UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2002

  • Michael Ancram – 2002 Speech at the Israeli Solidarity Rally

    Michael Ancram – 2002 Speech at the Israeli Solidarity Rally

    The speech made by Michael Ancram on 6 May 2002.

    I am here today because I am a friend of Israel. That friendship has taken me on a number of occasions to Israel. It has taught me to hear and see for myself. It has shown me the imbalance of so much of the news that we receive here. It has equally shown me the realities, the hurt on both sides that must be mended, the senses of injustice on both sides that must be met.

    It has also taught me that peace and security will be won not by accusation and humiliation but by courage and respect. I am here today because I want to see an Israel living at peace and free from fear. Fear is the enemy of peace, but is the corner stone of terrorism. That is why we must be resolute in the fight against terrorism, because peace depends upon it. And if Israel is to exercise restraint in the pursuit of terrorism then others must demonstrate that they can and will control it.

    Our goal must be the day when Israel can live in true security and peace alongside all her Arab neighbours, each in mutual respect for one another’s sovereignty and right to exist.

    I am also here today because I hate intolerance. Intolerance too is the enemy of peace and we must have no truck with it. In that context I condemn without reservation the acts of anti-Semitism which recently have occurred here at home. They are despicable in themselves, but also because tolerance is their enemy which they seek to destroy. They must never succeed.

    Tolerance is the soil in which peace can grow. Tolerance replaces fear with trust, replaces bitterness with respect, and anger with understanding. None of this is easy. The easiest road is always the one that looks back in recrimination, the one which glories in confrontation. It is the road of despair for there is no peace upon it.

    But there is a road that looks forward with hope. The road of dialogue which in the end is the only lasting road to peace. I learned in Northern Ireland that peace cannot be imposed. It must grow in the hearts of those who must come to agreement, and it is only through talking that this can gradually be brought about.

    It will take courage and determination and generosity, but everything I have learned tells me that it can be done.

    I was in Israel and the territories in February. I saw the escalation of the fear and the violence and the despair. They were dark times – and are still. I know about dark and violent times. I know too that it was often at the darkest hour that the light of hope was born; born from the longing for peace of the people, of those who had suffered, who cried out that enough was enough.

    I believe that this same light of hope is here today. In Israel I saw determined hope. I believe that the route-map for the way forward is there. We are all here today because we long for the end of terrorism in Israel and the dawn of a real and lasting peace. We want to see that journey towards peace and freedom from fear begin again. The chances are now there. We must pray that in the days ahead they are taken.

    We who are friends of Israel will support that drive for peace with all our hearts, and all the help that we can bring to bear.

  • Michael Ancram – 2002 Building True Partnerships in Europe Speech

    Michael Ancram – 2002 Building True Partnerships in Europe Speech

    The speech made by Michael Ancram on 9 May 2022.

    “How times have changed! A few years ago critical questioning of the future shape, direction or structures of Europe would have been condemned as an anti-European act. Either you were for ‘le projet’ or you were against it. There was no middle ground.

    “Today Europe itself is talking about its future. Fifty years on the European Union is facing a sort of midlife crisis; a crisis of identity, a crisis of purpose and a crisis of authority. A crisis acknowledged even by the Laeken Declaration. There is a sudden realisation that not all is well.

    “The pathetically low turnouts in the last European elections. The negative votes in the Irish and Danish referendums. The re-emergence of extreme national politics, particularly in France. The growing popular dissatisfaction with and feelings of alienation from European Institutions. The European economy presents a far from rosy long term picture. There is suddenly a fluttering in the European dovecote.

    “Stopped in its tracks is the arrogance which has so marked the European Commission over recent years. Gone the sense of inevitable and unstoppable progression. Both replaced by confused rhetoric. The same voices which recently contemptuously dismissed American policy as “simplistic” now plead anxiously for the US to resist the ‘unilateralist temptation’.

    “Suddenly there is talk of consultation. The Convention on the future Shape of Europe. But there is little evidence that the fundamental problem, the deficit in the democratic process at a European level, the alienation of people from institutions, has even begun to be addressed, or whether the means for doing so even exist. What is certain is that Europe is uncertain, more uncertain about itself than it has been since its inception.

    “We see a demographic time-bomb in Europe which the EU has failed to address. A growing, technological gap between European countries and the US. A need for greater innovation and deregulation, as growing unemployment threatens the livelihood of millions of people. It is against this backdrop of economic failure that we must begin to consider the structural failures of the EU as it stands today.

    “Over the coming year we in the Conservative Party will be developing a clear strategic view of Britain’s Foreign Policy at the start of the twenty-first century, and defining British interests within the international arena.

    “It is with this in mind that I address the issue of the EU today. We will apply this rigorous process to the EU as well, asking how it fits or should fit with Britain’s and other countries’ national interests. We will address that fundamental question as to the role the EU should fulfil in the 21st century. What should it do, and what should it not do? How can we make it more effective for and more relevant to British citizens?

    “I do not propose to answer those questions in detail tonight. There is much work to be done first. I intend to analyse closely where Europe finds itself today. We will identify those areas requiring rigorous examination and consideration, and where necessary reform.

    “That is why we call today for a fundamental review of the way the EU is currently working. We believe that this is a necessary precursor to genuine constructive reform. If the current EU process is not prepared to undertake such a fundamental review, we will look for alternative and credible ways of doing so. It is an opportunity which must not be missed if we are to reshape Europe to meet the genuine challenges of the new century.

    “The time is ripe for a constructive but realistic debate about the future structures of Europe. It is a debate in which we are happy to take part.

    “The current uncertainty creates above all a crisis of identity. We therefore have to start with the very basic question as to what precisely we mean by Europe.

