UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1999

  • Tony Blair – 1999 Speech on the Millennium Bug

    tonyblair

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 25 January 1999.

    A year ago this month, four out of five Britons were aware of the Millennium Bug. Today, virtually all are.

    A year ago, only a quarter of smaller companies had started to fix it. Today, half have.

    Only some two thirds of local authorities had started. Today, all of you have.

    So first of all I want to thank you for the work you do, whether as officers or councillors, day in day out, tackling the Bug. As in so many other areas, you are the ones who turn speeches like this into reality.

    Thank you also to four people from central government. Margaret Beckett – who has mastered the issue with her usual calm effectiveness. John Prescott – who was telling local authorities about the importance of the Bug before it became fashionable. But most of all Don Cruickshank and Iain Anderson who have been advising government on our work with the private and public sectors respectively. Not many people would leap to take a job where if you help solve the problem, you will be criticised for crying wolf, and if you don’t, you will be held responsible for accidents beyond your control. But it is typical of both of them that they did and have set about their task with determination.

    So we have come a long way in 1998. But we cannot be complacent. My purpose today is to spur you on to finish the job. Think of it as a half time pep talk – we’re definitely ahead of the game, but could still throw it all away.

    This time last year, many companies weren’t even aware of the problem. Awareness is now 100% – thanks to the work of Action 2000. But the job isn’t finished. Action 2000’s judgement now is that as a rule larger companies will be ready. But half of smaller companies have not yet started work. The good news is that they still have time to fix the problem if they act now. The bad news is that if they don’t, they risk severe problems, including bankruptcy.

    Of course, Action 2000 hasn’t been the only organisation raising awareness. Many private companies, like BT and NatWest, have decided the best way to help themselves is to help the smaller companies who are their suppliers and clients. And many local authorities have done the same – for example the Isle of Wight and Lewisham who have organised seminars for local businesses.
    This time last year, the skills shortage in small companies looked insuperable. That’s why I announced the Bug Buster programme -to train 20,000 small company employees.

    The latest figures show that 18,000 people have either been trained, are being trained or have booked their course. We will not only meet the targets I set last year. We will do more. I can today announce that we will expand the programme by 10,000 places to 30,000 in all. And these figures are only for England. If you add in figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland we will have trained 36,000. Local authorities can also benefit from the expertise which the TECs have developed – you can buy Bug Buster courses from your local team.

    This time last year, there was no way of knowing what effect the Bug would have on the national infrastructure. Companies that had been focused on sorting out their own problems were starting to worry that those efforts would be in vain if, for example, their electricity or phones didn’t work.

    Since then, Action 2000 has created the National Infrastructure Forum, which brings together the utilities and major public services to work together to prepare for the Bug.

    They are undergoing one of the most rigorous and objective assessments anywhere in the world. Last Thursday the regulators reported on progress in the key power, telecoms and finance sectors. Their assessment was that these sectors are well on the way to beating the bug.

    But the job is not finished. Don Cruickshank will be explaining later this morning what he hopes the Forum will achieve this year. And there is also a crucial role for local authorities to play here. We need an Infrastructure Forum in each region. Nick Raynsford has already set up a team in London because the eyes of the world will be on London as we go into the new Millennium.

    So let me turn now to the meat of today’s conference – action at the local level.

    This time last year, John Prescott and Jeremy Beecham wrote to you asking every leader and chief executive to make dealing with the Bug one of the council’s top priorities.

    We all depend on your services – whether traffic lights and waste collection, benefits or housing. If you can’t do this because of the Bug, we will all be affected. And when things go wrong, people turn to their councils, particularly the vulnerable – such as the old and the disabled.

    I know from my visits around the country and what colleagues tell me that you are acting:

    Sorting out your systems

    Leading local emergency planning

    Raising awareness

    That you are here today indicates that local government is treating the bug seriously. I want to thank the LGA for organising the conference – a great opportunity to pool knowledge and share best practice. For example, Hertfordshire and Suffolk Coastal District Council will be sharing with you later their approaches to emergency planning. Earlier this month, all the key organisations in Lincolnshire signed the Millennium Bug Pledge – pledging to co-operate and to share information.

    If any of you have not yet signed the Pledge, you can do so here today.

    But that is only a first step. We know that in local government, as elsewhere, the job is not finished. Indeed, in some councils there are particular problems which have been identified by the Audit Commission. The best amongst you have sorted out your problems, just as our best companies have. But others still have a good way to go. No one can afford to be complacent.

    So we are today announcing a package of measures to help local government prepare for the Bug. They are not financial – our proposals for local authority spending already make provision for dealing with the Bug. Today’s measures are about sharing information and expertise. It is a package developed in close partnership with the LGA and the Audit Commission. John Prescott, Jeremy Beecham and Helena Shovelton, the new Chair of the Audit Commission, are writing to all council leaders today to tell them what we are doing, how it will help them, and what they need to do.
    For our part, we are setting up in each of the Government Offices a dedicated team, including people from local authorities, to work with councils in their region.

    These teams, drawing on the work of the LGA and Audit Commission, will form an overview of what has been achieved and what else needs to be done in their areas. They will work with councils, helping them to share experience and best practice. They will be able to play an important part in providing public reassurance.

    Because, as in central government, we need to be straight with the public about the state of progress. No one can afford to miss the deadline and if anyone falls behind, the Audit Commission will have to name them.

    So a huge amount of work has been done in local government, with the LGA acting as a key catalyst. You have made real progress, and we are counting on you to finish the job in 1999.

    This time last year, the Bug was a potential national emergency. I think Britain has risen to this challenge and that the threat of serious disruption over the Millennium is now falling.

    But ironically, now is the time we need to plan for such an emergency, even if its likelihood is falling. This is something the media find hard to understand – they assume that because we have plans we must be worried. The truth is that the government has well-established procedures for a wide range of emergencies – from floods to terrorism, from hurricanes to epidemics. Very few of these risks ever materialise, but we would be foolhardy and much criticised if we didn’t plan for them.

    The same is true for the Millennium Bug. We are not inventing new procedures – we are adapting them to the particular circumstances of the Bug, such as New Year’s Eve. Indeed, this emergency is in some respects easier to plan for because we know the risk dates in advance.

    Mike O’Brien, from the Home Office, will be saying more about this later today. For now, I would simply say that many councils are doing excellent work in this area. One example is the Sussex Millennium Management Group. It has asked everyone who is running a millennium event in Sussex to provide details of their plans. This means their plans can take account of the overall picture of the celebrations in the area.

