UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2001

  • Menzies Campbell – 2001 Speech to Liberal Democrat Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Menzies Campbell, the then Party Foreign Affairs spokesman, to the Liberal Democrat Party Conference in Bournemouth on 26 September 2001.

    With the exception of some ritual skirmishing over the single currency, Foreign Affairs were noticeably absent from the general election campaign of 2001.

    Foreign Affairs hardly seemed to register in the collective mind of the British electorate.

    But as the events of two weeks ago show, there is no other area where policy is more influenced by external events over which we have no control, than the conduct of our relations with other countries and institutions.

    It has become trite to claim that “the world will never be the same again” or that we have reached a “defining moment” or that we have reached a “watershed”.

    We do not know any of these things are true.

    But what is true is that before the 11th of September there were and still remain foreign policy issues which are urgent and acute;

    Such as our military commitments in the Balkans and Sierra Leone;

    The proper British response to American proposals for ballistic missile defence;

    Or the impact of the slowdown in the Japanese economy on the inward investment upon which 65,000 jobs in the United Kingdom depend;

    Or the political and economic consequences of remaining outside the single currency.

    We have not suspended all political activity in the United Kingdom since 11th September but I sense that the electorate has little stomach for the partisan political exchanges which normally characterise the party conference season – and that least of all in Foreign Affairs.

    So, let me today adopt a more reflective tone and try to set out a purely Liberal Democrat view of Foreign Affairs – leaving others to conclude how and to what extent that view conflicts with the policies of the other parties.

    Our aim must be to offer a clear, constructive and credible foreign policy in which, by means of effective international and regional organisations, we can help to promote prosperity, peace and freedom, combat poverty and disease, and tackle global environmental problems.

    Our natural inclination is towards internationalism – celebrating diversity, recognising that state borders provide no defence to environmental threats – accepting that the desperation of asylum seekers knows no boundaries – always holding to an unwavering commitment to the universality of human rights.

    Freedom should not be the prerogative of the well governed, the well off, or the well connected.

    A Liberal Democrat view embraces freedom from want and disease, freedom from oppression and fear, freedom of assembly and expression.

    In short – a foreign policy with an ethical dimension.

    But neither we nor any other country will fashion a foreign policy which meets these objectives unless by multilateral action; by acknowledging our dependence and by supporting international institutions; by collective and not unilateral action.

    If the events of the last two weeks have taught us anything it is surely that no nation however powerful can hope to defend its citizens or seek redress on their behalf unless it acts in concert with those of like mind.

    However much a sense of national pride may seduce us to believe we have the ability to stand alone, the truth is that our survival depends on our allies and our alliances.

    It is no accident that in seeking legitimacy for prospective military action, the USA was compelled to seek the support of the United Nations, of NATO and of the EU.

    It is no surprise that in order to maintain the coalition of support it has gone outside even of these institutions to try to forge an alliance of those who will look neutrally, at least, on a military response.

    In renouncing unilateralism the USA has been compelled to cede to allies old, new and improbable, a measure of influence over its own decision-making.

    When we argue as we have for a military response based on clear intelligence, precise and proportionate to the need, and consistent with the principles of international law this is not an over-cautious response, as it is crudely characterised by some, it is no more than the cement necessary to keep together the newly constructed coalition.

    Abandon these principles and the coalition will be impossible to maintain.

    Such ad hoc coalition may be a matter for congratulation, even astonishment, but it is no substitute for the permanent coalition of interests which a reformed, effective and fully funded United Nations would provide.

    The mechanism for crisis management needs to be in place before the crisis erupts.

    The United Nations will only fulfil these aspirations when it commands the unqualified support of all the nations, no matter how powerful.

    A system of international justice will only be effective if all nations no matter how powerful accept the universal jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court.

    And if we put our trust in a reformed and revitalised United Nations we must here also assert our belief in the web of mutually reinforcing treaties for arms control and disarmament which have maintained the strategic balance.

    We are not signatories to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, but we have been its beneficiaries and we have a legitimate interest in the stability it brings and the consequences of its abrogation.

    We are entitled to call upon the declared nuclear powers to fulfil their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    We support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty – we want all nuclear powers to do so too.

    Landmines and biological weapons verification, measures to control the global trade in small arms and the Kyoto protocol – how shall we make a success of these unless we approach them from a collective and not a unilateralist standpoint?

    Today is the 15th day after the events in Washington and New York, but it is also the 30th day of NATO’s operation to collect up weapons in Macedonia – a collective successful action in which the United Kingdom has played a prominent and leading part.

    But if we are to go on playing such a role – if we are to go on being a force for good – if we are to assert and implement the right of humanitarian intervention where there are systematic breaches of human rights, I simply do not believe that we can do all this on the existing defence budget.

    I lost the argument inside our party for a commitment to increase defence spending in our budget proposals for the general election.

    But I was in good company.

    So did Iain Duncan Smith and Geoff Hoon.

    No UK political party campaigned in the General Election on the footing of increasing defence spending.

    And yet every party wants the armed forces to do more, to be better equipped, better manned, to make a better contribution to our foreign policy objectives – just plain better.

    It can’t be done without better resources.

    The Labour Government’s Strategic Defence Review was supposed to provide conceptual stability for defence policy and it largely succeeded.

    But without adequate resources to match its objectives we shall be driven to a further review before long.

    We shall find it difficult to deal with turbulence abroad if the armed forces are facing financial turbulence at home.

    And finally let me turn to Europe.

    A party of reform in Britain has to be a party of reform in Europe.

    Better scrutiny, better control of expenditure, less waste, less bureaucracy, more subsidiarity, more transparency.

    Our commitment to Europe will not survive sceptical challenge unless it is accompanied by frank acknowledgement of Europe’s weaknesses and credible proposals to put them right.

    But let us acknowledge the burgeoning foreign policy influence of the European Union.

    In its achievements as a partner with Nato in Macedonia and its mature political response to President Bush, it is coming of age in foreign affairs.

    These last two weeks have been a curious time in foreign affairs.

    So much of what seemed certain has been disproved.

    So much of what we took for granted has been destroyed.

    In uncertain times a political party confronts challenges by rigorous adherence to its principles.

    Be in no doubt, our principles and our resolve will be tested as never before.

  • Theresa May – 2001 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    theresamay

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the then Shadow Education Secretary, to the Conservative Spring Forum held on 4 March 2001.

    It is clear from everything that has been said in this session, and from what I see in the schools I visit across the country that what we need now in education is a ‘radical approach – one that focuses on the best interests of children, that understands the purpose of education, that recognises the importance of diversity and choice, and that liberates schools from constant interference by the state.’

    Not my words, but those of the former Chief Inspector of Schools Chris Woodhead.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the next Conservative Government will provide that radical approach.

    Anyone who visits schools, who sees teachers inundated with paperwork, disruptive children in classes damaging the education of others, schools on a four day week and children being taught by unqualified staff will know that on education this Labour Government is all spin and no delivery.

    When Tony Blair promised education, education, education no-one knew he meant the number of days a week children would be in school.

    It’s no wonder parents are saying – We’ve paid the taxes so where are the teachers?

    But Labour are not just failing to deliver, they are incapable of delivering because they are more interested in spinning to get headlines than they are in the needs of children.

    They promised to spend a greater proportion of the national income on education than the last Conservative Government. They have spent less.

    They promised smaller class sizes. Secondary class sizes have gone up and the pupil teacher ratio in primary schools has gone up.

    They promised to cut bureaucracy. Instead they have deluged schools with endless Whitehall directives and initiatives – from the beginning of last year teachers received a directive a day from the Government.

    Instead of giving more say to parents they have handed more power to local politicians and bureaucrats by scrapping our hugely successful grant maintained schools system.

    They promised to raise teacher morale. Instead teachers are leaving in droves because they are utterly fed up with Blunkett’s bureaucratic burdens and constant interference from the centre.

    And instead of leaving dogma behind they have vigorously pursued their vendetta against grammar schools.

    These are the realities of what Labour has done to education in this country.

    What can we expect from Labour if they get back in.

    More spin, more Whitehall schemes, more paperwork, more disruptive pupils in class, more political correctness,

    But fewer special schools, fewer grammar schools, fewer school sixth forms, fewer teachers,

    Lower standards, larger classes and an education system aimed at turning out politically correct citizens with no idea of the history and culture of their own country.

    Four years on we know the black hole between the rhetoric and reality of Labour.

    When Tony Blair says he wants more private sector involvement in education, we know more power will be given to local politicians and bureaucrats.

    When Tony Blair says he wants a better deal for teachers, we know the Government will continue to stifle the creativity and flair of teachers with a never-ending stream of directives from Whitehall.

    When Tony Blair says he wants more diversity we know he will destroy the grammar schools through Labour’s vindictive ballots.

    And when Tony Blair’s spokesman says it is the end of the bog-standard comprehensive we know the monolithic comprehensive system with no choice for parents is safe under Labour.

    In contrast, Conservatives are ready to deliver a better education for our children, to deliver common sense not dogma.

    We are ready to trust heads and teachers to get on with the job. We are ready to give parents real choice.

    Because we will set schools free and let teachers teach.

    If you had been with me when I visited a school in Lambeth last week I could have shown you exactly what we mean when we say we will set schools free.

    The school was in one of the poorer areas of London. Violent crime there is three times the national average. In 1995 only 1 per cent of pupils came out of that school with 5 good GCSEs.

    But after gaining its freedom under the last Conservative Government through grant maintained status the school improved beyond all recognition.

    A report by Ofsted two years ago said it had made excellent improvement.

    Almost a quarter of the pupils there now leave with 5 GCSEs at A to C and its continuing to improve and they’ve had their first Oxbridge entrant – tell that to Gordon Brown.

    So what happened to turn this school around?

    I’ll tell you.

    We got rid of interference by local politicians and bureaucrats and replaced them with strong leadership from the head.

    We made sure that teachers had the freedom to use their creativity and excellence to inspire the children.

    The school has now developed its own distinct set of values. It has a strict code of discipline, it has its own uniform – a symbol of pride in the school – and it is now extremely proud of its sporting achievements.

    Above all there is a real sense of team spirit among the staff, the pupils and their parents.

    It is these things that make schools a success.

    But Labour has already scrapped the school’s grant maintained status – putting it back under the LEA. And we can be sure that a second Labour term would mean further attacks on all that this and other schools like it have achieved.

    Conservatives on the other hand want to make sure that all schools can benefit from freedom from political interference.

    That’s what we mean when we say we will set all schools free.

    Free Schools will be able to control their own destiny and as with grant maintained schools the quality of life for all in the school will improve. In Free Schools we will see heads, teachers, other staff and governors blossoming as they are able to use their expertise and judgement directly to innovate, to raise standards, to inspire pupils and to make a real difference to the education of children.

    Free Schools mean that, once again, heads will be allowed to enforce discipline in their schools. They will be allowed to exclude pupils who are disrupting the education of the majority of pupils.

    This Government is stifling the creativity and excellence of our teachers. Today they are form-fillers. Teachers will be teachers under the Conservatives.

    Free Schools will mean not only that teachers are allowed to teach, but also that money that is currently wasted on bureaucracy will go directly to schools. Getting money out of central and local government direct to schools will mean on average £540 extra per pupil per year.

    Labour are all spin and no delivery.

    They promised much before the last general election. They have delivered rising class sizes, a national crisis of teacher shortages and schools on a four day week.

    We have listened to parents, teachers and pupils all over the country.

    They’re fed up with Labour and they know its time for common sense policies.

    Education needs a government that trusts teachers and parents, that understands that children are different and their education should reflect their needs, that recognises that education is valuable in its own right and wants all to have the opportunity to develop their full potential.

    Above all we need a government that will set schools free, let teachers teach and give our children the education they need and deserve.

    Conservatives are ready to deliver.

  • Francis Maude – 2001 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Francis Maude to the Conservative Spring Forum held on 4 March 2001.

    Thank you, Edward, for your introduction. As you say, we at Westminster and the MEPs have never worked so closely together. We’re part of one team. Working together for our high common purpose, under William’s leadership.