    “‘Europe’ is a concept. It is a collective, broad-brush description, not a nationality. It is a geographical entity, rather than a “land” with the true sense of belonging that flows from that term.

    “How do we define Europe? Just look at the multiplicity of geographical descriptions and definitions. Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Middle Europe, Eastern Europe, Mediterranean Europe, Central Europe, Slavonic Europe, Scandinavian Europe. I could go on.

    “This multiplicity of descriptions of Europe also hides a massive diversity of languages, peoples, cultures, economies, and histories. Some aspects are shared. Many more are different. One has but to look at the patchwork quilt of the history of Europe. It underlines the infinite diversity in our continent which cannot be straight jacketed by simplistic description.

    “Indeed the history of European unity, until the Second World War, was a history of military subjugation, an empirical aspiration that could never succeed when pitted against the diversity and national sentiment that existed within Europe – and still exists today.

    “The origins of the EU lie in the conflict that wracked Europe between 1939 and 1945. The leaders of the nations of Europe determined it should never happen again. The resulting Common Market was based on consent, around a “bottom up” principle which sought to build links and co-operation at the lowest levels and with NATO’s help it worked. Europe has seen an unprecedented period of peace and has been much the better for it.

    “However, since its inception we have also seen an seemingly inexorable move towards full European unity, as “harmonisation” has stealthily been imposed upon us all.

    “Despite the subsidiarity principle that decisions should be taken at the lowest appropriate level, the impacts of European integration continue to weave their way into the nooks and crannies of everyday life.

    “In the Common Agricultural Policy, for example, a vitally important sector of our national economies continues to be dominated by an inefficient European structure. We see at the same time an increasing incidence of fraud in EU budgets. We see a lack of responsiveness to local needs, inevitable when the minutiae of a system are essentially determined by a supranational authority.

    “The endemic tendency to wish to encompass everything has led to the EU being regarded with a growing sense of distance and irrelevance by vast numbers of its voters. The lack of democratic accountability, compounded by new directives constantly being imposed from above, only serves to add to popular alienation from “Europe”. The need for reform and change is now more pressing than ever.

    “The EU stands at an important crossroads in its development. Recent political events in France stands as a stark warning of the potential outcome of that sense of detachment from a remote political elite felt by millions of people across Europe.

    “In this information age, with more well informed and empowered citizens than ever before, the urgent challenge is to correct the democratic deficit and to bring the real interests of people back to centre-stage.

    “Reform must not be a one-way track. There are a variety of options, each of them with adherents and arguments in their favour.

    “There are those whose sense of disillusionment with the EU and growing supranationalism lead them to support complete withdrawal from the EU, either with the intention of going it alone or as a full member of NAFTA.

    “Diametrically opposed to them, there are those in favour of building an integrated United States of Europe, an “advanced supranational democracy which must be strengthened” – whatever that might mean – , even more closely linked than at present, with a central government presiding over a common foreign and security policy, a common economic and fiscal policy, underpinned by a single currency, and with a common social policy.

    “And there is a third option. A partnership of sovereign nations, bound by the single market and the rules of free trade, but otherwise working at different levels of participation and involvement, tailoring common ventures and aspirations to the national interest and the national modus operandi. A Europe for all seasons, and all national traits and imperatives, which recognises and maximises national strengths in a constructive way.

    “Let me look at each of these options in turn.

    “To withdraw from the EU, either to go it alone or to engage in a NAFTA-like trade area, would be a damaging course, forfeiting authority and benefit. We benefit from our trade with Europe.

    “Europe may well be facing economic problems. It is however certainly not in our interests for these to continue. Moreover our trade is vitally tied up with Europe and affected by European legislation. Norway and Switzerland, as members of the European Economic Area, must comply with European law, but they have no influence over these laws ands regulations. Withdrawal would replicate this weakness for us.

    “On the other hand the supranational approach, suggesting that institutionalised cooperation can achieve everything, and therefore must pool everything, is totally missing the point. More can be achieved through voluntary co-operation than through enforced conformity.

    “In the face of current European uncertainty Tony Blair’s government might appear ambivalent. Far from it. While their language at home may be tailored to create the impression that the Europe of Nations is still an option for them, their language abroad and more importantly their actions within Europe tell a different tale.

    “Regrettably what happened at Nice was both a functional failure and a failure of vision by our Government. Having rejected the vast bulk of extensions to QMV proposed by the French Presidency prior to Nice, most were meekly accepted.

    “A simple accession process, acknowledged by Robin Cook as necessary for enlargement, turned in to a treaty which had little to do with enlargement, which we passionately favour, and everything to do with political integration.

    “The Nice Treaty further alienated people from the institutions of the European Union and may, perversely, as we warned, imperil or delay enlargement.

    “The failure to concentrate on the core objective of enlargement was symptomatic of a government which talks of constructive engagement but fails to come up with actual policies which address the real challenges of an enlarged EU.

    “The rhetoric of integration is also there, on record, for all to see. Speaking in Warsaw in 2000 Tony Blair declared the need for a Europe “strong and united”. In Birmingham last year he was quite open about it, saying that a “more effective common foreign and security policy…is vital”. He obviously learnt little from the farce of trying to achieve a common European line in the aftermath of 11 September.

    “At the same time Jack Straw calls for an ever greater pooling of our sovereignty.

    “Their deeds and words all point, not to a desire to make the EU work for the citizens of its member states, but to their desire to submerge British sovereignty and that of other European countries in an ever more centralised Europe. They may work by stealth, but their agenda remains the creation of a supranational Europe.

    “It is the wrong direction for Europe, and we reject it. It threatens not only the end of popular sovereignty, but also a further divorce of the political process from its legitimacy – the people themselves. It either presages the unacceptable tyranny of the majority imposing common policies on reluctant member countries, or the equally unacceptable tyranny of the lowest common denominator. Neither is acceptable.