    Finally, let me say a few words about the international situation. The bug is the ultimate symptom of the global economy – we share much of the same technology and if one country’s infrastructure fails other countries will be affected.

    So Britain has taken a lead internationally. The Foreign Office has undertaken an intensive global awareness raising programme. Our embassies have contacted governments to raise the profile of the issue. Our early contribution of £10 million to the World Bank’s Year 2000 programme has supported work in nearly 200 countries.

    We have made sure that the Bug is addressed in all relevant international organisations – from the United Nations to the EU.
    As a result of our efforts and those of other countries the level of global action has risen dramatically. We will now target our efforts on countries who remain less informed and on developing countries. And we will be working with international partners to achieve more effective co-ordination.

    Time is the most precious commodity with the Millennium Bug, so I won’t take up any more of yours. I believe that 1998 was the year Britain really got to grips with the Bug. We have made real progress – in raising awareness, dealing with the Bug in private and public organisations and developing joint approaches at local, national and international levels.

    My message today has been to thank you for your part in that and to ask you to finish the job in 1999. There is no room for complacency. Finish sorting out your systems. Think about how you can best ensure the continuity of essential services. Lead infrastructure work in your areas. Adapt your emergency plans. If we work in partnership, we can make sure the transition to the year 2000 is remembered not for major disruptions, but for its unique celebrations.

  • Tony Blair – 1999 Speech at the Millennium Commission Awards Fellowship

    tonyblair

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 21 January 1999.

    We all know problems in our communities that we could solve given a few hundred or thousand pounds. Some goalposts to turn a disused piece of ground into a football pitch. Some training to help teenagers who drop in to a community centre. Some child care to help single mothers look for work or training.
    Well today I want to celebrate a scheme that encourages both ideas like these and the local heroes behind them – the Millennium Awards Fellowships.

    It’s a £200 million Lottery programme. It provides grants to turn ideas into action – to empower ordinary people to do extraordinary things.

    Today we are recognising the first 4,000 award winners. Award winners who have led neighbourhood clean up projects, got children interested in science, improved community transport. Who have worked with the elderly – on befriending schemes or learning to use the internet to keep in touch with grandchildren. Cybergrannies who put people like me to shame.

    And most of the awards are to people who never before felt they had a role to play in their community.

    By the year 2004, over 40,000 people will have won awards. So I want the message to go out today – get involved, apply for an award, nominate someone you know.

    Because this is what I mean by community – that we are more than a set of individuals just looking after ourselves. We achieve far more by working together than we do alone. Because the truth is by giving a couple of hours of a week, we can make a real difference to the lives of others.

    This scheme will help build those communities. Each award winner will become a Millennium Fellow. We want to forge a link between you, creating a network of 40,000 people, so you can keep on helping your communities and encourage ever more people to get involved.

    This is how I want to celebrate the Millennium. Celebrating extraordinary events. Extraordinary global events like the Dome. But also extraordinary local people like today’s award winners.

    So, thank you and good luck.

  • Tony Blair – 1999 Speech on Teachers Green Paper

    tonyblair

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on the Teachers Green Paper on 19 January 1999.

    NB – the original numbers have been lost from the transcript.

    I am delighted to be with you this morning. Education is the government’s top priority. But we can’t achieve our goals without a first-class teaching profession – a profession which is capable, well-led and properly supported.We already have very many excellent teachers and headteachers. But we need more. And we need to make a fundamental change to the status of teachers in our society – putting them where they belong, on a par with doctors and other top professionals.For too long teachers have wrongly been regarded as second class professionals. This must change if we are to succeed in creating a world-class education service for the 21st century.That’s why we are investing an extra �bn in education over the next three years. And why we are devoting part of the money to supporting and improving the teaching profession.Our proposals are set out in the Teaching Green Paper published before Christmas. There has been a huge response from schools and individual teachers. It’s because I want to hear your views first-hand that I am here today for the first in a series of consultation meetings hosted by education Ministers and officials.Before Estelle Morris makes a brief presentation and we take your questions, let me make three points.First, what I call the big picture.A lot of attention has focussed on our proposals for teachers’ pay. This is obviously a crucial issue.But our plans need to be seen in the context of far wider proposals:

    • A doubling of investment in school buildings over the next three years.
    • A revolution in the provision of IT equipment, and training to see that teachers are confident in using it.
    • A big increase in funding for training and back-up in schools, including more support staff and teaching assistants, freeing teachers to teach effectively.
    • A range of programmes, spearheaded by the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools, to give teachers better support in their jobs.

    Our proposals need to be seen as a whole. Greater financial rewards for teachers are just one element. It is taken together – not in isolation- that we believe that they will transform the status and working conditions of teachers. David Blunkett and I have never claimed that there is a single quick fix.Secondly, even in the area of pay, we aren’t only talking about rewards for individual performance. We recognise the importance of team working – and of rewards for successful team working.That’s why, as David Blunkett said, our plans include a new national fund of � million a year to reward all staff at schools which demonstrate excellent performance or significant improvement. Let me stress that we aren’t just talking about the top schools by raw results – but also schools which show the highest level of sustained improvement, whatever their starting point.Third, the question of individual rewards for performance. I know there are concerns, particularly about crude judgements based on exam results, and about comparability between schools.We take these concerns seriously. The Government will want to see appraisal recognise success in improving performance, whatever the starting point. Headteachers and line managers must play an important role in making judgements, as they already do on a host of other matters besides pay. But we will want to ensure proper national standards, with external assessors to ensure credibility and consistency.Let’s be clear why we are doing this. I want a situation where our best teachers – not just a small number at the top, but a large proportion of the profession – are better paid and better motivated. Where more of our best graduates choose teaching and rise faster through the profession. And where successful leadership is better rewarded – particularly headteachers who take on the toughest schools and turn them round.These are urgent national imperatives. Better incentives for performance are one, though only one, way of meeting them.

    Teachers have everything to gain from these proposals. So do the parents and pupils who our schools exist to serve.

  • Tony Blair – 1999 Speech on Education Action Zones

    tonyblair

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on 15 January 1999.

    NB – the original numbers have been lost from the transcript.

    I am delighted to be with you this morning – to see at first hand the good progress you are making in your school and the wider community through your Education Action Zone. And to launch the second round of EAZs nationwide – which have a key role to play in equipping Britain with a world class education service for the 21st century.

    I cannot repeat too often that education is this Government’s top priority.