    We must never again allow our party to disable itself by infighting and division. You, our party in the country, would never forgive us if we did. And I pay tribute to Edward’s leadership in Brussels. Never-resting, ever-working; you and your team of MEPs just don’t let up. Probing, questioning, amending; spearheading Conservative plans for real Brussels reform. And you’re a daily reminder to us all.

    Back in 1999, before the European elections no one gave us a prayer. The pollsters and the pundits: they were all the same. But we never gave up. Calmly and relentlessly we carried our message out to the public. And we won a terrific victory. We confounded the pollsters then. We showed – all of us working together – that we can do it – and, yes, we can do it again.

    By God we need to. Because this wretched Government has let the country down so badly. Remember Labour’s promises back in 1997? Robin Cook and his so-called ethical foreign policy. How Labour were going to stand up for Britain in Europe. Tony Blair’s love for the pound. His promise to slay the dragon of the European superstate. They failed to deliver.

    Well, it didn’t last long, did it? It was – yes, it really was – all spin and no delivery. Ethical foreign policy. Take Robin Cook’s famous ethical foreign policy. I spent last weekend, in Zimbabwe. I met some of the bravest people it has ever been my privilege to meet. I met residents in Harare’s high density areas who see their freedoms and jobs disappearing. I met farmers who have been thrown casually thrown off their farms. I met their workers who have been dispossessed of their homes and livelihoods. I met lawyers, and let’s face it, Zimbabwe’s judges are the last redoubt of the rule of law. I met Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Opposition Movement for Democratic Change, whose offices have been bombed, whose activists are beaten up and murdered, who himself lives in daily threat of his life.

    I saw a desperate Zimbabwe. Yet all we hear from this Labour Government is the sound of silence. Their silence is Britain’s shame. Ethical foreign policy? Labour have squandered Britain’s moral authority.

    I tell you this: I think Britain should stand for something in the world. I think Britain should stand up for the rule of law, stand up for free speech, stand up against tyranny.

    So we will speak out. We will lead international opinion, work with Zimbabwe’s neighbours. We will target those people who keep Mugabe in power. We will push for a travel ban on Mugabe’s associates and a freeze on their overseas assets. We will instigate international investigations into their history of murderous wrongdoing. The message will once again ring out across the world: Britain does not appease dictators.

    No one who heard James Mawdsley earlier could have any doubt: the love of freedom and hatred of tyranny burns as strongly in British hearts as it ever has.

    And we will revive that great global network of shared history and common values, the Commonwealth. Conservatives are proud of the Commonwealth. It covers a third of the globe; it unites people of different races, creeds and continents. Our Commonwealth Commission is examining ways in which it can be transformed into a modern and dynamic network organisation, promoting the values of the rule of law, the open economy and democracy.

    We’ll support our American allies in developing a missile Defence system that will give us protection against the Saddam Husseins of this world. And we will ensure that Britain’s armed forces, among the best in the world, are not hamstrung by the faddish imposition of political correctness. Somehow, I just feel that anyone who suggests that to Iain Duncan Smith will get a pretty brisk response.

    Labour: all spin, and no delivery. Tony Blair’s love for the pound? It was a love that didn’t even survive election day morning. Standing up for Britain? So far, at Amsterdam and more recently at Nice, Labour have scrapped Britain`s veto in no fewer than 54 areas. In a rare moment of honesty, Tony Blair admitted that the Working Time Directive was `over the top`. Now, thanks to him, there’s nothing we can do about it. Because Britain no longer has a veto. Because when it comes to it, Tony Blair and his colleagues simply don’t believe in Britain. They don’t understand how Britain can survive and thrive as an independent self-governing country. So they went along with a European Army entirely separate from NATO. Nothing wrong with greater European defence co-operation. We strongly favour it. But it should be within NATO, not outside it. As the Americans now realise, what is being constructed here threatens the future of NATO. We will never allow that.

    And Labour say none of it matters. The European Army is not an army. No? With 60,000 soldiers on standby? Expected to operate as far away as Central Asia? It’s anchored in NATO, they claim. Absolutely untrue, as anyone who examines the documents will confirm. They’ve created an EU Military Committee, an EU Military Staff. Nothing to do with NATO. Indeed, the agreement makes crystal clear that Euro Army operations must remain under EU control at all times. Romano Prodi, as so often, let the cat out of the bag. The European Army, he said, is ‘a milestone in the creation of a united political Europe’.

    And Labour have agreed a Charter of Fundamental Rights, binding in law, which will enable the Luxembourg Court to impose changes in British law without our consent. The Charter of Rights is no more important than the Beano, says the egregious Mr Vaz. Yes, Mr Vaz, we’re really going to take your word for it. Happily the European Commission have been a bit more honest. They say, and they’re right, that it will be mandatory.

    So don`t believe a word Labour says. It’s all spin. They don’t deliver. And they’ll never deliver. Because they simply don`t believe in Britain.

    And no-one should have any illusions about what Labour would do if they won a second term. First, they’ll scrap the pound as soon as they think they can get away with it. And let no-one be taken in with the promise of a referendum. There is as much chance of this being a even-handed referendum as there is of Robin Cook winning an award for humility. With the rules rigged to ensure that the campaign to scrap the pound is allowed to spend millions more than the campaign to keep the pound; with the watchdog Commission being prevented from insisting that the question is fair? Forget it.

    There’s only one way to be sure of keeping the pound. It’s by voting Conservative.

    And that’s not all. Another Labour Government, eagerly backed up by their LibDem lapdogs, would take Britain ever further down the one way street towards the European superstate.

    Here’s an early indication of what’s in store. On 8 May, the Party of European Socialists, of which the Labour Party forms part, will launch a new group. Its name? The New Federalists. Its aim? The Political Union of Europe, and a federation of its states and peoples. Lucky we spotted that one, because something tells me that we wouldn’t have heard about it from Robin Cook or Tony Blair.

    So it’s clear what Labour would do. And it’s not what the British public want. The mainstream majority agree with us. The mainstream majority believe in Britain. They want to be in Europe, not run by Europe. But they think we’re already run by Europe more than they like. There are people who think it’s somehow inevitable that Britain will lose more and more of her powers. That we can only go further and faster down the road to the European superstate. It doesn’t have to be like that. It is only inevitable if Britain lets it happen.

    A Conservative Government will stop the slide to the superstate. And we’ll make sure that in future Britain is run by Europe less than we are today. After all, what other organisation in today’s world is centralising more and more? What business, what international organisation today thinks that the answer is to force more and more decision through the same central meatgrinder?

    We have to move away from the old outdated one size fits all dogma. That belongs to the era of the Cold War, the bloc era. This is the age of the network. We have to reform the EU to make it a modern network organisation. We need a modern multi-system European Union, with different countries working together in different combinations for different purposes.

    So at the first European summit after the election, William and I are going to have a pretty full agenda. Working to bring the European army back within NATO. We will not undermine the military alliance that has kept our world safe and free for fifty years. We make you this pledge. The next Conservative Government will only allow British troops to serve in a European Rapid Reaction Force if it operates within NATO’s command structure.

    Then starting to renegotiate the Common Agricultural Policy. It is absurd that everything still gets decided at EU level. There is growing support in Europe for our policy that much more should be decided at national level. The same with the Common Fisheries Policy. This outdated failure of a policy has got to change. Why should the management of the North Sea fisheries be decided by Greece and Italy, when the Mediterranean isn’t even part of the CFP?

    And, yes, we’ll renegotiate the Nice Treaty. We will not ratify a treaty that gives away Britain’s veto. We want enlargement of the EU, and we want it more quickly. The first wave should be admitted by 2004. It’s a scandal that more than 11 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall it hasn’t even started.

    And we’ll insist on a common sense Flexibility Clause that will make the EU function better. That’ll speed up enlargement, too. It is absurd to require every member state in an EU of nearly thirty countries to sign up to every dot and comma of every EU law there is. Outside the single market and other core areas, countries should be able to decide for themselves whether EU laws make sense for them.

    And there’ll be an end to the continual intrusion of the EU into areas beyond what Parliament agreed. In the first Parliamentary Session after the election, we will enact a Reserved Powers Bill that will guarantee that beyond the powers we intended to transfer, EU law will not override the will of Parliament.

    We don’t have to go ever further down the one-way street towards the superstate. Britain can choose. We can choose to keep the pound. We can choose that Britain will be in Europe. And really will be run by Europe less than we are today.

    This has been a tremendous gathering. A great party has met, knowing that on its shoulders rests the destiny of a great nation. A great nation, and a great people. A people sickened by a government that has abused their trust. A people who are crying out for leaders who deal fairly, who speak the truth. A great English poet once wrote ‘Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget. For we are the people of England, and we have not spoken yet.’

    Before long the people of Britain will speak. We will be their champions. We will be their voice. With William as our leader, we will be a government of which Britain can again be proud.

  • Michael Portillo – 2001 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Portillo, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Conservative Spring Forum held on 3 March 2001.

    I joined the Conservative Party just after Margaret Thatcher had become leader. I had a burning sense that we had to change Britain. We were overtaxed. The state was taking over people’s lives, making them dependent on government for handouts. But we let them keep more of what they earned, to take on more personal responsibility and have more choices in life.

    After four years of Labour government, we’re headed back to square one. We have a meddling, nannying government, and Labour’s stealth taxes have reduced people’s independence.

    Gordon Brown’s taxes have fallen not on the rich, but on the people who have least. Families and pensioners are dismayed by the cost of petrol and the many sneaky ways he’s raised their income tax. He insulted pensioners with a miserly pension increase of just 75 pence. Having made them poorer with his taxes, he now forces more and more of them to rely on means-tested benefits.

    In Gordon Brown’s Britain well over half our pensioners will face the indignity of revealing all their personal details to the state, in the hope of being granted an income sufficient to pay the Chancellor’s taxes. The form they must fill in even asks if they are pregnant.

    There’s one party that doesn’t forget what we owe to the older generation. One party respects them for their experience and for the sacrifices they made. That party is the Conservative Party.

    We think it crazy to tax people more than they can afford and then make them bow the knee to the state for their basic needs. There’s a better way. We’ll allow people to keep more of their own money.

    Gordon Brown boasts of his surplus. It isn’t his. He’s got it because he’s taxed people so much that he’s outstripped even his own ability to spend our money. Even the government that brought us the Dome can’t waste money as fast as Gordon Brown taxes it. It isn’t Gordon’s surplus, it’s the people’s surplus. Government money is people’s money. And the Conservatives will render unto the people that which is the people’s.

    Everywhere people are disappointed that Labour’s broken its promises. But having failed to deliver, Labour promise more and more and further and further into the future. They promise a spending splurge. As prudent countries around the world wisely cut taxes Gordon’s cut loose on his programme of tax and spend.

    Would it mean still higher taxes? Would there be more stealth taxes, more raids on your pension fund and lower living standards for those on low incomes? You bet your life there would.

    We’ve set out a different way. Each year on average our economy grows. The national cake gets bigger. So each year we can spend more on vital public services, but also allow people to keep more of their own money. But to do that we must plan increases in government spending that the nation can afford. Plans that don’t depend on never-ending growth, as Gordon Brown’s promises do. Plans that are robust and prudent.

    William and I have established five disciplines that will govern the economic policy of a Hague Government. A Hague Government – I like the sound of that.

    First, we’ll ensure that Britain keeps its own currency and that interest rates are set in Britain.

    Second, we’ll increase the independence of the Bank of England.

    Third, we’ll set up an independent Committee of Economic Advisers to give open and public advice on our policies.

    Fourth, we’ll appoint a National Accounts Commission to lay down rules about the government’s accounts, bringing to an end Labour’s era of fiddling the books.

    Fifth, we’ll increase government spending only in line with what the country can afford.

    We can plan to spend as much as Labour on health and education. We don’t need to propose changes to spending on the police or defence. But we will make other changes, changes that improve the performance of government and of the economy and bring about social reform. We’ve set out the most detailed proposals on government spending ever drawn up by a party in opposition.

    We’ll tackle the reform of the welfare state that Labour has ducked. We’ll require single parents with children over eleven to seek work, because studies show that children brought up by a parent who works are much more likely later in life themselves to get jobs.

    We’ll cut programmes in the Department of Trade and Industry because what business needs isn’t more fiddly schemes but lower taxes and less regulation. We’ll transfer public housing to the private sector. We’ll revolutionise the system of student finance. We’ll implement the tough proposals to fight benefit fraud that this government rejected out of hand. And we’ll cut the cost of government.