    “The coercion of conformity and harmonisation would stifle the diversity that is the very essence of Europe. As a result of a common interest rate, a single currency and a single fiscal policy, inevitable internal tensions would arise. Division and internal discord would ferment from the forcing together of very different economies, bringing in to the open the threat of new axes as the largest members push ahead with their ambitions at the expense of the interest of their smaller partners. We have already had a taste of this when Ireland was reprimanded under the growth and stability pact, whereas Germany for a similar ‘offence’ was not.

    “These tensions will become even more apparent after enlargement. EU enlargement is a project that has always enjoyed the total support of the Conservative Party. But we must also recognise the need to plan properly for it.

    “Already such tensions are beginning to show in the failure to face up to the shortcomings of the Common Agricultural Policy, and in the increasingly sharp exchanges between the accession countries and Brussels as the realisation dawns that the EU has taken insufficient account of their needs with regard to structural funds and agricultural subsidies. This is a salutary warning of the internal divisions we risk if we do not move swiftly to reform.

    “We want to see genuine and constructive reform. We do not see it in Romano Prodi’s ‘advanced supranational democracy’. A supranational European state would undermine the goodwill and genuine co-operation required in Europe. It would be harking back. It would be building a bloc after the era of blocs is ended.

    “It would also be naively ambitious. To attempt to be a superpower bloc, rivalling America, is foolish. America is a sovereign superpower with vast resources. Europe is not. We need America far more than America needs us. We must stick to the partnership of Europe and America. We must reject the anti-American rhetoric of some leading Europeans who want to make it Europe or America.

    “Our constructive approach to European reform will start with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. The events of 11 September were a wake-up call. The call to Europe was very clear. It reminded us once again that the comfortable and stable world of cold war blocs was over. Mass equilibrium, based on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, was ended. The threats were different. The friendships and alliances needed to meet them were different. The world into which the European Union had been born and raised was gone. The European mindset has to change.

    “The message of 11 September to Europe was ‘adaptability and flexibility’. That is why we root our approach to the reform debate firmly on the ground of the Europe of sovereign Nations.

    “We need to use the current debate on the future structure and shape of Europe to look at what is working and what is not. That which is working and is consistent with the Europe of the future should be preserved and strengthened. That which is not working, or is out of date or is no longer consistent with the evolving nature of Europe should be reformed or discarded. Anything less than this rigorous approach will be a sham.

    “The Treaties, the ‘acquis’, the directives, should all be open to re-examination to assess their effectiveness and continuing relevance – and open to change if necessary. A genuine review and reform process cannot object to revisiting those elements which appear either not to be working or not working as well as they should. There can be no sacred cows, no no-go areas, no sealed vaults.

    “Such a ‘keep out’ attitude would prove the enemy of genuine reform. Fortunately there is growing recognition in other European countries that at least some of the treaties may need reform. Only Britain’s Government seem to see the Treaties as untouchable totems of commitment to Europe. It is massively short-sighted. It assumes that once a regulation is in place it will remain effective through all circumstances, and will not be affected by the changing international and economic situation.

    “By adapting to change and revisiting the treaties, the regulations and if necessary the ‘acquis’ and in making a constructive assessment of their continuing relevance and value to people as opposed to institutions, we can hope to move once again towards a ‘bottom-up’ Europe. A Europe that starts with the needs and aspirations of the people of Europe, not the ambitions of its bureaucrats, and which can once again make itself relevant to people’s lives.

    “Relevant does not mean meddling in every nook and cranny of every day life but being a useful engine to increase the economic prosperity and success of European countries. People who currently feel distant from the EU must be convinced of the benefits to them. Our constructive review must ask the central questions. Do these treaties, these directives, this ‘acquis’ still serve the real interests of the peoples of France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and so on. And above all do they serve the interests of the people of Britain.

    “For instance the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This is a concept that will not work and should be abandoned. The history of the CFSP is a already a trail of failures. Re-buff over Israel, inaction over Zimbabwe, division and delay after 11 September, and the inevitable undermining of NATO. All demonstrate the inflexible, unwieldy nature of the CFSP and show that it is simply not practical.

    “The Rome Treaty preamble demanding ‘ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ requires further thought. Such wording sits uneasily in today’s world and we should be prepared to consider rephrasing it in a way which better reflects the network, flexible, nature of modern international co-operation.

    “We need to reconsider the role and powers of the Commission in initiating policy, questioning whether this is the most effective, or appropriate, way to operate.

    “Coincidentally it already appears that the Commission is in fact losing power to the Council Secretariat and to a mish-mash of other agencies and committees. Whilst this loss of power by the Commission is not something to be mourned, we need to consider how the structural distribution of powers can be more effectively organised to ensure greater democratic accountability, rather than simply shifting the power around internally.

    “We need also to look closely at those elements of the EU which are working but which can be improved.

    “The Single Market has the potential to bring economic benefit, but there is work to be done to make it function more effectively and fairly. We will continue to work towards the completion of the single market. We will continue to press for further deregulation and improved competitiveness.

    “We must recognise that the world’s economy is now global. In a world of increasingly fierce economic competition, ineffective and burdensome regulations hinder rather than help economic success. Companies today often find they are being sent out to compete in the global marketplace with one hand tied behind their back. The distinction now needs to be clearly made between what is necessary to provide a level playing field, and what is an unnecessary burden.

    “At the heart of EU reform must lie “a democratic process which uphold the rights of all member states, big and small, and guarantees the rights of the people and of every citizen”. These goals, set out by Romano Prodi in April, cannot be reached by the road to integration or his ‘advanced supranational democracy’. Centralisation and integration are inimical to them. Reform can only begin to achieve these goals if it is firmly rooted in the domestic democratic processes of each member state. It could encompass the prospect of the Commission agenda being shaped by national legislatures.

