the workplace. Trades unions are a force for good in our society in setting workplace minimum standards; in ensuring adequate health and safety; in promoting training and skills and in pressing for proper provision of pensions and other benefits.

    Any responsible Government should always listen to what the trades unions have to say in these areas for they are unique in their ability to bring to the consideration of public policy the voice of direct workplace experience. The Government want to work with you in all these areas. We did on the National Minimum Wage. We have done so through the Skills Taskforce. We are doing so on the Competitiveness White Paper, and we shall do so in the development of the stake holder pension. I want to work with the trades unions.

    But the extent to which the unions have a voice that carries influence and respect will always depend on the credibility and persuasiveness that unions themselves can command. That means co-operating in the modernisation of public services. It means working with us in forging other reforms, in the welfare system, in the schools and higher education, in de-centralising government. Above all, it means not attempting to veto change but embracing it and helping to manage it in the interests of all.

    Tony Blair’s Government will never be a soft touch. We will do our duty whatever. We will never again contract out the governance of Britain to anyone, not to the TUC or its member unions, any more than we would to big corporate interests either.

    As far as my Department is concerned, there is not a front door for some and a back door for others. There is one door for all – and it is always open.

    Congress, the choice is yours – opposition or legitimate influence. I know my preference: it is for trade unions that draw increased strength from being modern, democratic, representative and influential, that day in and day out prove their relevance to their members, that match realism with responsibility in their dealings with employers and government. I believe that in working together in this way, we will not only generate respect for each other but that the unions will succeed in reinvigorating the public esteem they merit.

    Take it from me. I know a little bit about public relations and improving images. So much so that one of these days I might even be able to do something about my own. But I am told that it will probably take me more than 48 hours in a week to do so.

    Imagine depends on substance. Public relations will not succeed unless there is something real behind it. Trades unions do have the basis of such genuine appeal; a believe in social justice, an understanding of the real world, an ability to get to grips with practical workplace issues, a commitment to democratic methods and a willingness to co-operate.

    That is not just a platform, it is a springboard for the trades unions. In leaping ahead to the new unionism demanded by economic change and by your own members, I can assure you that you will have my backing and that of the department I head.

    I have battled for years for an electable Labour party. I am now battling for a successful country, strong in services and manufacturing, generous at home and abroad, with acclaimed public services and a dynamic private sector.

    Congress, join me, please, in the battle for success.

    Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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