    We have set out our proposals in minute detail. After two years we’ll be able to save £8 billion compared with Labour’s plans. After two years we can make £8 billion of tax cuts.

    Now, in the next few days you’ll hear the Chancellor talk of tax cuts too. Strange that. He’s spent four years relentlessly putting taxes up, but now suddenly he talks of tax cuts. Could it be there’s an election coming? Could it be he’s afraid we’re winning the argument? Could it be that once again the political agenda is being set by the Conservatives?

    The Chancellor can make tax cuts now simply because he’s over-taxed us. Whatever he gives us back will be small by comparison with what he’s already taken. Because the stealth taxes he’s imposed so far, if they’d been raised honestly and openly, would have raised income tax by 10 pence in the pound. Suppose next week he knocks 2 pence off income tax. He’d still be the 10 pence on, 2 pence off Chancellor.

    If we gave him the chance, once he’d won the election, he’d take back even that. So we’re not going to give him the chance.

    The tax cuts that we offer don’t depend just on today’s surplus. Our tax cuts would be durable and they’d be on top of anything Labour offers us now. We’ll make the tax cuts that Labour can’t because we’ll make the spending changes that Labour won’t.

    It’ll take us the first two years to turn government spending away from Labour’s unsustainable course. But once we’ve done that, we can look forward to more room for manoeuvre – more room for tax cuts.

    We Conservatives haven’t merely set out how we’d cut taxes. We’ve mapped out a way to change Labour’s culture, to create a society that’s fairer and more responsible. We’ve laid out a different vision for our country.

    We’ll abolish taxes on savings and shares. Most of the 17 million families that save will benefit and millions more will be encouraged to save for the first time.

    We’ll raise sharply the amount people over the age of 65 can earn before they pay income tax. Their allowance will rise by £2000 per year. A million pensioners will be taken out of income tax altogether. Most of the remaining 2.7 million will pay £8.50 per week less in income tax.

    Under our plans pensioners will be able to look back on a lifetime of saving and know they did the right thing and were rewarded for doing it.

    We want families with children also to keep more of their money. We’ll reform the new children’s tax credit scheme which is hopelessly bureaucratic. And we’ll make it more generous. We believe that families face the greatest strains when their children are very young. So we’ll allow families with children under five to keep an extra £200 a year of their own money.

    We’ll bring help to widows. We’ll sweep away most income tax on the allowances paid to a widowed parent, leaving her or him about £1000 a year better off.

    I know many parents who aren’t married who make great parents. I’m also aware that statistically children whose parents are married do better in life on average, and their parents are less likely to split up.

    Gordon Brown swept away support for marriage from the income tax system. But marriage is a civic institution: a contract with clear responsibilities. We believe the tax system should recognise it.

    We’ll give people who are married and have youngish children or disabled relatives an allowance worth £1000 a year. Parents will be relieved of some of the pressure to go out to work.

    Our plans help many different types of family. The Conservative Party believes in choice. We want parents – in particular we want women – to have more choice.

    The way we’ve targeted these tax cuts says a lot about this party, our sense of priorities and our aspirations for the British people.

    We’ll encourage personal responsibility. Because people who take responsibility for themselves are more likely to accept it for their families and to recognise their obligations to society. We’ll replace Gordon Brown’s means-tested dependency Britain with William Hague’s responsible society. Britain will be different under the Conservatives.

    One thing won’t change. Under the Conservatives Britain will keep the pound. Britain will remain amongst the huge majority of nations in the world who believe that in a highly competitive world they’ll do best if they have their own currency and set their own interest rates.

    By contrast, across Europe they’re trying to apply just one rate of interest to a wide variety of economies. The strains are beginning to show. Inflation in Ireland and Spain. Unemployment in Germany. Britain remembers only too well how we suffered under the ERM from an interest rate suited to Germany but not to Britain.

    We’re on the side of the moderate majority of the British people. During our Keep the Pound campaigns across the country, people have flocked to register their support. In particular they turned out to cheer a politician who took the campaign to high streets and market squares across Britain. One politician had the energy and guts to do it. His name is William Hague.

    Our job is not so much to convince people to keep the pound. The moderate majority agrees. Rather it’s to convince them that this election may be their last chance to vote to keep the pound.

    The prime minister has rigged the referendum rules. If Labour won the general election, then come the referendum the parties wanting to kill off the pound would be allowed to spend twice as much as we Conservatives would be allowed to spend defending it. The government would soften up public opinion by spraying around taxpayers’ money. And does anyone think that Mr Blair would allow the British public to be asked a straightforward question on the euro? You have more reason to believe in Santa Claus.

    The question would be Do you authorise the government to negotiate the best terms for entry into monetary union when it judges the time and terms to be right? That’d be the question if we were lucky.

    People know there’s more at stake than economics. I referred before to that moment in the New Testament, when Christ held up a coin and asked “Whose head and insignia are on this coin?” The answer was Caesar’s, so render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. My point is that right back to Biblical times people have known that there’s a very close connection between the currency and political power. The Queen’s head appears on Britain’s coins. There’s a reason for that. Her head wouldn’t appear on the euro. There’s a reason for that too. Just think about it.

    If the pound matters to you, if you believe in keeping it, if you haven’t given up on Britain, the only way to be sure is to elect a Conservative government under William Hague.

    I think back to those early days of Margaret Thatcher. I remember our preparations for government then and I’m part of those preparations today. I believe that under William Hague we’re radical today, just as we were radical then.

    We’re willing to show how we’d change the role and scope of the state in order to have lower taxes, to make Britain competitive and allow people more personal choice.

    First, we’ll set our universities free from state control. We’ll use future windfalls to the government to endow our great universities. They’ll no longer need to rely on a drip feed from the state. They’ll be free to attract Nobel Prize winners, to direct their research towards innovation and like a Stanford or a Harvard in the United States, provide the British economy with a huge dynamic stimulus.

    Second, we want young people to have bigger pensions than pensioners have today. At present we all contribute to the national insurance fund throughout our working lives and we get a pension of £67 at the end of it. With the single exception of Robert Maxwell, this must be the greatest pension rip-off of all time. The national insurance fund isn’t a fund at all. The money paid in this year goes straight out to pay this year’s pensions. It’s never invested and never grows.

    We should do better. If we allowed our young people the option of putting their contributions into a properly-funded pension, they could carry through their lives something of real and growing value. It would be the modern day equivalent of buying their council house. And that would gradually relieve the enormous liability that will fall on future generations of taxpayers.

    Third, we’re committed to increase spending sharply on the National Health Service. But we don’t pretend that’s going to get Britain up to the standards of health care that people rightly demand. Now what I’m about to say may come as a surprise from me; but in this area we need to become more like the rest of Europe. Yes, you heard it here first.

    Our European partners don’t try to meet all their health needs from taxation alone. They know it can’t be done. They recruit their trades unions and employers to help get their members and employees insured. That way more money pours into health care. We need to do the same, to create a better partnership between public and private sectors, allowing us to have more hospitals and train more doctors and nurses. It’s the only way Britain will have the health care it deserves.

    This party doesn’t rest easy with things as they are. We don’t shy away from far-reaching change. The Conservative Party of today has the courage to look ahead and be radical.

    Labour believes after all these years that society can be made better by government, passing laws, centralising power, issuing directives and raising taxes. Conservatives don’t look to governments to make society better, we look to people.

    We look forward to winning people’s trust and to being in office. We’ll give responsibility back to people: we’ll put trust in our police officers, in our head teachers and our doctors and nurses; and return responsibility to people who save, to pensioners and to parents.

    We’ve set out our policies. They’re Conservative through and through, but they’re Conservatism for our times. They reinforce our long held values, but they’re directed to this new century.

    Our policies will give people choices, leave them with more of their own money and reward them for their efforts. Our policies point the way to a better Britain.

  • Ann Widdecombe – 2001 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ann Widdecombe, the then Shadow Home Secretary, to the Conservative Spring Forum held on 3 March 2001.

    Four years on, they have failed to deliver. Instead, they’ve been tough on the crimefighters. There are 2,500 fewer police since 1997. 6,000 fewer special constables. The Chairman of the Police Federation says that morale is the worst he has ever seen it.

    They’ve been tough on the victims of crime. Remember what their manifesto pledged? That they would ‘ensure that victims are kept fully informed of the progress of their case’. But just this week, Labour’s so-called 10 Year Crime Plan said, ‘Victims and witnesses want to be kept informed. Current performance is not good enough.’

    What a damning indictment of their own record. An admission that they have failed to deliver on their promises.

    This week Labour made a new set of promises in their so-called Crime Plan. They’ve failed to deliver on the promises they made last time – their solution is to make yet another set of promises.

    But let’s take their record into consideration. Broken promise after broken promise. In 1995, Tony Blair said Labour would put ‘thousands more police officers on the beat’. Instead there are 2,500 fewer officers. In 1997, Tony Blair said his child curfew orders would prevent ‘young children wandering the streets at night, getting into trouble, growing into a life of criminality’. Result? Not one child curfew has ever been made. Not a single child has been turned away from a life of criminality. Their manifesto pledged to support the police – but 250 criminals who have assaulted police officers have served less than one third of their prison terms on Labour’s special early release scheme.

    This week, Labour talked about tougher sentences. Don’t you believe it. They’ve already let more than 31,000 criminals out of jail up to 2 months earlier than normal on their special early release scheme. Under Labour, if you get six months, you’ll be out in six weeks. Even John Prescott gets through more of his sentences than that.

    And 1,000 extra crimes have been committed by those criminals, released early by Labour, when they should have been in prison. That’s Labour’s real approach – to let more and more prisoners out of jail earlier and earlier.

    The next Labour Government will give the ‘get out of jail free’ card to even more criminals. Last week, Jack Straw’s special adviser admitted in a leaked memo that their new sentencing plans involve 11,500 more criminals spending less time in prison each year – something he described as ‘a significant softening of sentencing arrangements’.

    Before the last election, Labour promised they’d be ‘tough on crime’. Now Jack Straw says that it depends on the criminals whether crime falls or not. An admission of failure.

    The next Conservative Government will go to war on the criminal as never before.

    Right now, the police force stands depleted and demoralised, burdened with bureaucracy and performance indicators. That has got to change, and fast. So the next Conservative Government will reverse Labour’s cuts in police numbers. We will ensure that they spend their time doing just what they joined up to do, and just what the people of this country want them to do – fighting crime.

    Our ‘cops in shops’ proposals will mean that more communities see their local police officers out and about. It’s a simple, common sense initiative. The officer doesn’t go back to the station to write up his reports, he writes them up in shops and other public places. This has a threefold advantage. First of all, he’s visible. Secondly, he can interact with the community. And thirdly, he is a deterrent.

    And we’re going to have a national police cadet force to make sure that more young people choose a career in the police, and to ensure that their first contact with the police is a positive, confidence-building experience. That’s Common Sense.

    Labour have admitted that they’ve broken their promises to victims and given them a raw deal. The next Conservative Government will change that. We’ll overhaul the law so that it’s on the side of the victim, not the criminal. And victims will be given new statutory rights. The right to a named police officer and lawyer as a point of contact. The right to be kept informed of progress in their cases. The right of access to files if they want to mount a private prosecution. We’ll put Victims First.

    Conservatives will put in place new laws to tackle drug dealers. Those who repeatedly deal to children will in future be given tough mandatory prison sentences. And why should we have laws which give the police powers to combat opium dens, but not crack houses?

    We’ll end Labour’s special early release scheme, under which thousands of robbers, burglars and drug dealers have served less time in prison. Honesty in sentencing will ensure that the sentence handed down in court is the sentence that is served. And when they’re in prison, rather than lying around in idleness, prisoners will do meaningful work, work from which money can be paid to support their families on the outside and as reparation to their victims. Young menaces will be taken off the streets, put into Secure Training Centres, and given a real chance to change.

    Labour will always spin and never deliver. They’ve broken the promises they made at the last election and now they’re making new promises to break after the next one.

    Let’s leave the final word to Jack Straw’s own political adviser, who says that Labour’s policy “doesn’t look very impressive”.