    “Our democratically elected national parliaments can best, certainly better than anything else in the EU, interpret the national interest and represent the will of the people. It is at a national level that people still feel the greatest sense of identity, and sense of belonging. Moreover if genuine accountability is to be created in Europe, and the growing rift between the plans of the European bureaucrats who determine Europe’s agenda and the genuine wishes and will of the people who ultimately pay for the EU is to be ended, then national parliaments must remain the best channel for genuine democratic control.

    “Too often, when the democratic deficit in Europe is mentioned, it is suggested that the simple answer is for the European Parliament be given more powers. This is simply shifting power within EU institutions, not returning it to the people themselves. We must return to the founding principle that the EU is the servant of the people of Europe and the national parliaments that represent them; it is not their master.

    “It is too early to be specific. Genuine reform must be preceded by genuine analysis. We should hope that this will be undertaken by the Convention, although the early signs are not encouraging. There is currently too much grandiose talk of writing a constitution. There is already too much planning for further centralised structures such as a European Diplomatic Service . All of this is the antithesis of resolving the democratic deficit. It will make it deeper.

    “We are open to genuine reform. Not doctrinal reform to a set agenda, but reform to build a more workable Europe to meet enlargement. Not destructive reform, but constructive reform which works for the peoples of Europe. Not theoretical reform, but reform which reconnects people with what Europe means for them.

    “We want to see a Europe that looks outward rather than inward, Taking on the international economic challenges of the world rather than spending so much of its time focussed on internal bureaucratic battles.

    “What I have set out today is not a detailed blueprint, nor at this stage before the in-depth analysis has been done is it intended to be. What it seeks to represent is a broad outline, a framework within which we can work on the more detailed substance of our approach to Europe, and which demonstrates our willingness to engage constructively in this vital debate.

    “We are faced with a great opportunity. An opportunity to sail between the jagged Scylla of withdrawal, and the vortex of Charybdis which is the European Superpower. Both of these are concepts of the 20th century. We are looking towards the 21st century, the globalisation of economics, the new fluidity of relationships, the reality of the American superpower and the slumbering giant of China. We are looking for a Europe which will be better suited to meet these challenges. Our Europe will be agile and supple and cognisant of the national forces within it which are its strength.

    “Ours is a Europe in which the strengths of each member can be deployed to the full, where non-conformity is a strength and not a weakness, where flexibility and differences of emphasis are an advantage and not a hindrance. A Europe where we can go on being British and Italian and French and German and so on, with our rich and diverse histories and culture in the knowledge that it is through this diversity that we will achieve greater strength and genuine goodwill than ever would be possible than through artificial and forced conformity.

    “Partnership rather than incorporation, subtlety rather than stubbornness, and with Britain at the fulcrum. We want a Europe which will work with the grain of the world rather than against it, a Europe in which we can go on being British and doing that which is in the interests of our people.

    “That is the Europe of the true partnership of nations. It is a constructive Europe, a Europe for all seasons, a Europe which can work.”

     

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech to the West Midlands Institute of Directors

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech to the West Midlands Institute of Directors

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, at Villa Park on 16 May 2002.

    Speaking as I am in Aston Villa territory, I am conscious that some of you will have viewed the recent play-off success of Birmingham City with mixed emotions.

    What I found heart-warming were the headlines plastered all over the newspapers: ‘Blues on the way up’.

    Even West Brom have got in on the act. Not only have they won automatic promotion this season, their supporters topped the BBC’s recent ‘Test the Nation’ IQ quiz.

    At an average of 138, their score was thirty points higher than the English national average.

    Figures were unavailable for politicians and I resist the temptation to speculate.

    Having three sides in the Premiership will provide a multi-million pound boost to the local economy. It is also another sign of this area’s predominance.

    Birmingham is the 12th largest wealth-producing district in Europe. It is a great commercial city, vital not just to the West Midlands but to the whole UK economy.

    And the West Midlands Institute of Directors has an extremely important position.

    I welcome your long-standing efforts to advance the argument for competitive enterprise as the essential building block of lasting prosperity.

    The IoD has a motto: ‘enterprise with integrity’.

    Britain badly needs a Government that practices what you preach.

    When politicians talk about integrity, you probably start counting the spoons.

    But it cannot be right for a Cabinet Minister to be given red carpet treatment when he has lied on national television.

    And it cannot be right that the same Minister misleads Parliament and then refuses even to apologise for it.

    There are few enough opportunities for the public through their MPs to hold the Government accountable in the first place.

    Whatever our political disagreements, if the Government of the day isn’t straight and seen to be so, it is public confidence in our democracy and business confidence that will suffer.

    Integrity matters. And so does an understanding of enterprise.

    This Government talks relentlessly about ‘enterprise’.

    The title of the Budget Red Book was ‘Investing in an enterprising, fairer Britain’.

    ‘Enterprise and fairness’ is one of the Chancellor’s favourite phrases. But what exactly does Labour mean by ‘enterprise’?

    As far as I can see, they mean companies. The private sector. Business, commerce and industry.

    For me enterprise is a much broader concept. It is a culture, a way of doing things. It is about thinking creatively in order to make better products or deliver better services.

    As Bob Michaelson said, what you have in this region is the spirit that created the industrial revolution. This is the spirit of enterprise, and it was no different when it was about 19th century technology than today, when it is about the hi-tech industries of computing and telecommunications.

    Yes, enterprise is about making profits, but it is also about making peoples’ lives better. It should be as much a feature of the public sector as it is of the private sector.

    It’s just as much about building new ways of delivering better public services as it is about building new structures for business.