    It is central to everything we stand for – making our nation strong and competitive, enlarging opportunity, building successful families and responsible citizens, and eliminating social exclusion.

    That’s why we have launched an unprecedented crusade to raise standards. Why we have set ambitious attainment targets for every level of education. Why we are modernising the teaching profession. Why we have launched the New Deal to improve school buildings – from which more than 2,000 schools have already benefited.

    Above all, it’s why we took the tough choices needed to re-order government spending so that education could get an extra � billion over the next three years – the best deal education has ever got from the national budget.

    This �bn is not a cost, but an investment in our country’s future. It is an investment tied to clear goals. To make good schools beacons of excellence. To turn poor and mediocre schools into good schools. To make children of all backgrounds enjoy learning and achieve their highest potential.

    Education Action Zones are a key part of our new investment.

    EAZs are local partnerships to raise standards. We don’t have a national blueprint – what matters is what works. We are keen to see EAZs pioneer new approaches to learning and achievement, for the benefit of their own communities and as an example to others.

    I know you are taking that mission seriously here in Blackburn. And I congratulate everyone involved in the zone for their energy and commitment.

    I have just seen how new ‘whiteboard’ technology – a giant interactive computer screen – can promote new links between teachers and pupils, schools and businesses, and between different schools. The pupils working with engineers from British Aerospace on designing new products are learning skills of real benefit to their future lives and careers.

    This is only one of many projects in your EAZ. I was particularly interested to hear about your early intervention team to tackle barriers to learning on housing estates, working with a dedicated Youth Offending Team.

    Breaking down barriers is one of our toughest challenges:

    • Cultural barriers that make too many children think that success at school isn’t for them.
    • Bureaucratic barriers between different state and local agencies which have a shared remit for the welfare of young people
    • The barriers between the public and private sectors – between schools and employers, in particular.

    Progress will only come from working together. Companies need successful schools in their area, and EAZs are an historic opportunity to play a part in forging them.

    When people say ‘keep business out of schools’ I say: ‘the more support and involvement of the wider community – including business – in our schools, the better.’Schools and colleges should be working closely with employers to ensure that young people leave with the right skills and aspirations. The voluntary sector also has a larger role to play.

    So I wish you every success as you take forward your EAZ in Blackburn.

    Today we are inviting bids for the second round of EAZs. Our expectations are high. Let me emphasise three points.

    First, we stand ready to make another significant investment. But we are looking for committed partnerships between schools, businesses and parent and community groups. By committed partnerships, I mean partnerships offering strong local leadership and clear goals.

    Second, EAZs are about raising standards dramatically. They are not about innovation for its own sake, or for topping up budgets, but about projects closely targeted on raising achievement within a defined period, particularly in schools which need support over and above that which they are already receiving.

    We therefore expect bids to pay attention to achievement targets agreed nationally and locally – not least our targets for raising attainment in English and maths at 11, for improving success rates across the board at GCSE, for cutting truancy and non-attendance, and for promoting participation post-16.

    This is not an exclusive list, of course. Plenty of other areas merit attention – for example, projects to encourage very able and talented children to achieve their full potential.

    We also expect that many bidders will wish to take forward proposals in the Teaching Green Paper to ensure the highest quality of teaching and leadership in our schools. We are looking for concrete proposals to raise standards – and evidence that they are likely to work.

    Third, the role of Local Education Authorities. One of our key principles is that intervention in schools should be in inverse proportion to success. That includes intervention by both central government and by LEAs.

    Within this framework, as David Blunkett said last week, we are keen to see modern and effective LEAs help weaker schools raise standards. LEAs which rise to this challenge have an important role to play – including a partnership role in Education Action Zones, as in Blackburn.

    But we want LEAs to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Where this isn’t the case, we think it right that schools and other interested parties should be able to forge their own EAZ partnerships.

    Partnership is the key. But partnership to modernise – not partnership to drift.

    David Blunkett and I have always been clear about our intentions. New investment in our schools. A new voice for education at the heart of government. Bold measures such as EAZs to energise local communities.

    But all for a purpose. To raise standards. To eliminate failure. To give us a world class education service, transforming the prospects of our young people.

    I know you share that goal. We must work together to achieve it.

  • Alan Milburn – 1999 Speech to the PFI Transport Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Alan Milburn, to the PFI Transport Conference on 2nd February 1999.

    Introduction

    Thank you Adrian for your warm welcome. We have been very privileged to have Adrian Montague to head up the Treasury Taskforce on PFI. Under Adrian’s leadership the Taskforce has done a first class job – getting actively involved with projects on the ground and enabling progress where previously there was deadlock.

    What I would like to do today is to outline the Government’s progress on PFI, the further plans for reform we have in mind and our wider commitment to developing and defining other forms of PPP.

    Government’s progress with PFI

    Indeed, since we came to office in May 1997, this Government has revitalised PFI so that today we can rightly say that it is a key tool in helping provide effective and good value public services. Since the election, we have signed £4 billion worth of PFI deals and we have got PFI working in sectors like health where it had not worked before. By the end of this year, we estimate private sector investment in PFI projects will account for around 14% of overall public sector investment. Accompanying this turnaround has been a tremendous upsurge in confidence both in the public and private sectors that PFI can deliver the goods. And we are now seeing its benefits spread to other parts of the public services such as our schools.

    As Lord Whitty will explain later, transport is a sector that led the way in PFI. It’s worth remembering that it was John Prescott a decade ago who first proposed the sort of public private partnerships arrangements that are now delivering the goods in transport. Schemes on the stock range from those of national and indeed international significance such as the Chunnel high speed rail link to smaller schemes such as the Nottingham Express Transit where PFI is making possible an integrated public system within a busy urban area.

    The Government is proud of our record on PFI. We have been able to get it moving for three reasons.

    Firstly, because when we came to office we were prepared to take tough decisions. In my previous job as Minister for Health for example we had to prioritise a number of major new hospital projects in order to break the logjam that had been allowed to build up. Health service need now dictates which PFI projects get the go ahead. To date 25 new hospital developments have been given the green light as part of the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. Work on 9 is already under way. The challenge now in the NHS is to get PFI working in smaller scale projects in primary care, mental health and at the interface with social services.

    The second reason we have made been able to make PFI work is because we have been prepared to take head on some of the logistical problems that bedevilled PFI in the past. As you know, one of our first actions was to appoint Malcolm Bates to review the PFI process. He did a great job in analysing problems and more importantly finding solutions. Since Malcolm reported we have fully implemented all of his recommendations.