    There can only be one verdict on Jack Straw and Tony Blair: guilty as charged.

    There can only be one sentence passed on Labour: to be thrown out of office for a term of at least five years.

    The next Conservative Government will deliver. And with your help, we’ll win the next election and send the whole Labour Party down.

  • William Hague – 2001 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    williamhague

    Below is the text of the speech made by William Hague, the then Leader of the Opposition, to the Conservative Spring Forum on 4 March 2001.

    As we gather here this weekend, we think of our fellow members and friends who had planned to be with us today in Harrogate, but who have had to remain at home or on their farms.

    The thoughts and sympathy of the whole Conference are with all those whose livelihoods are at risk from the spread of the foot and mouth disease.

    The pall of black smoke from the funeral pyres of slaughtered animals across our nation today tells the desperate story of a countryside in crisis.

    I know from my own constituency that, for farmers already struggling in the depths of the worst agricultural depression for sixty years, this latest blow could not be more cruel or more bitter.

    We support all the Government is doing to eradicate the disease and we welcome the financial support they have announced.

    People have responded with calmness and restraint to this crisis. In postponing a protest in which they had invested months of preparation, the hundreds of thousands of people who were due to take part in the Countryside March for Liberty and Livelihood have shown great responsibility and courage.

    I believe it would show the nation’s solidarity with the countryside in this terrible hour if the Government were to suspend consideration of the Hunting Bill in Parliament at least until those who wish to protest against it are free to do so again.
    This morning we have also heard of a different kind of courage – the courage of one young man in a Burmese jail. James Mawdsley.

    We heard about his unwavering belief in freedom.

    We heard of his passionate commitment to democracy and hatred of oppression.

    We heard of his defiance in the face of the extraordinary efforts made to silence him.

    And we heard of his pride that he is part of this Conservative family.

    By his actions James Mawdsley reminded us of all that is best about our Party.

    We remember the enduring values that have run through two centuries of Tory history.

    The Tory values that stretch back to the days when Wilberforce freed the slaves, and Pitt led a war against tyranny, and Burke wrote his great tracts and Shaftsbury stood and watched the pauper’s funeral and dedicated his life to the poor.

    The values that animated the Conservative leaders of the Twentieth Century: the leadership of Winston Churchill, the resolve of Margaret Thatcher and the decency of John Major.

    All of us are proud to be part of this Conservative family.

    And the values that have shaped our past must also guide our future.

    The determination to fight for freedom and democracy.

    The resolve to protect our national independence.

    The courage to speak the truth in an age of spin and political correctness.

    The self confidence to fight for our beliefs even when the odds are against us and to fight so hard against those odds that we win.

    The boldness to fight the next election on the most ambitious Conservative programme for a generation.

    For we are going to go further than any government has ever gone before to hand back to individuals and families the ability to shape their own lives.

    At his Party’s Spring Conference, Tony Blair said that we were to blame for cynicism about politics. What a typically cynical attack from a man whose entire career has been built on one piece of cynicism after another.

    When a Cabinet Minister who is sacked for telling lies is re-appointed, in the face of every constitutional convention, only for the same man to be sacked again from the same Cabinet for the same offence by the same Prime Minister – no wonder the public are cynical about politics.

    When the Lord Chancellor violates the trust of his great office of state to solicit party donations from people whose careers he can control, and then says ‘I’m not sorry, and I’d do it again’ – no wonder the public think that power has gone to their heads.

    When we have a Deputy Prime Minister who tells people not to drive cars but has two Jags himself, and where the Minister who tells people not to have two homes turns out to have nine himself – no wonder the public believe politicians are hypocrites.

    And when the man who holds the highest office in politics will say anything and do anything to stay in power, when he thinks nothing of deceiving the public and Parliament, when he stuffs offices of the Crown with his cronies from Islington, breaking every promise on which he was elected, spinning yet another gimmick and yet another re-announcement in order to disguise his failure to deliver on anything at all – no wonder the public say they don’t trust their Government.

    This morning we read in the papers that, at the last election, the Labour Party hired American students to infiltrate our campaign.

    Well, we have a confession to make. They weren’t the only ones playing that game. We hired a bearded buffoon to infiltrate their campaign. But we never thought in our wildest dreams that he’d end up as Foreign Secretary.

    None of the worthless promises and miserable failure of Labour’s first term compares to what they have in store if we were to let them win again.

    Just imagine four more years of Labour. Try to picture what our country would look like.
    Let me take you on a journey to a foreign land – to Britain after a second term of Tony Blair.

    The Royal Mint melting down pound coins as the euro notes start to circulate. Our currency gone forever.

    The Chancellor returning from Brussels carrying instructions to raise taxes still further. Control over our own economy given away.

    The jail doors opening as thousands more serious criminals walk out early to offend again. Police morale at a new low.

    The price gauge on the petrol pump spinning ever faster as fuel taxes rise still further.

    Letters arriving on doorsteps cancelling yet another round of hospital operations under a Government that is all spin and no delivery.

    That’s Labour’s Britain four years from now.

    And if there are meant to be so many people enthusiastic for another four years of Labour, how come you never meet any of them?

    Labour’s Britain four years from now.

    Could anybody stomach it?

    The Dome still for sale.

    Peter Mandelson re-appointed to the Cabinet for a fourth time.

    The Liberals, on the edge of their seats, still convinced that a referendum on proportional representation is just around the corner.

    We’re not going to sit idly by and let this happen to our country.

    That’s why Michael Ancram has prepared us to fight the best organised, most vigorous, most spirited campaign we’ve ever fought in order to save Britain from this nightmare.

    We are going to say to all the people who have been hit by Labour’s stealth taxes: Can you afford another four years?

    To all the people who are still waiting for their operation: Can you really wait another four years?

    To all the people who are still waiting to see a policeman on their street: Can you really wait another four years?

    To all the parents who are waiting for better education: Can you really wait another four years?

    So we’re ready for the fight. We’re ready because of the changes you have made to our Party. We’re ready because of the victories that you have won in local and European elections.

    But above all we’re ready to speak for the people of Britain: for the mainstream majority who have no voice, for the hard-working people who feel they are ignored, for the men and women who despair that their country is being taken from them. We are not going to let them down.

    We’re ready and we can win.

    As the next election draws near, people are beginning only now to focus on what the two parties stand for.

    Well if there’s one thing above all that sets me apart from Tony Blair, it’s this: I’m not embarrassed to articulate the instincts of the British people.

    The governing of this country has drifted far away from the decent, plain speaking common sense of its people. Its time to bring it back. It’s time to bring Britain home.

    We have a Government that has contempt for the views of the people it governs.

    There is nothing that the British people can talk about, that this Labour Government doesn’t deride.

    Talk about Europe and they call you extreme. Talk about tax and they call you greedy. Talk about crime and they call you reactionary. Talk about asylum and they call you racist. Talk about your nation and they call you Little Englanders.

    This Government thinks Britain would be alright if only we had a different people.

    I think Britain would be alright, if only we had a different Government.

    A Conservative Government that speaks with the voice of the British people.

    A Conservative Government never embarrassed or ashamed of the British people.

    A Conservative Government that trusts the people.

    I trust the people.

    I trust the people on tax. People know that you can’t spend more than you have. And they know that that holds true for governments as well for them. It seems like common sense to you and me. But not to Gordon Brown.

    He’s already running up huge bills on your behalf. He’s promising to blow billions of pounds of your money. And what’s spent today will have to be paid for tomorrow.

    With Michael Portillo as Chancellor, Britain will spend no more than it can afford; and Britain will tax no more than it needs.

    We will scale back the waste and bureaucracy that has grown up like a fungus under this Government. We’ll cut the size of Whitehall and cut the number of politicians.

    I’m going to reduce the size of the Cabinet, cut the number of ministers, reduce the size of the House of Commons, campaign for a European Parliament with 100 fewer members, halve the number of political advisers, and abolish a huge swathe of Labour’s regional bureaucracies and agencies – and their offices in Brussels.

    It is the mission of the next Conservative Government to build the Responsible Society. That’s why I want to support the people who are trying to do the right thing.

    To the hard-working people who set a little bit aside each month, to provide for their children, or to fund their own retirement, I say: you should be rewarded not punished. You should be allowed to keep every penny of the interest on your savings. You’ve already paid tax on your money once; you shouldn’t have to do it twice. We’re going to make your savings tax free.

    And to the pensioners who have paid their contributions throughout their lives, and who now want the dignity of independence, I say: you have already done your bit. You shouldn’t have to go on paying. We’re going to take a million pensioners out of the tax system altogether.

    And to the younger people who don’t want to rely on the state in their retirement, I say: you should have the opportunity to build up your own pension fund. You should be able to use the National Insurance system to fund your own retirement. We’re going to give you the choice we never had to be independent of the Government.

    And to married couples, struggling and sacrificing to do their best for their children, I say: you are doing the right thing. You are providing the stable homes that children need. Your contribution should be recognised. That’s why we’re going to introduce a new Married Couple’s Allowance – a transferable allowance worth as much as £1000. It’s time we had a Government that supported the idea of marriage instead of doing everything it can to undermine it.

    Spending only what the country can afford, rewarding savings, encouraging independence, supporting marriage: people know that these things are common sense. And I trust the people.

    And I also trust our doctors and nurses and teachers and policemen. I say let them get on with their jobs without politicians peering over their shoulders.

    To the teacher weighed down with paperwork, I say: you’ve been messed around too often. You came into teaching to spend your time teaching children not filling in forms.

    Listen to Chris Woodhead, the former Chief Inspector of Schools: ‘David Blunkett has … wasted taxpayers’ money, distracted teachers from their real responsibilities and encapsulated the worst of the discredited ideology that has done so much damage since the 1960s. He has just not delivered. A generation of children has been betrayed’.

    The end of term report on a Labour Government. A generation of children has been betrayed.

    Labour have been listening for too long to the so-called experts who think that competition is a dirty word and that communicating facts to our children is elitist. Well, they’ve had their chance and, in all too many schools, we can see the result: poor discipline, declining standards and low expectations.

    Let’s not be afraid to speak the common sense truth: you can’t have high standards without good discipline.

    Let’s trust the common sense instinct that says that children need a structured day, that heads know most about their own school, and that teachers should be free to get on with teaching.

    When Theresa May is Education Secretary we’re going to set our schools free with their own admissions policies. Parents will get higher standards and a real choice about where to send their children. And teachers who run disciplined classrooms will get our support not end up in court.

    And what’s true for our schools is true for our hospitals. To the patient queuing up even to be allowed on to a waiting list, I say: you’ve waited long enough. Doctors, not politicians, should decide when you are treated.

    When Liam Fox is Health Secretary, there’ll be guaranteed waiting times and those with the most serious conditions will be treated first. Nurses will be nurses, not pen pushers. And instead of Labour’s dogmatic hostility to any form of private medicine, we’re going to expand the total health care available in the country by supporting instead of attacking those who take out personal medical insurance.

    People know that it’s just common sense. And I trust the people.

    And I trust the people on crime. Labour may dismiss the views of the mainstream majority as prejudiced and ignorant. They may scoff at our calls for punishment that fits the crime.

    But we know, and the British people know, that we will never defeat crime until we put more police on the street and given them the support they need to do their job.

    It seems common sense to you and me. But Labour, once again, prefers to listen to the self-appointed experts: to the liberal sociologists, who have so much to say about the rights of the criminal, and so little about the rights of the victim.

    I met a lady a few weeks ago on a housing estate in Newark who said to me: ‘I can’t remember when I last saw a policeman on my street. And I’m frightened to go out after 5 o’clock’.

    I say to her: every street should be safe. And to the people who feel that their own town centres are closed to them on a Friday night, I say: we will crack down on violence and yobbery.

    We will stop releasing prisoners early. We will reverse Labour’s cuts in police numbers. We will support our police where Labour has undermined them.

    And we will take on the compensation culture that pays out thousands of pounds to IRA terrorists who shoot their way out of jail. Such payments insult the victims of terrorism and disgrace our country: I believe it is an outrage.

    The people of Britain want a Home Secretary who will give them back their streets. They want a Home Secretary who will speak up for the victim, not the criminal. Ann Widdecombe will be that Home Secretary.