    This is the real difference between Conservatives and Labour today.

    We are prepared to be enterprising. We are prepared to think differently and creatively to make peoples’ lives better.

    This means holding our hands up and recognising that Britain does not have a monopoly on good ideas in the delivery of public services.

    On the contrary, in the research we have undertaken so far in our policy review, we have found that many other countries have better methods for delivering core public services, particularly healthcare.

    Germany has no national waiting lists.

    Denmark gives people a legal right to treatment within four weeks of seeing their GP.

    Stockholm gives patients the choice of doctor and the hospital they go to. No one can do that in the UK without going private.

    Of course, if Britain could boast similar achievements, we might be justified in ignoring the record of other countries and simply carrying on with what we’ve got, without meaningful reform.

    But the reality is that the quality of the service the public actually receives has deteriorated.

    The NHS has more managers than beds.

    Accident and Emergency waits have grown longer.

    The number of operations is at a standstill.

    We are now confronted with a two-tier Health Service where record numbers of people – a quarter of a million last year – are paying for their own operations, not through insurance but out of their own pockets.

    And all despite this Government increasing NHS spending by nearly a third in real terms.

    Any businessman or woman would question the underlying soundness of an enterprise that produced these sorts of returns on that scale of investment since Labour came to power.

    If you had experienced no appreciable rise in output, and a marked decline in customer satisfaction you would surely look at the underlying approach of your business before committing more investment?

    And if there was clear evidence that your overseas competitors were getting better results, you would surely swallow your pride and have a look at how they did things in other countries.

    Sadly, the Government has done none of these things.

    The result is as depressing as it is unoriginal: a return to tax and spend.

    The Chancellor has embarked on a great experiment to prove that the only thing lacking in the NHS is money.

    And yet we already know that this isn’t true. The evidence is on our own doorstep.

    Taxes will increase by around £8 billion pounds next year with no hint of any real change in the way the Health Service is run.

    Over the next five years Gordon Brown plans to bring average UK health spending into line with what Wales and Northern Ireland spend now. This is the same as France, more than Denmark and Sweden and slightly less than Germany.

    But the treatment of patients is nowhere near as good. Indeed, in Wales and Northern Ireland waiting lists are worse than in England.

    The Chancellor’s only recipe is to spend more generously and police more rigorously the centralised NHS we already have.

    In contrast, Conservatives are prepared to take the genuinely enterprising approach, opening our minds to alternative ideas for reform, looking abroad at examples of where other countries and other systems produce better results.

    The key is to push power down and to place more trust in the people on the frontline.

    If we are to renew the promise of an NHS that delivers the best quality of care to people regardless of their ability to pay, need should be determined by patients working with doctors, not by politicians and civil servants.

    That means decentralising power and making the Health Service genuinely accountable.

    Creating modern public services is a priority for the people who rely on them – particularly the most vulnerable in our society – but it should be a priority for business as well.

    It is certainly a priority for the Institute of Directors. In your Budget submission, the IoD made a range of arguments about the Government’s record on health with which I would strongly concur. In particular, you highlight the galling inconsistency of the Government’s decision to raise employers’ National Insurance.

    As your Budget submission says:

    “Both the Prime Minister and Chancellor have criticised European social insurance schemes for health, on the grounds that they would impose significant extra costs on business. They have then proceeded to introduce an extra tax on business – of just under 0.5% of GDP per annum – in order to pump money into the state run NHS.”

    On countless occasions in the Commons in the months leading up to the Budget, senior Labour Ministers taunted us for even daring to look at other health systems on the continent. They told us that most European health systems relied on some form of social insurance which was ‘a tax on jobs’.

    So what is the £4bn tax on employers’ National Insurance if it isn’t a tax on jobs? Moreover, it is a tax on wealth creation. It says a great deal about what the Government really thinks about enterprise.

    Most importantly, this is the price you pay for a Government that refuses even to countenance other ways of delivering public services.

    That is why genuine health reform is ultimately so important for business, because only fundamental reform offers a way out of the endless cycle where businesses are taxed more to pay more for sclerotic public services.

    And it is an endless cycle.

    This Budget was not the first time Labour have increased taxes on business. They’ve done it every single year since 1997 without fail, it’s just that previously they did it by stealth.

    Almost as soon as Tony Blair first got into office, his Government introduced a £5bn windfall tax on the utility companies, undermining massive investment programmes for some of the most vital infrastructure in the country.

    In their first year, Labour also introduced the tax which Bob Michaelson referred to, the £5bn abolition of dividend credits on pension funds.

    Bob is not alone in criticising this particular tax change. There is currently an Early Day Motion circulating in Parliament criticising the pension stealth tax, stating that it has cut the dividend income on dockers’ pension funds by 33 per cent. The signatories include: Peter Kilfoyle, Jeremy Corbyn and Dennis Skinner.

    Clearly, MPs of all persuasions recognise the harm that this measure has caused.

    As the last Parliament got into full swing, fuel duty soared to record levels, hitting businesses just as hard as everyday motorists.

    Contractors were hit with IR35; National Insurance was levied on benefits-in-kind, and the Climate Change Levy provided extra costs at the worst possible time for energy-intensive industry.

    But it’s not just taxation.

    A recent IoD survey in the West Midlands found red tape to be the greatest obstacle to enterprise in the region.

    The Government’s own ‘Red tape Czar’ shares this view. The Financial Times recently carried an article by David Arculus, the new chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force. He warns of Whitehall ‘drowning companies in a sea of red tape’.

    He recounts his experience of asking one Government department if it could consider giving advice on employment regulation to employers. Incredibly, the department replied that ‘it could not possibly know everything there was to know about employment regulations’.