    We have also recognised the importance of getting the management of staff right when evaluating bids and contracts. Openness between bidders, trade unions and staff is an essential part of any well run procurement process. PFI should not be a secret process because it is about providing better services to the public. That is why we have published guidelines for the consultation of staff and other interested bodies.

    The third and final reason why we have been able to rejuvenate PFI is because this government is committed to public private partnerships in general and PFI in particular. In the past, the dogma of the right insisted that the private sector should be the owner and provider of public services. And the left insisted this was all the responsibility of the state. The modern approach to public services rejects these arguments both of the old right and the old left.

    In some areas, the private sector is best able to provide the services. In others, the public sector is in the best position. And in many cases the best way forward is through new partnerships between the public and the private sectors. Where each brings something to the table. Where we combine private sector enterprise experience with public service values. For this Government the key test is what works. We recognise that what the public want is better quality, more responsive public services. Quite rightly, they want their services to be both dependable and modern. Their concern – like the Government’s – is about outcomes not ownership.

    This is where PFI fits in. One of the main drivers behind it is to give the public sector what the private sector has long expected to be the norm – modern, well-designed purpose-built buildings that maximise savings over the whole life of the project. Better designs means less wasted space, more efficient energy management, lower maintenance costs. It also means more savings that can then be reinvested in frontline services.

    Take the example of the contract recently signed by Falkirk Council, involving the replacement of five schools. It has been enthusiastically received by teachers and pupils alike who all stand to benefit from a decent environment for education. It is also delivering a 15% saving over the life of the contract compared to conventional procurement.

    So we are pioneering new ways of doing things. New partnerships between the public and private sectors. A new understanding that improved public services and better value for money go hand in hand. The Government is committed to investing in our key public services. From April this year there will be an extra £40 billion for health and education. But it is not something for nothing. It is money in exchange for modernisation. PPPs and PFI are one way we are pursuing our investment for reform agenda.

    And we will go on doing so. We have come a long way in the last 21 months. We are proud of what we have achieved but we recognise that there is more to do to make PFI and PPPs more generally a genuine national success story.

    First, then we will be taking action to make PFI deals easier to complete. We are now looking at how to streamline the process of putting a PFI deal together. There is little doubt that the similarities between many PFI deals means that both time and money could be saved by having more standard template contracts. We will publish a guidance paper on standard model clauses by the end of this month. And next month we will publish guidance on accounting treatment that will help determine the optimal level of risk transfer that will deliver value for money.

    These are both important developments in PFI because they will improve the efficiency of procurement, reduce transaction costs and secure better value for money.

    Bates II

    Second though we will continue to improve, identify and develop new opportunities and partnerships with both the public and private sectors. As many of you will know, with the impending expiry of the Taskforce’s 2 year mandate this summer, we have asked Sir Malcolm Bates to take a second look at the PFI and public private partnerships more generally to see how the government could further improve our approach.

    I am not able to speculate about the contents of Sir Malcolm’s report but I am looking forward to reading his report in a few weeks.

    Looking beyond PFI

    What I can say at this stage is that the Government is committed to taking forward a whole range of public private partnerships. That will of course include PFI but not to the exclusion of other forms of partnership. We are committed to making PFI work even better. But not all of our eggs will necessarily be in the PFI basket. Again for us what counts is what works.

    One of the reasons we extended the terms of the second Bates review is that we want to develop PPPs further to exploit all commercial potential and spare capacity in public sector assets.

    Because we are not wedded to a single model for financing arrangements, it means there are new opportunities opening up to enable us to modernise the infrastructure and improve the quality of public services. We need look no further than the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to see the benefits of our flexible approach. Here we are completing the fast rail links between London, Brussels and Paris by restructuring the deal so as to make it commercially viable.

    Elsewhere in transport we are developing very different forms of PPP. In the case of London Underground and National Air Traffic Control, for example, we are restructuring public ownership. Here PPPs are allowing investment above and beyond what would be possible directly through Government. And so we can begin to tackle the legacy of under investment and inadequate maintenance in those organisations.

    Elsewhere we are pursuing other public private partnerships that involve greater commercial freedom for services with a core public function. The Post Office and the Royal Mint are good examples.

    Our Wider Markets Initiative takes a different approach still. It is looking at how we can make better use of the public sector’s great many under-utilised assets. Some assets are surplus – so it seems a nonsense to hold on to them. Other assets can’t be disposed of but are under-utilised. So we are looking at how we can use these assets to the benefit of both the private and public sectors. So for example, the private sector might take a lease, run it, and bring private sector work and services into it. Or make recreational use of Forestry Commission land. Or commercially exploit the intellectual property derived from defence research.

    Each project is different. That reflects different problems and different motivations in very different settings. Improving the quality of public services. Getting value for money. Providing incentives for effective business management. Correcting under-investment. Sweating public assets. Optimising capital investment flow. This diversity calls for the development of new approaches to enable public and private to work together. The Government will be taking a lead in that process in the months ahead.

    Conclusion

    In developing and defining PPP models we will build on our success in getting PFI working. Ours will be a twin track approach. One, improving and extending the PFI. Over the next three years we expect that PFI deals will contribute £11 billion pounds worth of investment in our public services. And two, building on the reservoir of expertise that is growing by the day in both the public and private sectors in finding forms of PPP that best suit the specific needs of particular public services. Today’s conference will help build that capacity still further. I am sure you will find it productive. Thank you for listening.

  • Clare Short – 1999 Speech at Trade Union Congress Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Clare Short to the 1999 TUC Conference in Brighton on 16th September 1999.

    Congress, I am very pleased to be here today among so many old friends. Labour and trade unions have come a long way together, united by our shared commitment to social justice for all.

    And I am proud to be here today as part of a Labour Government, for which we waited so long, which has – whatever our impatience – those values of social justice at its core.

    Social justice at home – to undo years of growing inequality and poverty.

    And social justice abroad – working systematically to reduce the poverty of the world’s poorest people.

    My job – heading up our Government’s efforts to reduce global poverty -takes me to countries with large numbers of malnourished and illiterate people. These visits have caused me to reflect a great deal on the days when equally bad conditions were common in the UK.

    I recently read a new book about the history of council housing and urban renewal in Birmingham between 1849 and 1999, written by a local historian, Carl Chinnlie outlines how Britain was transformed from the early 1800s by the process of industrialisation. It was a period of great change. Young people moved in droves from the countryside to the towns. The era of deference to the land-owning class ended.