    And it’s common sense that when we’re dealing with an international trade in asylum seekers, we should make Britain a safe haven not a soft touch.

    So to the law-abiding citizen, who wants to help those genuinely fleeing persecution, but who also wants fairness in the system, I say: we will sort out the asylum crisis. The next Conservative Government will assess the validity of asylum claims within weeks, not years. And, where applications are unfounded, immediate deportation will follow.

    This country must always offer sanctuary to those fleeing from injustice – Conservative Governments always have, and always will. But it’s precisely those genuine refugees who are finding themselves elbowed aside by claimants who have been rehearsed in how to play the system.

    Once again, Labour despises the opinions of the people it is supposed to represent.

    But we trust the people. They are not bigoted or ungenerous. They understand that Britain has responsibilities to those who have been displaced by war or persecution. But they can also read maps. And they can tell that something is going badly wrong when tens of thousands of people are crossing the entire length of the European Continent, travelling through safe countries en route, before suddenly lodging an asylum claim in Britain.

    And they can tell that something is going badly wrong when desperate people hide in the undercarriage of high speed trains to get through the Channel Tunnel.

    We will clear up Labour’s asylum mess. We will welcome genuine refugees, but we will be a safe haven not a soft touch.

    That is not bigotry. It’s plain common sense. People know it. And I trust the people.

    Above all, the people of Britain believe in their country. They are not narrow nationalists. They are not xenophobes. But they take pride in what our country has achieved.

    No country has contributed as we have to the freedom of mankind. Through the centuries, we have aligned ourselves with the cause of nationhood everywhere. In the Nineteenth Century, we sponsored the independence of Italy and Greece and Hungary, and we nurtured the freedom of the South American Republics. In the Twentieth Century, we twice fought for the cause of all nations against tyranny.

    We introduced the world to free trade. We carried law and freedom to new continents. These were our achievements as a sovereign and united country. And they are achievements that we should be proud to teach in our schools.

    But now we have a government that scorns and despises all the things that have made our country what it is. A government that holds Britishness cheap.

    You can see it in their failure to defend the Union of the United Kingdom.

    It is because we believe in the Union that we have accepted the wishes of the peoples of Scotland and Wales to have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. But there is a logical consequence, also vital to the survival of the Union.

    In the opening days of our administration, we will change the rules so that when matters that only affect England come before the House of Commons only MPs from England will vote.

    And we have a Labour Government that scorns and despises the very Parliament to which they were elected.

    Prime Minister’s Questions reduced to once a week. The Speaker driven to complain because announcements are being leaked to the press, not made at the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister and his MPs rarely even in the Chamber. Parliament’s powers parceled out in every direction – outwards to Brussels, downwards to the devolved assemblies, sideways to our judges through the Human Rights Act.
    Now, Tony Blair intends to give up the first and greatest of Parliament’s prerogatives, namely the right to control revenue.

    Within two years of winning an election, Tony Blair would force this country into the euro.

    It’s true that he’s had to promise us a referendum. But who will set the terms of that referendum? Tony Blair. Who will decide when to hold it? Tony Blair. Who will draft the question? Tony Blair.

    If anyone believes that we’ll be allowed a free and fair vote, just take a look at the way in which Labour have already rigged the rules.

    They’ve given themselves the right to use the Government’s resources to push for a “Yes” vote. They’ve fixed artificial spending limits, to give the “Yes” campaign a huge financial advantage. They’ve even written in a special exemption so that the “Yes” campaign can receive money from elsewhere in the EU.

    They’ll spend every pound they can lay their hands on, until there’s no Pound left at all. And I say to everyone who believes in our country: make no mistake about it, this election is your last chance to keep the Pound.

    And it’s your last chance to vote for a Britain that still controls its own destiny. Labour and their Liberal lapdogs have said that if they win the election, they will ratify the Nice Treaty, and establish a European constitution and the start of an EU legal system. And they’ll agree to the European Army.

    If taxes and defence policy and even criminal justice were run from Brussels, what would be left for Westminster? What would be the point of holding elections here?

    That is why the next election will be different. Because we won’t just be voting for the next government. We’ll be voting on whether the British Crown in Parliament should remain supreme in Britain. We’ll be voting to decide whether our people will remain sovereign their own country.

    With Francis Maude as Foreign Secretary, the next Conservative Government will defend the independence and integrity of our country. We will renegotiate the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy because, as Francis said, these outdated and failed policies have got to change.
    And our Reserved Powers Act will write into the law of our land the powers and rights that we hold today and which we will pass to the next generation, so that no stroke of a pen from Brussels, or retrospective court judgement, can take those rights away.

    In defending the sovereignty of our parliament, we defend the sovereignty of our people. We defend our right to live under our own laws.

    So I appeal today to all those people who may not have voted Conservative before, but who believe in an independent Britain. At this coming election, lend us your vote. Vote for us this time, so that your vote will mean something next time, and the time after, and the time after that.

    Each of you in this room will know people who are not Tory supporters, but who share our concerns about the way in which powers are draining away from our Parliament. Good, patriotic people, who may be lifelong supporters of another party, but who are not willing to watch their country being handed away.

    They are people we must reach out to between now and polling day. And we should carry this message to them: we are the only Party that believes in an independent Britain. We are the only Party that has confidence in the character of our people. We are the only party that will articulate their common sense instincts.

    The common sense instinct that the Government should be on the side of the victim not the criminal.

    The common sense instinct that Britain should be a safe haven, not a soft touch.

    The common sense instinct that we should not spend more than we can afford, nor tax more than we need.

    And the common sense instinct that we should be in Europe, not run by Europe.

    We are taking the fight to other parties that scorn and despise the instincts of the people they purport to represent. Other parties that dislike and mistrust all the things that make our country what it is.

    Only the Conservatives have faith in Britain as an independent country.

    Only the Conservatives want to pass on to our children the rights that we have inherited from our parents.

    So as we go out in the next few weeks to campaign, we will be setting out our bold promise.

    Elect a Conservative government and we will give you back your country.

    We say to the pensioner trapped at home after dark for fear of crime: we will give you back your country.

    We say to the pensioner trapped at home after dark for fear of crime, and the young woman afraid to walk down their own street at night – we will give you back your country.

    We say to the parent who despairs of the onward creep of political correctness, and the patriot who sees a political class embarrassed of our proud history: we will give you back your country.

    We say to businessmen overloaded with yet more red tape and regulation, and the family overburdened with extra tax: we will give you back your country.

    We say to the people of our countryside who see their livelihoods and lifestyles under attack, and the people of our deprived inner cities who live in hope: we will give you back your country.

    We say to millions of people who see our right to govern ourselves being steadily eroded, and the independence of our nation dismantled, and the currency of our people threatened with extinction: we will give you back your country.

    In the election about to commence, to all these people, in every part of our land, from every walk of life we say: come with us, and we will give you back your country.

  • Estelle Morris – 2001 Speech at London Guildhall University

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Education Secretary, Estelle Morris, at London Guildhall University on 22nd October 2001.

    I was very sorry not to have been able to speak to you at the Universities UK conference in Southampton, and I think we all regret the circumstances that didn’t make that possible, but I am pleased to be here today.

    London Guildhall is a good place to make the sort of speech that I want to make today because I want to talk about the mission for higher education, and many of the elements we see at London Guildhall – widening participation, diversity, rising to new challenges and promoting leadership – are key to what I want to say.

    I know I am going to be a disappointment to at least one person today. I got a lot of messages of goodwill after the Election in June (it’s probably downwards from then on, I’ve decided). But there were lots of messages of good will, except for one which appeared in the Independent. An academic, Warden of a well known college, said, “I rather assume that all her interests will be in schools rather than universities. Politicians do not understand how universities work. It will be a period of benign neglect, and I don’t mind that.” Well, I’m setting out very deliberately today to disappoint that one gentleman but I hope not the rest of the audience.

    One of the reasons I want to disappoint him is that what you do every day in your institutions, the students you teach, the work that you do, the research that you carry out, is far too important, not only to individuals in this country, but far too crucial to the whole nation’s future to be neglected benignly or otherwise. What I think is true (and maybe this is the source of those comments) is that since the Labour Government was first elected in 1997 we have been devoting enormous energy and enthusiasm and drive and resources into raising standards in our schools. And that is as important, I’d argue, to the future of higher education and what we want to achieve there as to any of the structures of our community.

    I want to remind you what the position was throughout the schools system in 1997. There was massive under-performance at primary and secondary level; children reaching the age of 11 without the skills that they needed to read and write effectively and to access the secondary curriculum. And that’s why we have introduced the literacy and numeracy strategies. Before then, the gaps between those who achieve and those who don’t achieve have never really been seriously and consistently addressed. That’s why we introduced Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities – offering targeted good quality and sustained challenge and support in some of our most challenging urban areas in the country, to see if we could narrow the unacceptable gap in performance between children from different backgrounds – something which no-one had done before – and that includes generations of educationalists, and not just Governments.

    And what’s more, in this term we will want to concentrate on our schools agenda and transforming secondary education. We have set up the Learning and Skills Council to try to tackle the nation’s long-term failure to raise skills. But it is time now to put more focus on what we do in higher education, and the work we have done so far in schools and with the skills agenda will lay good foundations for us all to do that.

    There has been a huge change in higher education over the last ten to twenty years – it has shifted from being an elite system to being something much wider, something much more important than that. When we look back over those decades, it almost happened without anyone necessarily thinking strategically about what we want Universities to do. I am committed to further expansion, I know and I believe with all my heart that it can be achieved without any compromise on excellence. But as we expand further we’ve got to think strategically about what the sector does and how we want it to do it. We’re here to set out today together a vision for higher education that looks forward a decade or more. That vision has got to be built around diverse institutions pursuing excellence in their different ways. There are four central goals that I want to put to you today, and I want to talk about how we can achieve them and look at the challenges that face us and how we might begin overcoming them. I think those four are:

    Firstly, widening participation and unlocking the potential of the poorer sections of society. We do want to move ahead to achieve our target that half of the population will enter higher education by the time they reach the age of 30.

    Secondly, to continue to produce world class research.

    Thirdly, making sure that Universities work better with industry and with the wider community.

    Fourthly, to support excellent teaching in our higher education institutions.

    Meeting these goals won’t necessarily be easy. It will demand vision and it will demand commitment and drive from every single one of us. So I also want to raise today the issue of excellent management and leadership in the sector.

    The pledge that the Government made shortly before the General Election and repeated in the Manifesto that 50 per cent of under 30s would enter higher education by 2010 is one of the highest priorities on the Government’s agenda. It is not unrealistic – it can be done – and the increase in figures for accepted applications this year suggests that we have made further progress. But I want to be clear as I can, it’s not just something that would be quite nice, it’s not just a social aspiration (although it is both those things) – it’s far more important than that. You know that way back in 1997 our Government made the decision that as a nation we wanted to compete on the world stage as a high-value-added and high skills economy. We can’t do that without investment in skills, investment in education and increasing participation in higher education. Quite simply we need more graduates and we will not be training people for whom there are no jobs. Labour market forecasts by the National Skills Taskforce show that between 1999 and 2010 there will be a growth of 1.73 million jobs in those occupations that typically recruit graduates – things like managers and associate professionals. In the past, a 50% participation rate might have been seen as socially desirable, certainly part of my political background and philosophy would have made it the right thing to do. But now it is an economic necessity.

    You know better than I do the link throughout all parts of our education system between social class and educational attainment. And no where are those statistics more startling and frightening than they are in higher education. That’s inevitable given its position after the compulsory years of schooling. About 70% of the children from higher socio-economic groups go on to higher education and that’s compared to somewhere between 13 and 14 percent from families from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    And it can be traced back to wasted talent in schools. Children from non-manual backgrounds are one-and-a-half times more likely to get five or more A* to Cs at GCSE than those from manual backgrounds, and twice as likely to get eight A* to Cs. 43% of 18 year olds from higher socio-economic backgrounds achieve two A levels – the basic requirement to go on a degree course – compared with only 18% from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

    But in a strange sort of way, when I look at those statistics, terrible though they may be, they actually give me my optimism. Because like you, nobody can think that middle class children are brighter than poorer children. Nobody can think that white children should achieve at a higher level than black children. Nobody can assume that children from the inner cities shouldn’t be able to achieve at the same level as those from the suburbs. So it is possible. All we have to do is to raise the achievement of those children from the communities which have traditionally underachieved to the same level as those from the communities that have traditionally achieved. If you look at it in that way, 50% does not sound unrealistic. But it will be hard work and it will be a challenge.