    But as Mr Arculus says, ‘this is exactly what the government expects of employers’.

    What I find so staggering about this article is that, after five years of Tony Blair saying he would cut red tape, the Government’s own agency for dealing with the problem is absolutely damning in its assessment of Labour’s achievements.

    Quite simply, since May 1997, you have been subject to an unprecedented tide of both red tape and taxation. In that period, business has been burdened with £11bn of new taxes and regulations every single year. Struggling manufacturers, new hi-tech start-ups, care homes for the vulnerable; small, medium and large businesses; they have all been hit.

    Nothing more starkly highlights this Government’s complete failure to understand the nature of enterprise than this unremitting burden on the freedom of business to create wealth.

    As Conservatives we remain committed to free enterprise, where the burdens on business are minimised instead of ramped up at every opportunity.

    But we also know that we have to get the other fundamentals right: sound infrastructure, reliable transport, stable monetary policy and an education system that gives our people the skills to meet the challenges of today’s competitive workplace.

    On all these areas we are making progress in developing policy as part of the review I set up on becoming leader.

    On education, Damian Green has started to reveal our plans for addressing the failings of our worst schools by offering greater opportunities for vocational training.

    On the pressing issue of health reform, we are visiting other countries to see how they provide better services.

    Michael Howard has confirmed our support for an independent Bank of England.

    And I want to reaffirm our commitment to keeping the Pound.

    The Prime Minister has hinted at a referendum on the single currency next year. I gather this afternoon he sent Stephen Byers to brief journalists that he would start the referendum process this autumn. When that news broke the Prime Minster panicked and denied all knowledge. What a way to run a Government, more spin becomes more chaos.

    At a time when everyone is concerned about the state of their schools and hospitals, when we feel threatened by the rise in violent crime, he should focus on these issues and stop playing games over the Euro.

    If the Prime Minister wants Britain to adopt the single currency, he should say so and name a date for the people to decide.

    We will campaign vigorously for a ‘no’ vote because replacing the Pound means giving control of British interest rates, taxes, and public spending to politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels and Frankfurt.

    It would cost us in higher unemployment and lower living standards, and it would mean boom and bust for the British economy and businesses.

    It also means British people giving away control over politicians. Now, people can kick us out if they don’t like us. Inside the euro, it wouldn’t matter how people voted.

    These are the arguments that I believe will prevail.

    We can then get back to the urgent task of making this country fit for the century we are living in.

    The bottom line is that we are opening our minds to new ways of doing things in order to make peoples’ lives better.

    All Labour have done is opened your wallets.

    Britain deserves better.

    It is the business of the Conservative Party to make sure it gets it.

  • Michael Ancram – 2002 Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference

    Michael Ancram – 2002 Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Michael Ancram in Perth, Scotland on 17 May 2002.

    It is a particular pleasure to be back among so many old friends addressing the Scottish Conservative Party Conference in Perth again.

    We meet at a time of growing frustration in Scotland. Not with the Parliament. Certainly not with our MSPs who under David McLetchie do such sterling work.

    But frustration with the failure of those who run the Scottish Executive, those Labour and Liberal political inadequates who are undermining Scotland with their incompetence, diminishing Scotland with their pettiness, and burying Scotland in their mediocrity.

    You have a vital duty to perform for Scotland next year. You must chuck them out. You must sweep them away. You must replace them with Conservatives who have the vision to take Scotland forward again. You must win.

    This motion today has been most ably moved by a real winner, my parliamentary colleague Peter Duncan. He is the shining proof that you can and will win.

    Today’s debate has been important and constructive. Constructive in the excellent contributions we have heard. Important because we live once again in a disturbingly unstable world.

    It is a world where the Cold War certainties and the ironic but real equilibrium of the great blocs are gone, replaced by invisible enemies, by unscrupulous regimes and by the threat of weapons of mass destruction and of terrorists capable of using them against us all.

    September 11 woke us up to this. It reminded us of our vulnerability and made us conscious of the need to build and strengthen friendships in the world again.

    I have always believed in loyalty, and trust and friendship.

    Loyalty to those who have stood and still stand by us; trust in those with whom we can do business; and friendship with those whose values we share.

    Immediately after 11 September Tony Blair understood this. I paid tribute to his role in building the international coalition against terrorism, and we gave him our support – as we continue to give support to our brave servicemen and women who he has deployed actively in that fight on our behalf. On this day of reported engagement in Afghanistan today we wish them well.

    But then power went to Tony Blair’s head.

    Building coalitions suddenly turned into his extraordinary vainglorious ‘I can heal the World’ speech to his conference last October.

    Heal the world! He can’t even heal the public services here at home.

    Far from bringing healing, his so-called ‘ethical foreign policy’ has been shot through by betrayal and surrender.

    Blair told his Conference he would heal the scars of Africa, that “if Rwanda happened again today … we would have a moral duty to act there”, and that he would “not tolerate … the behaviour of Mugabe’s henchmen”.

    Brave words which raised hopes in Zimbabwe. Black and white Zimbabweans alike believed that Blair would move to halt the excesses of Robert Mugabe and his thugs and to secure the fair elections which would have got rid if him.

    But as is so often the case, Blair’s promises were only words.

    He went to Africa in January, but he never went near Zimbabwe.

    When the illegal land grabs began, he wrung his hands and did nothing. The same when voter registration began to be rigged last November.

    When we called for real pressure on Mugabe, he and Jack Straw accused us of irresponsibility. Well, whatever happened to their responsibility?

    In the face of murder and torture in Zimbabwe and the stolen election whatever happened to Blair’s ‘moral duty to act’?

    And since the elections in March what has he done? The murders continue, the torture and the violation of human right grows, the land grabs become ever more vicious, and what do Blair and Straw do?