    Both the middle class and working class established a new sense of identity and a new politics. Both were creating wealth and wanted to benefit from it.

    But working people lived in squalid conditions. A report commissioned on Birmingham in 1849 recorded that people lived in tiny, cockroach infested, badly built houses made of dirt. Water came from polluted wells, streets were uncleaned, cesspits overflowed. Women struggled to keep their families clean hut disease was rife and life was short. Birmingham was not alone. In 1847, average life expectancy in Surrey was 45, in London 37, and in Liverpool just 26.

    The history of the British trade union movement and of the Labour Party is the history of Britain’s struggle, first for democracy and then for social justice. A struggle to ensure that the wealth created by industrialisation was fairly shared by all people and that education, healthcare, decent housing and a decent income was available to all.

    Clearly that job is not complete. Our Government is working to reduce child poverty and increase opportunity.

    But many people in the world today exist in poverty and squalor as bad as that of British people in the l850s. I have, for example, recently visited Sierra Leone, where average life expectancy is 35; Bolivia, where 70 per cent of people are malnourished; and India, where one third of the population of nearly one billion people lives in extreme poverty.

    The parallel between the 1850s and now is very striking. Today, globalisation is causing massive economic and social change. huge wealth is being created but we are also seeing an enormous growth in inequality, between countries and within countries.

    The challenge of our times is to ensure that the wealth and opportunity generated by globalisation is distributed equitably; and that we seize the opportunity for a rapid period of advance and a reduction in the suffering caused by poverty worldwide.

    In my view, this is both the biggest moral challenge our generation faces and also a growing challenge to our own interests. If we do not reduce poverty, the conflict, disease and environmental degradation to which it leads will damage the prospects of the next generation, wherever they live.

    The challenge before us is huge. One in four of the world’s population – that’s 1.3 billion people – lives on less than 60 pence a day, without adequate food, clean water, basic education or healthcare.

    It is easy to feel overwhelmed in the face of such poverty. But that would be the wrong response.

    In recent decades, much has been achieved. Life expectancy and literacy are increasing; infant and child mortality is declining. We now better understand what works in development and how to speed it up. But, because the world’s population has grown so fast, there are more poor people than ever before.

    Faster progress is now possible and necessary to prevent the constant growth of poverty.

    At the heart of this Government’s development policy is a commitment to the international development targets – targets for poverty reduction agreed by the world’s governments at the major United Nations conferences of the past decade.

    The main goal is to halve the proportion of the world’s population living in abject poverty by 2015. Associated targets include achieving universal primary education, basic healthcare and reproductive healthcare for all, and sustainable development plans in every country – also by 2015.

    These targets have not been plucked from the air. They build on progress already made. And the development committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which represents the most developed nations, believes they are achievable and affordable. But to achieve them we need to generate the necessary political will, and adopt the appropriate policies, nationally and internationally.

    Congress, what a wonderful opportunity this is! That within 20 years, we can have every child in the world in school, every human being with access to basic healthcare, every woman with the chance to control her own fertility. This Government is committed to using Britain’s influence to mobilise the international system behind these targets and the policies necessary to deliver them.

    Alter years of cuts to the aid budget under the previous government, we have reversed this trend. We have committed an extra £1.6 billion for development over three years.

    And we are improving the quality and poverty focus of our aid. Working in partnership with developing country governments that are serious about reducing poverty, upholding human rights and tackling corruption.

    But the new development agenda goes beyond providing aid. We must also ensure that the interests of the world’s poor are fully integrated into all areas of policy.

    Otherwise, aid is simply a charitable sop to make up for the disadvantages flowing from unfair trade and investment policies.

    Take debt relief. Britain has led the efforts to get international agreement on faster and deeper debt relief for many of the world’s poorest, most indebted countries.

    Progress was made at the Cologne G8 summit and I hope this will be finalised at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings later this month.

    We are also working for a comprehensive trade round that advances the interests of developing countries. This is in the interests of British workers too. We all benefit from the higher levels of growth and investment that result from reduced trade barriers. And we will all lose if the world retreats into protectionism. We cannot reduce poverty without economic growth which must also be sustainable and environmentally responsible. The poorest countries need improved trading opportunities to reduce poverty.

    We have also been very closely involved in reforming the global financial architecture. The Asian financial crisis showed that major reforms were necessary – to deal with the problems of short-term capital flows; and to reduce the risks of financial and economic instability spreading across the world. A lesson of that crisis was that the high levels of growth achieved in East Asia were not sustainable in an Indonesia that did not respect human rights or allow trade unions to organise; or in Korea and Thailand, where the relationship between banks and industry was unregulated and corrupt.

    Congress, this is a very large agenda. And much of it overlaps with your concerns.

    We are all operating in a new, very different world.

    I often say that globalisation is as big an historical shift as was the change from feudalism to industrialisation. That earlier shift remade the whole political and economic landscape of the world. It brought economic growth but unequal benefits.

    And it gave birth to the trade union movement.

    It was the trade unions who realised early on that industrialisation was here to stay – but that it must be managed.

    And so it is today. Global economic integration and interdependence is a reality. We cannot turn back the clock. Our common challenge is to manage the globalisation process equitably and sustainably. That is why my Department and I have been talking with the TUC and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, to strengthen our ability to work together on these issues, particularly core labour standards worldwide. We plan to publish a joint statement on how we take this forward in the next few months.

    Today, I want to highlight three areas where I think future dialogue and co-operation between us is essential to forge a real partnership for social justice and development.

    First, core labour standards. There are an estimated 250 million working children in developing countries. Most are trapped by the need to provide income for their desperately poor families. But many children are engaged in forced, exploited or dangerous employment which threatens their health and mental development.

    My Department is supporting a range of initiatives in this area, such as the programme to remove children from the football stitching industry in Sialkot, Pakistan. We are also working with Juan Somavia to strengthen the role of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in promoting core labour standards across the world.

    Your efforts, and those of trade unionists worldwide, helped to secure the unanimous adoption in June of a new ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour.

    We have much to do to implement this important advance. We must establish programmes to allow children to move out of work and into school, and create conditions in which parents are no longer dependent on their children’s income. There is much to learn from our own experience of eliminating child labour.

    Secondly, the link with business. Here in Britain, trade unions are increasingly working in partnership with employers – to bring real benefits to the workforce, the business and the health of the economy.