    I know that what most needs to be done is to raise attainment in schools and that is my responsibility not yours. That is why in our first term we put such emphasis on literacy and numeracy; and why we are putting such emphasis in the second term on building on that as we move into reform of secondary education. But it goes further than that and I do need your help as well, and we do need to work together.

    I know academic attainment at 18 is essential if we are to increase the number of young people eligible to go into higher education but it is never going to be enough by itself. We have to raise aspirations, we have to raise self belief, we have to raise self esteem and ambition in some of our young people. You know as well as I do that some young people, even the brightest, grow up believing that higher education cannot be for them. They get to 18 without ever having set foot on a university campus, without ever having had a lengthy conversation with somebody who lectures in higher education. They go home to families and communities where the whole social life is with people who don’t have jobs which require degrees. It’s hardly surprising that their aspiration to go into higher education is perhaps not as great as some of their peers from other backgrounds who have had those opportunities.

    Excellence Challenge has made a start. I am deeply grateful to the universities and higher education colleges that have done work on it. I know that the Government’s launch of the Excellence Challenge over the last three or four years was only based on some of the good work that higher education has already done. I know myself as a teacher in the inner cities some ten years ago that even then there were some universities who were beginning to put out feelers and beginning to talk to us about how we can do better and about ending this relationship between social class and access to higher education.

    Now I think we need to go further than that, and that’s really our joint agenda. To have a school system that raises the attainment level. For higher education institutions to work with the school system and the Government to make sure you do all that you can to build on the work that you’ve done in the past. I think that what I want most of all to happen in all those universities is to put roots down into the schools so that we can see the work you are doing on access. This is not an optional extra. This is not just an occasional summer school or visit by a lecturer or student. What I want to see is that the presence of somebody from higher education almost becomes run of the mill so that you give those young people the aspiration and the ambition, and you help to persuade them that university is for people like them. That is the contribution that you can make to the widening participation agenda. I think the prospect of going to university is something that fires many young people to work harder for their A levels and achieve at a higher level. If you haven’t got that aspiration to go to university it is one of those levers that is missing. What we want you to do in secondary schools is to inject these aspirations to go to university amongst working class children so that together with the work that we will do in school, it will actually once and for all take us along the road which breaks the link that other nations don’t have between social class and educational attainment.

    There is another rich source of talent that we need to get into higher education over the next ten years. There are one million people in their 20s who already have level three qualifications. We need to work with employers to raise skill levels even further and to see if some of those people with level three qualifications in their 20s might benefit from a period of higher education to take them further on in their career and to give their employers and their workplaces the skills that they need. And achieving that will need greater diversity – and that’s true for each of the challenges that I set out at the beginning of this speech. As my predecessor David Blunkett said, there should be emphasis on foundation degrees and getting the proper channels for those who want to study vocational qualifications right from age 14 to degree and postgraduate level. That implies innovation in teaching and learning and it certainly means making higher education as flexible and as accessible as possible. Between us I think we have a joint mission to nurture the talent that is currently being lost not only to higher education but to the nation as a whole.

    Whenever I have conversations about access and about participation, many connect those issues to student finance. We want to think again about any obstacles – real or imagined – that could discourage young people from low income families from taking up higher education. All of us would like to produce a system for student support which is simpler than the present one. So we have begun to review the current system. I have said that the review has four clear aims:

    – simplification of the system, especially in the area of hardship support. It’s so complex at the moment you almost need a degree to access all the different funds that are available;

    – provision of more upfront support for students from less well-off backgrounds;

    – ensuring that all students have access to sufficient financial support throughout their years of higher education;

    – tackling the problems of debt and the perceptions of debt.

    The principles of the reforms that David Blunkett announced in 1997 were absolutely right and we will stick with them. Those who benefit from higher education should contribute to its cost. It would be utterly unfair for graduates, who as a group earn 35% more than the average wage, to be completely subsidised through their entire university education by those who do not have their advantages and who can afford it far less easily.

    And remember this – the “golden age” of free tuition and grants for those who need them did not work as a driver for access. The proportion of poorer students entering higher education did not rise. And despite the rhetoric around it, however much money we choose to put into student support it will not be by itself the answer to the access challenge. The problems are more complicated and more profound: they are about ethos, about the perception, and about prior attainment. So I want to satisfy myself and to be absolutely certain that there is nothing in the student support system that might act as a disincentive to those we most want to attract. But we must not see this as the only issue in the debate, and we must not let it distract us from the more fundamental and the more difficult challenges.

    I wanted to say a little bit about world class research. It’s a success story. It’s one of the real strengths of British higher education. With only 1% of the world’s population, the UK carries out 4.7% of the world’s research, it has 7.6% of the world’s scientific publications, and over 9% of the citations of scientific papers. We rank first in the world in terms of the number of publications and citations generated for each pound spent on research. We’ve got a challenge here as well, and the challenge is very real. It’s how to keep our leading position.

    I know that if you want to carry out good research you need to hire and back good quality researchers. That’s why the human resource strategies which universities and colleges are drawing up need to address the issues of recruitment and retention. And that is why I think successive research assessment exercises have helped improve the quality of research in universities because the results of those exercises have made universities think very carefully about where they can best invest their money. Weaker areas have declined, but developing and strong areas have grown and flourished.

    Research is expensive. It needs talented researchers, but also buildings and equipment as well. The infrastructure for both science and technological research was becoming run down. We have been investing huge sums of money to put it right in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, first with the Joint Infrastructure Fund, and now with the Science Research Infrastructure Fund.

    But more needs to be done. It’s that old cycle of years of under-investment followed by the Government injecting large amounts of money every so often to sort out the problems with infrastructure. I think just as we need to do in our schools and throughout the whole of our education service we need to end that dependence mentality and the idea that once we have invested in capital we think we could ignore it for a few more years. And that is one of the things that I very much hope that the cross cutting review of science which is part of our current spending review will look at.

    Again there are questions to ask. We need to ask about how universities provide their share of the support for research grants from external bodies. The dual support system has served us well, but the growth in research income from charities in particular – which has outstripped other sources – must make us ask whether the dual support system can continue to work in its present form. That is another issue for the cross cutting review.

    Again the challenges for both Government and the higher education sector are bigger than this. We have productive research, but we don’t spend that much on it in total. The UK ranked 16th out of the 23 OECD nations for higher education expenditure on research and development. So there are concerns about the UK slipping down the world league tables of research excellence and about UK research being unable to compete on a level playing field. Quite simply, we won’t keep our world class place if we allow that to happen. Since we have a comparative advantage, we should make sure it stays that way. So we do need more resources. But these cannot come from the Government alone. Government will never be able for instance to match the level of investment produced by the endowments of the top US universities. So there are hard questions to answer about how we maintain our position. What is the best way to lever in more support for world class research institutions in the UK, and how can the money best be distributed between institutions? How can we make sure that the brightest and the best want to use their talents here in the UK – whether they are staying on here or coming from elsewhere? And how can we help our best institutions collaborate effectively with other world leaders? How can we make sure that the benefits of the best research are shared throughout the system?

    The third challenge I outlined was that of embedding universities in industries and our communities. We know we live in a global economy. It’s a compulsory sentence in most speeches that politicians make these days. But it applies to universities and colleges in just the same way as it implies to individuals seeking training or education or employment. Yet the strange thing about globalisation is as much as national boundaries and national frontiers seem to break down this increases the importance of local and regional areas. And I believe that higher education is a very powerful driver of technological and other change. It is crucial to local and regional economic development. You produce the people with knowledge and skills; you generate new knowledge through research and scholarship; you exploit that knowledge through innovation in spinout companies, contract research and transferring skilled people to businesses. It is essential work. It will only work well if you get the relationship right between businesses and communities on the one hand and educational institutions on the other, and each knows each other’s needs. That is why forging links between the two is very important, and why working with regional development agencies is a crucial partnership.

    Survey data of knowledge transfer for technological innovation in the UK shows that enterprises look more to the “technology base” than directly to the science base for technological innovation. This type of applied research can be very important for the regional economy but is relatively poorly done in the UK perhaps for three reasons:

    – the level of business R&D in the UK is low compared to key competitors;

    – we have a skills gap in UK business with a shortage in areas such as certified civil and electrical engineering;

    – we don’t have as good links as we should between businesses and higher education or other publicly funded research.

    All these limit the ability of UK business to absorb knowledge and innovate.

    We are beginning to recognise that there is more money to be put into research and development through tax credits for small and medium enterprises, and there is a number of schemes designed to help in this area such as Science Enterprise Challenge and University Challenge.

    Again there is already good work being done. Newcastle University has a business development team whose main function is to match the needs of business with expertise and capabilities already in the university. And again, at Salford University, Academic Enterprise makes a point of providing a single place of contact for those enquiring about access to business and it offers a fast track for them to relevant expertise in the university.

    But we are only at the very beginning, and this is another immense challenge to the sector. Of course there are many other partners, and British industry too needs to rise to the challenge. But again there is a step change to be made in our thinking; success in this field will come when there is a commitment to the principle that this is an important and growing role of a modern university. I know that most of our universities do not deserve to be thought of as mere ivory towers. The fact that so many of them are perceived that way by people outside perhaps shows how much we need to change the culture and how much we need to talk to each other.

    There is one single issue that is central to the quality of everything that happens. The quality of teaching, and the quality of the student experience in terms of learning. I know there is a long history to this debate in higher education. Not just on teaching quality assurance but on the investment that has already been made in improving the quality of teaching and learning.

    We want to encourage new forms of teaching and learning. We have together already launched the e-Universities project so that we can make sure the UK is at the centre of high quality higher education over the internet. It was announced last Friday that Sun Microsystems had entered into a strategic alliance with a newly formed company UK e-Universities Worldwide, to provide the technology platform to deliver the courses worldwide.

    And there are examples of good university-based teaching as well. Coventry University has developed a comprehensive system of recognising and rewarding excellent teachers through promotion criteria, teaching awards and teaching fellowships. This shows a strong commitment to teaching excellence that I would like to see spreading further. But there is a debate to be had about how we get the balance right between institutional processes and external review. We attach, as I know you do, particular importance to robust assessment and review methods – both internal and external. We shall take a keen interest in the outcomes of the current consultation on quality assurance. Let’s wait to see what that brings before that debate between us. I will be guided by my initial thoughts on quality assurance. There are three key things which need to be put in place. First, in a publicly funded system there must be accountability. We cannot spend public money without some assurance that we are spending it to good effect. Second, there must be good information for students and parents so that they can make informed and sound decisions about the courses they take. And thirdly, because of the very nature of the higher education systems and its strengths, there must be autonomy – institutions must have the freedom to look for the solutions that suit them. But we must have a system that brings these three strands together. Accountability because that is right when public money is being spent; information because any organisation needs to concentrate on those people it serves; and autonomy because that is central to the ethics and values in our higher education institutions.

    We must value teaching quality as part of our vision for higher education. When I first looked at the higher education system it became increasingly evident that there were no financial incentives for excellent teaching, and I do wonder if in some way we could incentivise excellence in teaching in the same way as we do in research. This too raises some important questions: how should you identify what is excellent teaching in higher education? Should we put incentives in place which would let institutions specialise in this? If we are to do that, what does that mean for the relationship between teaching and research? Do the restrictions on student numbers stifle incentives to teach well? And is there a cultural obstacle to overcome? I sometimes get the feeling that teaching is still a bit of a side show compared to research. We need to have excellent research; we need excellent teaching; we need to expand higher education to all those groups that have not had access in all those ways that we need to achieve that. We have to accept that we need excellence and initiative and to allow people to specialise in teaching excellently.