    Where is the active non-toleration he promised? As Zimbabwe bleeds, they dither and they still do nothing. The betrayal continues, and it shames us all.

    There is still just a chance to retrieve something.

    We must build on the targeted sanctions and bring together a wider international coalition including the US, the Commonwealth, the EU, and the neighbouring states in Southern Africa to exert real pressure on the Mugabe regime to hold new free and fair elections under international scrutiny. Only that way can true democracy be restored and the betrayal be ended.

    There is another great betrayal.

    This Government have spent the last six months seeking to betray our fellow British citizens in Gibraltar, to sell out their British sovereignty, just to curry a little favour with Spain. I have little against Spain, but I do mind about loyalty and friendship.

    Blair and Straw together have turned their backs on centuries of loyalty to Britain. They have used the tactics of the bully down the ages, bad mouthing the people of Gibraltar, and issuing veiled threats as to what will happen if the Government does not its way get.

    They have sought to stitch up a shabby backroom deal with Spain to share sovereignty over the rock.

    But sovereignty shared is sovereignty surrendered, and ends up as no sovereignty at all.

    This has from the outset been a misbegotten and dishonourable process. Gibraltarians will have no part of it. And, as I made clear in Gibraltar last Monday, neither will we.

    An incoming Conservative Government will not feel bound by any deal on sovereignty which has not received the freely and democratically expressed consent of the people of Gibraltar.

    The Government is now set on a course which can only end in tears, in confrontation with the Spanish Government or with the people of Gibraltar or with both. They should without delay suspend these wretched talks, turn back from this betrayal and think again.

    And then there is Surrender.

    Surrender to the growing forces of integration in Europe.

    Surrender to the concept of a common foreign policy, so that we no longer know today – for instance on the Middle East – whether there is such a thing as British Foreign policy any more.

    Undermining NATO by our ill advised and headlong rush into the European Rapid Reaction Force without any prospect of securing the resources to make it work.

    Surrendering ever more areas of decision making within Europe. Thirty-one national vetoes surrendered in the Nice Treaty alone.

    Surrender is a word which flows readily from New Labour lips. It will not flow from ours.

    Certainly the ‘ethical foreign policy’ is dead and buried, replaced by sell-out, betrayal and surrender.

    And in the middle of all this poor old Jack Straw. Chased by Hain and Hoon who both want his job, and ignored by Tony Blair who does it.

    Our foreign policies will be based on the world as we find it. We will stop the fantasising and return to the basic principle of building our foreign policy on our national interests and on doing what we do best.

    In the Middle East we have a role to play, particularly with the lessons we learned the hard way in Northern Ireland, in showing how out of the most violent and darkest of situations, dialogue can be restarted and a roadmap of a possible way through to a two state agreement can be produced. Not by military action, nor by international bullying. But through dialogue which must be home grown.

    And there are wider international objectives we must pursue. September 11 created a new bond of friendship and shared values between the US and the UK in the knowledge that we can do things better together than by ourselves.

    This historic relationship has always been one of partnership not subservience.

    That is what we must now work on.

    A renewed Atlantic Charter based on the reality that Europe and America work best in partnership rather than in rivalry, with the UK at the heart of it.

    There are however those in Europe today who believe that the EU will only meet its objectives when it becomes a rival to America with its own Foreign and Security policy.

    They set a false and dangerous choice, one which could drive the US away from us at a time when the US does not so much need us as we need the US. It would be bad for Europe and for us.

    We want to see not Europe or America but Europe and America with us as the natural bridge.

    Europe must change, and Europe knows it. For the first time Europe is actually talking about itself critically, looking to the shape and structure it should take to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

    The growing gulf between people and institutions in the EU underlines the need for change and calls for greater democratic accountability, and so do we. Recent votes in Europe make that process ever more relevant and ever more urgent.

    That process has begun, and we want to be constructively engaged in it. We want to see a fundamental review of Europe to ascertain what is working, what is not, what is out of date and what can be improved. We believe that as the EU prepares with our support for enlargement the time for such a review has come.

    We believe in conducting that review there should be no ‘no-go’ areas, no sealed vaults, no untouchable ‘acquis’. We must be rigorous.

    That which is working in the right direction and is valuable, such as the single market, we must improve and strengthen. That which is not working or is obsolete we should discard.

    The ways forward are there.

    They certainly do not include the ridiculous suggestion yesterday of creating a new powerful presidential position at the top of Europe to give Emperor Blair something to look forward to in his retirement.

    Nor are they the cynical ‘now we see you, now we don’t’ Euro-games being played by the Prime Minster and his favourite side-kick ‘Honest’ Steve Byers.

    Such suggestions and games only increase cynicism and alienation.

    We want to deal seriously with the future of Europe. We want to see an enlarged Europe, a partnership of sovereign nations, working together to strengthen the single market whilst retaining basic rights of national self-determination.

    We want a European Union built from the bottom up, an EU which derives its power from the national parliaments and which is accountable to them.

    We are part of the EU and intend to remain so.

    But we also occupy that unique position from which we can bring Europe and America closer together – and the Commonwealth too.

    We can return to our traditional role of bringing people together, of bringing democracy and free trade to other countries to their benefit and ours.

    And in doing so we can show that we still believe in the United Kingdom of which Scotland is such a crucial part.

    That as so often in the past we are the only party which has pride in our values, in our history and in our future too.

    People instinctively know that in Iain Duncan Smith we have a leader who will always hold that pride and those values high.

    They cannot say the same for Tony Blair.

    So let our message be loud clear. We are proud of our country. We are proud of what we stand for.

    We will stand up for loyalty, for trust and for friendship again.

    We will show that the days of losing are over. That the days of being driven back are behind us.