    But dialogue with employers can also help strengthen the rights of workers in developing countries. Take, for example, the Ethical Trading Initiative, which is supported by my Department. It brings together trade unions, business and nongovernmental organisations to examine supply chains in poorer countries against an agreed Code of Conduct, which includes key commitments on labour standards.

    You have a crucial role here. Your members are the bedrock of knowledge about employee and employer relationships. You have vital links with trade unions in other countries. And you have a mutual interest in protecting the poorest and ensuring that globalisation does not lead to a decline in labour standards that threatens the conditions of workers in industrialised countries.

    A third key area is what I call ‘reaching out to the poorest’. The world’s very poorest people are rarely in the organised workforce. Of course, trade unions have an interest in organising the unorganised. But, like us, you also have an interest in supporting pro-poor economic development. The best of international trade unionism is about speaking up for the poor and the oppressed, whether they are unionised or not. Evidence suggests that high levels of economic growth in very unequal societies have a limited effect on reducing poverty because the poor only gain in proportion to their original share. Where societies are less unequal, economic growth has a much greater impact on reducing poverty. This is familiar territory to the trade union movement and needs to be taken forward in the poorest countries, which tend to be the most unequal.

    We also know that development proceeds fastest where there is an active civil society; where people hold their governments to account, demand that they do better, speak out against corruption, urge faster progress. Just as you are instrumental in pushing for social reform in this country, so must trade unions increasingly be advocates of economic and social reform in developing countries.

    We are rightly proud of the trade unions’ role at the forefront of the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa. And in Zimbabwe today, trade unions are the only effective opposition to the excesses of the Government. Trade unions worldwide can take heart from these examples.

    Congress, throughout this century trade unions have been at the forefront of advancing social justice in Britain and in many countries across the world.

    The challenge for the new Millennium is to advance these principles of social justice in a new, more interdependent world. To bring real advances in human welfare for millions of working people and their families. Trade unions are central to this.

    Strengthening the voices of the poor and the exploited across the world, championing the reforms that will improve their conditions and life chances.

    I very much hope that in the next year we will forge a strengthened alliance to take forward this urgent and profoundly important agenda.

  • John Prescott – 1999 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, to the 1999 Labour Party Conference.

    Two years ago, we inherited a Britain that was socially divided.

    Public services were starved of investment.

    Our environment was degraded. The air polluted. Water and rivers contaminated.

    Local government was shackled. Housing investment slashed.

    Rural communities neglected. A massive investment backlog, Disorganised railways, And crumbling roads.

    That’s the legacy the Tories left us.

    We are committed to reverse that.

    On day one, we brought together a new government department whose very purpose is a better quality of life. Improving people’s homes, their neighbourhoods, their travel, the air they breathe, the water they drink.

    There is much to do. But we have taken the essential long-term decisions to implement our manifesto Programme, and have a good ministerial team to implement it.

    We have a new positive partnership with local government. No longer is local government treated as the enemy within. We value public services. We value public servants. And like them, we want to deliver better public services.

    We promised to bring decision making closer to the people. We are giving London back to Londoners. Next May, Londoners will celebrate by ensuring their new mayor is neither Steven Norris nor Jeffrey Archer.

    And alongside devolution in Scotland and Wales, We’ve taken a step towards the sort of regional government that I have long believed in, With Regional Development Agencies, new regional planning and accountability.

    Two centuries after the world’s first Industrial Revolution, we face a new And momentous challenge – to renew and revitalise our towns and cities for a new age.

    As Lord Rogers’ Urban Task Force report makes clear, This calls for nothing less than an urban renaissance.

    It’s not just a matter of housing, planning or design.

    It’s about jobs, transport, schools, crime and health as well – The whole quality of life in our cities and communities.

    We have already started.

    £5bn of capital receipts to help imporve2m homes as we promised.

    £4bn to regenerate areas in need.

    Almost a billion to help lift our poorest neighbourhoods out of the cycle of deprivation. Tackling the causes, not the symptoms.

    A £350m package for our coalfield communities, To start to repair the damage caused by Mrs Thatcher’s spiteful attack on our pit communities.

    We are offering jobs and hope, instead of despair and dole.

    A new style of living – which puts people first – in the concept of the Millennium Village.

    Built to the highest environmental standards The highest environmental standards. A social mix of housing. Excellent public transport.

    The first two of these are at Greenwich by the Dome and in the mining town of Allerton Bywater.

    Reclaiming contaminated industrial land to create a living, thriving, healthy community.

    And I can announce today that we will invite proposals for a further five Millennium Villages in other part of Britain.

    A new start for Britain.

    And in the countryside, we have set up a new Countryside Agency to champion rural needs.

    We are safeguarding rural schools and post offices.

    And today, I can announce that our Rural Bus Fund is supporting 1,800 additional bus services, linking villages to hospitals, schools, jobs and market towns.

    That’s social justice.

    Well, let me tell you about the Tory Council of NorthYorkshire.

    We gave the Council nearly a billion pounds from the Rural Bus Fund. The Council sent it back.

    But local people want the bus services.

    No doubt they will contact their local MP the leader of the opposition, Mr Hague.

    No wonder the Tories are no longer the party of the countryside!

    Under Labour, our air is getting cleaner. Our rivers and beaches are less polluted.

    No longer is Britain tagged the ‘dirty man of Europe’.

    And what about water supplies?

    Every summer a crisis under the Tories.

    We have got the privatised water companies to cut the leaks, repair the pipes at their own expense, and cut the water bills from next April.

    And we’ve told them no more disconnection’s for families who can’t afford to pay.

    That’s social justice. And it takes a Labour government to deliver it.

    But the biggest environmental challenge we face is the poisoning of the earth’s atmosphere by the industrialised countries.

    People see on TV the ice caps melting. Greater droughts. Fiercer storms. Rising seas, which threaten to wipe out whole coastal communities. They know something is wrong and they want action.

    This is a global problem and needs a global solution.

    That’s why Britain led the world at the UN Climate Summit in Kyoto, Negotiating legal limits to the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

    To take the lead in international negotiations.

    Because, under Tony Blair, Britain is respected once again throughout the world.

    And why do we do this?

    Because we have an obligation to pass on to our children a better world that the one we inherited.

    That’s what we mean by international solidarity – the essence of Labour’s beliefs.

    That’s why we brought the environment and transport together, to get a more Integrated approach.

    Of course transport is never out of the news.

    The M4 bus land trial now means buses and taxis are getting through quicker. Cars are also getting through quicker.