    It’s a huge agenda that lies before us all – widening participation, the challenge of delivering diversity and opportunity, fostering teaching and research excellence, and linking universities to industry and the community. Any agenda like that will demand first class management and world class leadership. We already have some, much of it in this room, but we do not have enough. Too often as in any phase of education there is not enough effective management at the key levels of middle management as well as at senior management. No one can defend the number of women at senior levels of management in higher education. We must also think about succession planning and the development of people in general, to make sure that as each generation of effective managers and leaders moves on, there are more ready to take their place, and to accept that in the fast changing sector that higher education has become the challenges will always evolve.

    I much welcome the initiatives which are already underway from the top management programme to the use of HEFCE’s fund for the development of good management practice. But there is still more to be done. The scale of the pressures on institutions is formidable and we need a renewed effort to make a difference and look at management and leadership in its own right.

    We already have an enormously strong sector. And an increasingly varied sector too. We have the beginnings of new links and alliances. There is a climate of change. I know that London Guildhall University and the University of North London have ambitious plans to come together, as I recognised at the very beginning of this speech, and I wish you both well in that endeavour. But it strikes me that all of this, all these changes, all this new agenda perhaps needs to be part of a bigger picture and we perhaps need an active debate about how far it should be part of a bigger design. We must foster proud and autonomous institutions, confident in their differing missions and meeting the needs of their students. But at the same time we have to ensure that the full range of opportunities – including those relevant to the new students we will be recruiting – are available right across the country.

    I know that there has already been a great deal of debate on these very issues, but it feels as though the time is now right to come up with a more strategic approach. I am convinced that we need to look at the rich complexity of our higher education mission and to make sure that we are fostering all the things we want higher education to do.

    There are some big decisions ahead. We have already embarked on the next spending review, and I have no doubt that you will make your representations in due course to help put more pressure on the Chancellor. I think the time is also right to go beyond the timescale of the spending review and to think more widely and strategically about higher education in Britain. Therefore I have asked my Department to carry out a wide ranging and fundamental review covering all these key areas:

    – widening participation

    – world class research

    – linking universities with industry and communities

    – teaching excellence

    – management and leadership

    I want to look at how we incentivise and resource these missions because at the moment all the incentives seem to me to be skewed towards one end of the big picture. I invite you, the Vice Chancellors, and the rest of the sector to join us in that review as soon as we can get together to begin to map some of the way forward to some of the changes which I have outlined today.

    I am very conscious that I have come to you with a lot of questions and not the answers, but that is the way I want it at the moment. Most of all I want three things:

    True recognition of the work already done and the standing you have and the importance of the contribution you make. My thanks go to you for all that has happened.

    A real agenda to grow between us, not that I think we will always agree, but what I want is to have a sharing of what the key challenges are and what the key issues are that need to be addressed;

    I would like very much over the coming months to try as much as possible, in a diverse sector, to begin to agree the way forward. If we can do that we have actually done a service not only to higher education but a service to the economy, to the nation and to the rest of the community. We would have taken another step along the road of moving universities from their old mission of being elite and giving opportunities for the few, to being in the heart of our communities, the key to individual life chances, and in that sense the heart of our country as well.

    I am most grateful to London Guildhall University for giving me the chance to outline some of these challenges today, and I very much look forward to working with you towards these solutions in the months to come.

  • John Monks – 2001 Speech to the AEEU

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Monks to the AEEU on 12th June 2001.

    Last Thursday, the British people spoke – and spoke up strongly – for the values which run through the heart and soul of the best of British trade unionism. They voted for better public services especially a better health service, a better education service and a better transport service.

    They voted against narrow nationalism – of Welsh, Scottish and the English Conservative varieties. They voted for a decent, friendly relationship with the European Union.

    They confirmed the Fairness at Work agenda – the minimum wage, trade union recognition, family friendly policies, workers learning, trade union education and partnership at work.

    The result is plain. Trade unionism can now advance with a spring in its step, confident that much of our agenda can be implemented with the incoming Labour Government.

    I stress the word ‘with’. It’s not just a matter of what we want. It’s not an annual pay claim. Instead it’s a matter of what we can do, how we can help, where we can make a difference.

    Because we all know that the key test that the electorate will impose on Labour in four years time is has it delivered? Has the health service improved? Is education better? And can we move ourselves and our goods more efficiently, more quickly, more reliably round this country?

    So the next four years will be a challenge to us. We need to rise to the occasion, to prove our worth to the nation and to demonstrate our crucial importance in achieving the results that the British people are demanding.

    This must be a two way relationship. I want to pay tribute right away to Estelle Morris and David Blunkett who have made clear their wish to work in partnership with their unions. I know Alan Milburn has also made clear that will be his approach – and I am sure Stephen Byers and John Spellar in local government and at transport will take the same line.

    It is important that they do. At the moment, too many public servants are demoralised. They feel that the 18 years of Tory insult and attack have not been adequately addressed.

    They worry about the decline of regard for public service and the power of the belief that only the private sector can deliver.

    In too many areas, there are desperate shortages of the right kind of people to carry out the jobs so essential to society. Relative pay levels have slumped. A friend of my son’s said to me the other day – only mugs go into teaching nowadays.

    The concerns of public servants have been heightened in the election campaign. There were some in Millbank who were said to relish an early confrontation with a major public sector trade union. I could not believe it.

    I say to them – look at the lessons of history. Look at 1978/79 when there was such a confrontation and it was an electoral disaster for Labour and for trade unionism. We still walk with those ghosts of 20 years ago. We still live with the memory of being out of office for a generation and with the collapse in public regard for trade unionism, I say never again.

    Remember too the early Thatcher years. Year after year, she took on groups in the public service and this union was involved several times. We still bear the scars. For example, primary and secondary education still has not recovered in key areas from the teachers’ dispute of 1983 – look at the continuing decline of out of school activities like school sports and the problems of attracting enough bright teachers.

    So my message on this is clear – no-one will deliver better public services by seeking bruising confrontation. Although the private sector will have an important place in many areas of public service, privatisation must not be the key way forward.

    The watchwords the Prime Minister adopted in redefining Clause 4 – ‘it is what works that matters’ are dead right. Let’s not be ideological about privatisation.

    What will work will be the partnership approach that many of you aim to pursue with your employers but which is all too rare in the public services. What will work will be a restoration of the public service ethos – that strong sense of serving the community.

    Most of my family have been public servants – mother a teacher, father a district parks superintendent, brother another teacher. The approach was dedicated, honest and hardworking. I grew up with that ethos and I want to see it recover, thrive and be appreciated.

    What won’t work is wholesale privatisation or a new set of rail style complex contractual arrangements or those best value systems which allow work to go private at rates of pay and other conditions under the agreed standards in the public sector. Labour have made commitments to end the two tier work forces. We want them honoured swiftly.

    Of course what also won’t work is obstructionist trade unionism intent on protecting the status quo when the need is for a great step forward together.

    So today I endorse the approach of those ministers who have called for partnership. I call on them to turn those into hard plans and deals. If public servants are regarded as second class, the services will remain second class.

    Of course, while there must be a huge improvement in public services, the next four or five years must address other issues crucial to the importance of our nation.

  • David Miliband – 2001 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    davidmiliband

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by David Miliband in the House of Commons on 25th June 2001.

    I have listened carefully to the serious and interesting contributions in this debate. I extend my congratulations to hon. Members who have made excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) and for Telford (David Wright) made powerful and persuasive contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) showed that, although he may have abandoned the cloth, he has not lost the gift of the preacher. I am grateful for the chance to join them and address the House for the first time.

    South Shields is a constituency where unemployment is three times the national average, where the rate of economic inactivity is one of the highest in Britain and where the collapse of the mining and shipbuilding industries has brought massive economic change and wrought real economic pain. It is therefore appropriate that I should make my maiden speech in a debate on economic policy as part of a Queen’s Speech that is dedicated to defining and reforming the Government’s role in a modern society, for I am here to represent a constituency and to stand up for an ideal—the power of our action together to create a more equal, more productive society.

    A maiden speech is a daunting occasion. One of my predecessors, Mr. Cecil Cochrane, waited 12 months before opening his account in the House. He then said: I was commissioned … to render the Government every possible support during the War, and I am not certain … that I have not rendered that support better by keeping silent than I should have done by asking you … to notice me before.”—[Official Report, 22 May 1917; Vol. 93, c. 2205–206.] I hope that I do not come to regret opening my mouth sooner than Mr. Cochrane, but my commission is to represent the people of South Shields and it is about them and their needs that I want to speak.

    First, I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, David Clark. He spent 22 years working hard for the people of South Shields and had a distinguished ministerial and parliamentary career. He has a permanent memorial of his commitment to the constituency and his passion for the environment in the magnificent leas, now owned by the National Trust, along the South Shields coastline. I am sure that he will make a distinguished contribution to the other place.

    South Shields is a town of rich heritage and great diversity. It is known for its river, its mines and the sea. It is also a political town, steadfast in its values, rich in a tradition of radicalism and reform rooted in trade unionism and community organisation. The people of South Shields know the dignity of work, the difficulty of economic change and the difference that an active, enabling Government can make; they know how high quality public services can liberate them as individuals and lift up our entire society; and they know that although there has been progress in the past four years, the work to tackle inequality of life chances is nowhere near done.

    South Shields has real strengths. The Port of Tyne Authority has more than 1,000 employees; shipyard and engineering workers have skills and expertise second to none; and there are growing companies in the manufacturing, retail and finance sectors. After four years of fast progress, the performance of our primary schools now outstrips the national average. South Tyneside college is a world leader in marine and nautical studies. Crime in South Shields is falling and housing and social services are improving.

    The town boasts more than 200 voluntary organisations, as well as Britain’s oldest local daily newspaper, the Shields Gazette South Shields did not just provide the inspiration for Britain’s most-read author, Catherine Cookson, but now has a vibrant artistic life centred on the old Customs house. Its coastline is magnificent, its neighbourhoods diverse, and its people warm and hard working.

    There is more. South Shields football club is only 12 divisions off the premiership, in the Albany Insurance northern league. For a nervous first-time candidate, the local team provides the perfect answer to the difficult choice between professing allegiance to Newcastle football club or Sunderland football club. In that, as in much else, South Shields has no trouble finding a third way.

    South Shields also has a long, proud, multicultural tradition. The town’s roots go back to Roman legions and Danish settlers. Our Yemeni community, about 1,000 strong, dates back to the 1890s. The Bangladeshi community, of similar size, now into its third generation, is ready to challenge Birmingham as the curry capital of Britain. Both communities play a vital part in the life of South Shields.

    The River Tyne has sent whalers to the Arctic, shipped trains to the Punjab, refuelled Navy destroyers for the fight against fascism and sent the first lifeboats to sea to rescue those in trouble; in return have come goods, ideas, investment and people. Just as the river gives and the river takes, so South Shields depends on what we take from the world and what we can give back. I have special reason to know this.

    Over 50 years ago, my distinguished predecessor as Member for South Shields, J. Chuter Ede, was Home Secretary in the 1945 Government—probably the greatest reforming Government in our history. One of his hardest tasks was to make decisions on immigration applications from millions of refugees around Europe. There were many hard cases. One application came from a man who had spent the war here, separated from his wife and daughter who were in occupied Belgium, but with his son, who studied at school and then served in the Royal Navy.

    The man who lodged that application was my grandfather, Samuel Miliband. Despite long correspondence, the then Home Secretary felt compelled to deny his application. There could not, he wrote, be exceptions. My father had previously been given leave to stay, and later, I am pleased to say, my grandparents were allowed to join him.

    Inclusion and opportunity have been the great motors of progress throughout human history. For me, it is a sign of hope for South Shields, and hope for Britain, that the grandson of a man denied residence in Britain by the then Member for South Shields can, 50 years later, represent South Shields in the House; but my job will not be done until every person in South Shields is able to develop every part of his or her potential to the full.

    South Shields is a great town with great people, but they have so much more to give. It is the Government’s job to help them all to shine. Unemployment has fallen by more than 1,000 since 1997, but in Rekendyke ward, it is more than 17 per cent.; in Tyne Dock, 11 per cent.; in Beacon and Bents, 11 per cent. Those figures represent a toll of misery and waste. Some 60 per cent, of young people in South Shields fail to get five good GCSEs—more waste. Long-term illness, often associated with mining, affects one in five households—more pain.

    To those who say that economic policy is for middle England and social policy for the Labour heartlands, South Shields replies I that a strong economy and a strong society are inseparable and must be built together, with leadership from Government. In South Shields, icy North sea winds lead people to say “cold hands, but warm heart”. Today, we need a Government with helping hands and a warm heart.

    I am glad to say that the priorities of the Queen’s Speech are the priorities of South Shields. In my previous role, I was privileged to play an advisory part in developing the manifesto on which the Labour party was elected to serve a second full term, but I now feel much more privileged to be elected by the people of South Shields to ensure that they receive the full benefit of the policies in that manifesto.

    South Shields needs investment in skills, transport and business support to tackle unemployment. We need investment and reform to support our teachers in building up secondary education and to sustain all staff in building up the health service. We need modernisation of the tax and benefit system to tackle child and pensioner poverty. As well as innovative legislation for new ideas, we need effective administration of policies already announced, from expansion of services for under-fives to swift action for miners’ compensation.

    South Shields has a unique political history. I am the only Member of the House who can say that, since the first Reform Act of 1832, his constituency has never elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. Until the first World War, the Liberal tradition was dominant, but for 70 years, South Shields has been a Labour town. Throughout that period, South Shields has benefited from flashes of Labour radicalism. The Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924—known as the Wheatley housing Act—brought council housing. The 1945 Government brought new health facilities. The 1964 Government brought development assistance. The 1974 Government brought child benefit. The 1997 Government enacted the new deal and the minimum wage. Through all that time, however, South Shields suffered because those flashes of radicalism were never consolidated by two consecutive terms of Labour government.

    For 70 years, South Shields has felt like a Labour town in a Conservative country. Following the general election, I am glad to say that South Shields feels like a Labour town in a Labour country, making common cause across divides of tradition and geography with people across Britain who share its values and its priorities: public services based on need, active government dedicated to spreading wealth and opportunity, communities built on tolerance and mutual responsibility.

    South Shields is bounded by the River Tyne and the North sea, but our town is outward looking. Our community is south Tyneside; our economy is Tyne and Wear and the wider north-east; our commitments and connections stretch across continents.

    I chose to stand in South Shields and now South Shields has chosen me. I believe in the potential of inclusion, the power of opportunity and our responsibility to extend it to all. That is the hope for South Shields. That is the message of the Queen’s Speech. That is the cause that I shall stand for every day that the people of South Shields choose to send me to this House.

  • Keith Vaz – 2001 Speech on Britain and Poland

    Below is the text of the speech made by Keith Vaz, the then Foreign Office Minister, on 31st January 2001 at the Polish Embassy in London.

    INTRODUCTION

    Ambassador Komorowski, Excellencies, Distinguished Guests. I am delighted to have been invited to speak in this prestigious series of Europe lectures at the Polish Embassy, and to see so many friends of Poland present.

    This series of lectures is one of the Embassy’s many contributions to deeper understanding between the UK and Poland. I would like to pay tribute to the energetic work of the Ambassador in representing Polish interests here. May I also pay tribute to the important contribution to the role of the vibrant Polish origin community in the UK.

    The work of the Federation of Poles, the British-Polish Council and the British Polish Chamber of Commerce is crucial in ensuring that the tremendous new opportunities for cooperation opened up over the last ten years are acted on.

    BILATERAL RELATIONS

    Poland and the UK are historic allies. The fine statue of General Sikorski which the Duke of Kent unveiled outside this Embassy last September commemorates Poland’s contribution to the allied victory in World War II. And the presentation of an Enigma machine by the Duke of York during his visit in September recalls the vital contribution which Polish intelligence experts made to the deciphering of the Enigma codes.

    The UK is fully committed to the work of the Anglo-Polish Historical Committee set up last May to research Poland’s wartime intelligence contribution. Today we look confidently to the future both as NATO allies and future partners within the European Union. Tony Blair’s visit to Warsaw last October, and his landmark speech on the future of Europe, set the seal on a remarkably active year of Ministerial and other exchanges.

    Bilateral trade increased by 25 per cent in 2000, and stands at over £2 billion. British investment in Poland is also expanding: Pilkington has for example recently announced the construction of a new plant, and Energis is investing £200 million in a joint venture with Polish Railways.

    EU ENLARGEMENT

    We have worked hard to ensure enlargement remains at the forefront of the EU’s priorities. Our efforts to ensure Poland and the other Central European candidates retake their rightful place at the centre of Europe are clearly bearing fruit. But enlargement is not a favour we are doing for Poland’s sake. It has very real benefits both for existing EU members as well as for the candidates.

    First, it will finally reunite the continent after the divisions of the Cold War.

    Second, it will create the world’s largest single market of some 500 million consumers, boosting both trade and jobs.

    And third, it will help us tackle more effectively those shared problems – organised crime, drug smuggling, cross-border pollution – that countries cannot combat alone.

    That is why the UK is a ‘champion of enlargement’. Indeed it was under the UK’s Presidency of the EU that negotiations with Poland and five other candidates began in 1998. We have continued to play a leading role since.

    Enlargement is a massive topic. So today I would like to focus on two specific areas: prospects for the Swedish presidency and the increasing importance of public opinion.

    NICE OUTCOME & THE SWEDISH PRESIDENCY

    We enter the Swedish Presidency on the back of a very long and very difficult, but ultimately very successful, Nice European Council.

    Nice wasn’t easy. But the result was worth it. For the first time the candidates saw on one sheet of paper the number of Council votes they would have, and the number of seats in the European Parliament.

    In short, Nice reached agreement on the institutional reforms necessary for enlargement, thus honouring the commitment made at Helsinki for the EU to be ready to accept new members from the end of 2002.

    Just as important, Nice set us some targets.

    First, echoing Tony Blair’s speech in Warsaw, EU leaders said they wanted to see new Member States participating in the 2004 European Parliamentary elections and the next IGC.

    Second, the ‘road-map’ agreed makes possible the end of negotiations in 2002. To achieve this tough target, member states are committed to speeding up the pace of negotiations. But applicant countries including Poland must review their own negotiating strategies. Transition requests need to be reduced to the necessary minimum and accompanied by detailed implementation strategies.

    2001 will be a crucial year for enlargement.

    With the road-map in place we want to see a ‘step-change’ in negotiations – both in quality and quantity. And as Robin Cook called for in Budapest last July, we want to begin to solve the difficult issues, rather than only addressing them.

    Enlargement is one of the ‘3 Es’ of the Swedish Presidency: Goran Persson has called for a ‘political breakthrough’. In Warsaw, Tony Blair did too. The UK will do whatever it can to help the Presidency achieve this.

    Previous enlargements have been spurred on by the setting of a target date. Goran Persson has said that achieving this at Gothenburg is an aim for the Swedish presidency, providing that good progress has been made in negotiations. The UK supports this.

    But progress in negotiations is only one side of the coin. Just as important is progress ‘on the ground’.

    The Commission’s Progress Report last November showed how well Poland is doing in preparing for accession, particularly in moving towards meeting the Copenhagen economic criteria and in aligning legislation with the EU acquis.

    I salute the progress that Poland and all the Central European candidates have made over the past ten years. We should not underestimate the extent of what has already been achieved.

    Poland has already provisionally closed 13 of the chapters under negotiation with the EU, and is making good progress on others.

    But clearly major challenges remain, particularly in the areas of agriculture, the environment, judicial and administrative reform, and justice and home affairs.

    We want to see Poland in the first wave. But it is up to Poland to make sure that it is ready. As Tony Blair said in Warsaw, ‘there are no guaranteed places, reform is the only entry ticket’.

    UK ASSISTANCE

    That is why the UK is backing up its political support for enlargement with practical action. During my visit to Poland in October 1999, I launched a UK-Poland Action Plan to help Poland prepare for EU accession.

    Since then, we have launched a further six bilateral Action Plans with candidate countries, building on what the British Know-How Fund has already achieved. We will launch similar plans with the other candidates during the coming year.

    The Plans bring together the UK’s pre-accession assistance in a coherent package, and involve the launch of some new projects.

    In Poland’s case, a very successful local government is promoting closer links between British and Polish regions. And we are about to launch a new programme to share our experience of public diplomacy.

    The UK has also won 18 EU financed twinning projects in Poland, as a result of which British experts are working alongside Polish counterparts in the agricultural, environment, customs and telecommunications fields.

    FOREIGN POLICY CO-OPERATION

    But our cooperation goes much wider than this. There is for example much that Britain and Poland can do together in the foreign policy and defence fields.

    We are already cooperating as close NATO allies in Kosovo and Bosnia. And the UK continues to support through practical assistance and training the full integration of Polish armed forces within NATO.

    We have also worked hard to ensure the new European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) is open towards our non-EU NATO partners such as Poland. The Nice European Council set out in detail how this will be achieved.

    Like Poland we believe that an effective ESDP needs to be linked firmly within NATO. Effective crisis management will depend on the EU and NATO working closely together at all times and on a wide range of issues.

    And Poland has a unique window on the East. We have a common interest in ensuring that EU enlargement does not create new dividing lines in Europe. We are for example working trilaterally with the Polish Know-How Foundation to advise the Ukraine on economic transition.

    The FCO recently sponsored a successful trilateral conference in the Ukraine to consider some of the challenges from EU enlargement. We want to deepen triangular cooperation between the UK, Poland and her neighbours to the East.

    PUBLIC OPINION

    But as much as we do to promote official contacts, we must not forget the importance of public opinion. Enlargement is not, and must never become, a ‘hobby-horse’ of the political classes.

    Although Polish popular support for EU accession has fallen from some 80 per cent in the early 1990’s, it remains solid at around 55 to 60 per cent. The UK has been actively assisting the Polish government in explaining the benefits of EU membership.

    But there is more to do. I therefore welcome the Commissioner’s planned communication strategy, and Poland’s internal EU promotion campaign.

    At first glance popular support for enlargement within the EU seems lower. The November 2000 Euro-barometer records ‘average’ EU support at around 40 per cent.

    I know that for some this is a concern. It need not be. The British people are not opposed to enlargement. I know this from my own experience.

    When I became Minister for Europe in 1999, Tony Blair asked me to tour the country to explain the benefits of EU membership to people. I have now visited 32 cities. Not once has someone come up to me in Dudley or Edinburgh or Manchester and complained about EU enlargement.

    The current level of public support is a result of lack of information rather than opposition. Enlargement is perceived as being as less central to people’s concerns. But this will change. Over the last year the government has been active in spreading awareness of enlargement:

    We have produced a quarterly newsletter on enlargement and added new enlargement pages to the FCO’s website. We have produced a brochure for UK business on ‘enlargement and the single market’. On Europe Day, I opened the doors of the Foreign Office to the public where over 7,000 visitors viewed stands from all the candidate countries. We will build on these activities in 2001.

    I have just returned from leading a UK Ministerial team visit to Prague following the success of a similar visit to Bratislava in November. I intend to visit Poland again very shortly.

    I will also be hosting a reception in early March to bring together opinion formers from the candidate country communities in the UK in order to promote contacts and increase public awareness of enlargement.

    The FCO will publish a new brochure explaining the benefits of enlargement, and develop a video/CD-ROM for use in libraries, universities and schools.

    And Czech EU Minister, Pavel Telicka, has agreed to join me when I visit Cambridge as part of my EU roadshow. I hope that other Central European counterparts may be able to join me on future trips too.

    All UK political parties support enlargement. So does British business. As the date for enlargement becomes close, and with greater information, I am certain that public support will rise too. A successful enlargement also needs people-to-people contact between current and future EU members.

    There is much already. Poles work in London, British people holiday in Poland. But we need to do more. I want to see more Polish schools twinned with British schools and regular exchange programmes established. The enlarged European Union must be a union of peoples not only governments.

    CONCLUSION

    Ladies and gentlemen, Europe is standing on the brink of a new era.

    I have no doubt that Poland will fit easily into the EU and contribute positively. I want to see negotiations concluded in 2002 and the first accessions – including Poland, and as many others as are ready – before the 2004 European Parliament elections.

    With Nice completed, we have a great opportunity to make real and significant progress. We must take advantage of this.

    Now the EU has agreed its internal reforms, Poland’s accession date is now in Polish hands. Huge efforts will be required, but the prize is great. And the UK stands ready to help in any way possible.