    Every week you get another alarmist news headline – seldom checked in case the truth gets in the way of a good story.

    Reducing the speed limit from 70 to 50 – not true.

    A policy to nick everybody, everywhere, driving over 30 – not true.

    Anti-motorist – not true.

    How could I be anti car, driving two jags?

    It’s a pity we can’t have a more intelligent debate.

    That’s why we set up the Integrated Transport Commission.

    Anyway, people don’t pigeon-hole themselves just as motorists.

    We are parents and pedestrians as well. People who drive cars care about pollution and their children’s future too.

    We are not anti-car. We are pro-people.

    Even the last Government came to accept that you can’t build your way out of congestion.

    When the Tories came in, there were 70 cars per mile of road.

    And, after £70bn spent on roods, this increased to 100 cars per mile of roads.

    The worst option for the motorist is to carry on as before.

    But John Redwood has disowned the last government. With promises of higher speeds, more tarmac, and ripping out road safety measures.

    Even the Times newspaper called his plan “cheap populism”.

    His solution to traffic jams is to deregulate the roads.

    Fewer speed limits, fewer traffic lights – compromising safety.

    What we need is a better balance.

    In other European countries they own more cars. But they use them less. And they use public transport more.

    Above all, we need to widen choice by steadily improving public transport.

    For too long, politicians have dodged long term responsibility for short-term expediency.

    I intend to do what is right.

    Our policies are decided not for tomorrow’s newspapers, but for tomorrow’s children.

    Our biggest challenge is to reverse the massive under-investment and damage of the Tory years.

    As an ex-seafarer, I am particularly pleased that we are about to double – that’s right double – the size of the British registered fleet, under the Red Ensign.

    That’s the kind of revival we are producing.

    Under the Tories, privatisation saw rail companies re-painting their trains, instead of replacing them. The biggest beneficiary was Dulux.

    Now billions of pounds are being invested in road and rail infrastructure.

    Of course an ageing transport system that has been neglected for decades will have breakdowns and delay.

    And you can’t put in brand new infrastructure without causing some disruption.

    But we should celebrate the fact that public transport is now a growth industry.

    We are making the investment for that to happen.

    As we promised in the manifesto, As conference agreed last year, The new investment is from public and private sources.

    New bus investment up 80%.

    100 new rail stations.

    1,000 more train services a day.

    And we are getting more rail investment in 10 years than in the past 100 years.

    New local transport plans will bring better quality and more choice in public transport, with £800m to kick them off.

    In London we will hand over a £5bn legacy to the new mayor.

    A package which includes the Light Rail crossing the river to Lewisham.

    The new Jubilee Line extension, the Croydon Tramlink, and much more.

    We are only able to do this because we are mobilising billions of pounds of private finance to serve the public interest.

    But big investment can’t be done overnight.

    Upgrading the national rail network.

    Modernising the London Underground.

    Completing the high speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

    All these take time.

    But we have established the new Strategic Rail Authority, To safeguard the public interest and develop the rail network – both passenger and freight.

    Together with the new regulator, everyone agrees we now have a watchdog with a bite as well as a bark, acting on behalf of you – the public.

    And I have today issued new instructions to the SRA to start the renegotiating rail franchises, to establish a new modern railway for a new century.

    Last year I said the railways were a national disgrace.

    Well, the industry has made some efforts.

    The first signs of improvement are starting to show.

    But I say to the rail companies: “You are on probation”.

    By the next Spring Rail Summit, we will judge how far you have advanced.

    Public private partnership is also the key to securing investment in the London Underground and Air Traffic Control.

    That’s why we proposed in our Manifesto a £7bn public -private partnership to modernise the underground. A service which will be publicly owned and publicly run.

    Where employees will have their employment conditions, pensions and free travel guaranteed.

    We are mortgaging the Tube assets, just like you do with a house. And the assets will come back to the public sector, when they have been upgraded.

    So it will be completely publicly owned once again.

    I understand the concern about proposed changes in Air Traffic Control.

    And of course we will continue to consult all the interested parties, including the unions.

    But air traffic is growing fast. NATS want to use its expertise abroad to share in the growth of the aviation industry.

    It needs over a billion pounds to keep up with growing air movements.

    NATS has never been able to plan ahead to invest with certainty under past government financing.

    NATS is an equity-based company already.

    What is proposed is for government to keep a 49% stake, with 5% for staff – leaving 46% for the private sector.

    We could ask the Chancellor to shell out the billions of pounds from public funds.

    But that would mean less cash for hospitals and schools.

    Some local authorities have swapped their paper shares in municipal airports to build new schools.

    What’s wrong with that?

    My own city of Hull has sold some of its shares in its telephone business to improve council services.

    What is wrong with that?

    So why shouldn’t we raise money from bricks and mortar to provide kidney machines and school computers?

    Or – yes, in some cases – other forms of public transport that need investment funds.

    This is a question of priorities.

    As Nye Bevan said: ‘The language of priorities is the religion of socialism’

    Our priority is not rigid dogma, but giving the people of this country the best possible public services

    And using our public assets to the best possible advantage.

    And let’s be clear about this. Whether it’s air traffic or anywhere else I will never agree to anything that would put safety at risk.

    We will keep strict safety regulation entirely in state hands.

    A government golden share.

    A government director on board.

    And a veto built in through the licence to protect the national interest.

    Not a triple lock, but a quadruple lock.

    The airlines are satisfied with that.

    The RAF is happy with that.

    And I think this Conference should trust this government would never put air passengers lives at risk.

    I do not take exception to suggestions that I might be soft on safety.

    All my life I have campaigned for transport safety.

    From Lockerbie to Clapham Junction, I hounded the Tories.

    In office, I have demanded train safety protection to stop trains going through red lights.

    I have reopened the files on the sinking of the Gaul and the Derbyshire.

    And last month I announced a public inquiry. So that the full story can be told of the Marchioness disaster.

    So don’t let anyone doubt my commitment to safety.

    I will never, repeat never, play games with people’s safety.

    And I deplore those who seek to stir up safety for ideological or industrial ends.

    Social justice. Labour is the party for the many, not the few.

    But sometimes social justice demands that the many must help the few.

    That’s why we have outlawed all forms of asbestos

    – Britain’s biggest industrial killer

    – That’s social justice

    That’s why – as we enter the new Millennium We will guarantee every person currently living rough on the streets a bed to sleep in, with a roof over their head.

    That’s social justice.

    That’s why today Stephen Byers and I are announcing a new scheme to help pensioners and poor families who need help to make their homes warmer

    And not just insulation, But brand new central heating.

    To reduce the obscenity of deaths from hypothermia – that bring disgrace to this country.

    That’s social justice.

    It was that great post War Labour government which gave Britain its first National Parks, the jewels of the Countryside.

    I remember as a boy the wonder I felt on my first visit youth hostelling to the Lake District.

    Its beauty remained eternally with me.

    50 years on, this Labour government will begin the process to create new National Parks – in the south downs and the New Forest.

    Two new national parks for the new millennium.

    A hundreth birthday present from Labour to the nation.

    And we will introduce legislation to extend the right to roam and enjoy open countryside.

    Because we believe our natural heritage is for the many, Not just the privileged few.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Donald Dewar – 1999 Speech at Opening of the Scottish Parliament

    donalddewar

    Below is the text of the speech made by Donald Dewar on the Opening of the new Scottish Parliament on 1st July 1999.

    Your Majesty, on behalf of the people of Scotland, I thank you for the gift of the Mace.

    This is a symbol of the great democratic tradition from which we draw our inspiration and our strength. At its head are inscribed the opening words of our founding statute: `There shall be a Scottish Parliament’.

    Through long years, those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise. Now they are a reality.

    This is indeed a moment anchored in our history. Today, we reach back through the long haul to win this Parliament, to the struggles of those who brought democracy to Scotland, to that other Parliament dissolved in controversy over 300 years ago.

    Today, we look forward to the time when this moment will be seen as a turning point: the day when democracy was renewed in Scotland, when we revitalised our place in this our United Kingdom.

    This is about more than our politics and our laws. This is about who we are, how we carry ourselves.

    In the quiet moments today, we might hear some echoes from the past: the shouts of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyard; the speak of the Mearns, rooted in the land; the discourse of the Enlightenment, when Edinburgh and Glasgow were a light held to the intellectual light of Europe; the wild cry of the Great Pipe; and back to the distant noise of the battles of the days of Bruce and Wallace.

    The past is part of us, part of every one of us and we respect that, but today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament. A voice to shape Scotland, a voice above all for the future.

    Walter Scott wrote that only a man with soul so dead could have no sense, no feel for his native land. For me, and I suspect also for every Scot, today is a proud moment: a new stage of the journey begun long ago and which has no end. This is a proud day for all of us.

    A Scottish Parliament, not an end: a means to greater ends. And those, too, are part of our Mace. Woven into its symbolic thistles are these four words: `Wisdom. Justice. Compassion. Integrity’.

    Burns would have understood that. We have just heard – beautifully sung – one of his most enduring works. And that half of the song is a very Scottish conviction: that honesty and simple dignity are priceless virtues, not imparted by rank or birth or privilege but part of the soul.

    Burns believed that sense and worth ultimately prevail. He believed that was the core of politics and that without it, our profession is inevitably impoverished.

    Wisdom, justice, compassion, integrity; timeless values. Honourable aspirations for this new forum of democracy born on the cusp of a new century.

    We are fallible, we all know that. We will make mistakes. But I hope and I believe we will never lose sight of what brought us here: the striving to do right by the people of Scotland; to respect their priorities; to better their lot; and to contribute to the common weal.

    I look forward to the days ahead and I know there will be many of them when this chamber will sound with debate, argument and passion. When men and women from all over Scotland will meet to work together for a future built on the first principles of social justice.

    But today, we pause and reflect. It is a rare privilege in an old nation to open a new Parliament. Today is and must be a celebration of the principles, the traditions, the democratic imperative which has brought us to this point and will sustain us in the future.

  • Donald Dewar – 1999 Speech after Winning Glasgow Anniesland

    donalddewar

    Below is the text of the speech made by Donald Dewar after winning the seat of Glasgow Anniesland in the Scottish Parliament on 6th May 1999.

    I wish to thank the Returning Officer, members of his staff, stewards, police and the emergency services. I want to thank them for the long hours put in tonight, for the smoothness and efficiency of the count.

    It’s been a long night, an historic night in many ways, but this important stage in our country’s story also depends on the work that these services do, and I thank them.

    Counting not one but two ballots seems to me, perhaps, to be a cruel and unnatural punishment but I, of course, also recognise there is more in store tomorrow, so I do thank them for their good temper, and for their skill and expertise.

    I also want to thank my opponents who fought a very – I was going to say tolerant, but they might resent that – but very civilised contest in the Anniesland seat.

    But especially I want to thank my constituents in Anniesland, they have given me great support over the years, they have become friends in that period and I’m very, very grateful.

    I also want to thank my election agent John Robertson and his team, and all the Labour party workers. It’s always difficult conducting a campaign, maintaining momentum, maintaining enthusiasm when the candidate inevitably is away for very lengthy periods of time in other parts of Scotland. They did it magnificently, and I must say from all accounts from all the people who have spoken to me, they did an absolutely first class job.

    We are starting to see the emergence, ladies and gentleman, a picture of the new Scotland. But it would be premature for me to speculate about its final form – we will need to wait a bit longer and into the morning.

    The first six words of the Scotland Act read simply: There shall be a Scottish Parliament – and with those six simple words, Scottish politics are forever changed.

    I am proud that my party – and I am proud personally – to be associated with that change. Because of those six simple words voted for tonight, Scotland is a very different place.

    Let’s look at this night and see it as a key point in the democratic renewal of the British constitution and its civil institutions, that began with the election of a Labour government in May 1997.

    I want to pay tribute to Tony Blair, whose unstinting support was an enormously important part of the process of achieving that Parliament and delivering that Parliament.

    I also want to remember my friend, the late John Smith. I think he would have been very proud to see this happening now, see this Parliament elected safely tonight and he would have realised that indeed the central will of the Scottish people was being achieved.

    We are on our way to building the sort of new Scotland we have always wanted, for the sort of new Britain we have also wanted.

    So let all of us in Scotland begin this morning, after a time for rest and perhaps a time for calculation, and maybe even a time for counting, let us start building the new Scotland – remembering on all sides that civility is not a sign of weakness.

    Let us together work for those who have placed their trust in us, the Scottish people.

    This is our first democratic Parliament in Scotland for some 300 years, our people have waited for it, our people deserve it, we must give them what they want, we must struggle to deliver their legitimate ambitions, their hopes

    I pledge myself to do so and I look forward immensely to the period that lies ahead. Thank you very much for your support, thank you the people of Anniesland.