    We have come out from behind the shadow of our own fear and have found our confidence again. We are on our way back.

    Let us go out from here and win.

  • Michael Howard – 2002 Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference

    Michael Howard – 2002 Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Michael Howard on 17 May 2022.

    Introduction

    Creating the right climate for enterprise to flourish is one of the most important goals for any government.

    When enterprise is undermined, it is the weakest and most vulnerable who stand to suffer the most. It is the most vulnerable who lose their jobs first when business has to lay people off to pay the latest tax. It is the most vulnerable who get left behind in pay, or in training, because companies have to spend their resources coping with another batch of red tape instead.

    But a strong enterprise economy helps those in work and those looking for work. And it helps us to fund the public services on which patients, parents and passengers rely.

    Yet that enterprise economy, on which our public services depend, is being undermined. While headline economic indicators have seemed favourable, there are worrying signs beneath the surface. Imbalances are developing in the economy. Problems are being stored up for the future.

    It is the Government itself which must shoulder much of the blame for this.

    Of course, not everything Labour have done is wrong. And where we agree with what they have done, as in the reforms which have taken place in the setting of interest rates, we will not be afraid to say so. Conservatives will not oppose for the sake of opposition.

    Nor will we change things for the sake of change. We understand that it is not in the interests of business or anyone else for economic policy to lurch from one extreme to another, just for the sake of it, whenever a new government gets elected. Where continuity can be achieved it should be nurtured.

    But we won’t be afraid to criticise Labour, either, in Westminster and in Holyrood, when we think criticism is justified.

    Our criticism on the economy is not that Labour have destroyed it single-handedly, or that they have imposed 98 per cent tax rates as they did in the past, or that they are embarking on wholesale re-nationalization.

    Our criticism is that Labour simply don’t understand how business works.

    Criticism of Labour on Enterprise

    The pace of change in the business world has never been faster than it is today. The prizes go to those who respond quickly and flexibly.

    So creating the conditions for enterprise to flourish involves reducing the burdens on business. Which means governments getting out of the way. Interfering less. Limiting the burden of tax. Getting rid of unnecessary red tape. Above all, allowing business to do what it does best: win orders and create jobs.

    And crucially, which firm wins the order and creates the jobs is decided at the margin. It is at the margin that the extra tax or new regulation can determine whether a company takes on an extra worker or lays one off – and, ultimately, whether that company succeeds or fails.

    That is why each additional business tax and each new piece of red tape from Labour is so damaging. On its own each measure may not seem much. But taken together Labour have imposed £6 billion a year of extra business tax, and another £6 billion a year costs in red tape.

    So for all the rhetoric about enterprise, the Government have been slowly undermining Britain’s enterprise culture. Month by month. Measure by measure. Step by step.

    Budget: General Effect on Business

    And the Budget which Gordon Brown announced last month was one such step. One more step in the undermining of Britain’s enterprise culture.

    No Chancellor who understood the needs of business would have introduced that Budget.

    Last year, Labour were elected on a Scottish Manifesto which said: `We must make Britain the best place to do business in Europe…. That means… the right competitive framework to support enterprise, small and large, manufacturing and services’.

    Then, after that promise, in his very first Budget after that election Gordon Brown lumbers business with a £4 billion tax on jobs and another £1.1 billion in business taxes on top.

    It is no good Labour talking the language of enterprise and business and then bringing in a Budget which will do as much to damage the future of enterprise and business as anything else they have done.

    And the timing for Scotland – and for the UK as a whole – could not have been worse.

    Just two days before the Budget, Strathclyde University’s Fraser of Allander Institute published the latest Scottish Chambers of Commerce Business Survey. It showed that the ‘prospects in manufacturing appear to be improving slowly, but there is still some way to go before growth returns’ (15 April 2002).

    In fact, over the last year manufacturing output in the UK has fallen at its sharpest rate for a decade. But just at the time when manufacturing is struggling to emerge from recession, the Government’s reward is a new tax on jobs. This tax is not a tax on profits. It is not a tax on turnover. It is, quite simply, a tax on jobs. A tax which now gives every firm in the land a direct incentive to hire as few staff as possible – and for larger firms to shift employment abroad.

    It is little wonder that the reaction from business has been so hostile. The Director of CBI Scotland said members were `very disappointed’ at the further burdens on business. The Deputy Director of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said: `This increase in national insurance is likely to become an employment tax’.

    Even before the Budget, CBI figures showed that, of our five trading partners, only one had higher taxes on business. Now the ability of British companies to compete in world markets will be further undermined.

    Month by month. Measure by measure. Step by step. Undermining the enterprise culture in Britain.

    Oil Tax and Scotland

    And as one who represents a Scottish constituency, Gordon Brown of all people should have known the damage which another of his measures in particular will inflict.

    Across the UK, almost 300,000 people work in the oil and gas industry. Many more depend on it for their livelihoods. In fact oil-industry-related employment accounts for around 6 per cent of the total workforce in Scotland, and a much higher proportion in North East Scotland.

    The Government’s oil tax – the 10 per cent supplementary charge on profits – has been condemned by all in the industry, many of whom regard it as a fundamental breach of faith.

    In fact only a year and a half ago the Chancellor said this: `It has been put to me that North sea oil companies earning higher profits from higher oil prices should be subject to special taxes, but… I am determined not to make short-term decisions based on short-term factors. The key issue is the level of long-term investment in the North sea. This will be the approach that will guide Budget decisions in future’ (Hansard, 8 Nov 2000, column 317).

    So much for that pledge. So much for basing decisions on long-term perspectives rather than short-term factors. That is precisely what the Chancellor did not do with his oil tax.

    Chancellors come and chancellors go. But investment decisions last for decades. A Chancellor on the look out for new taxes to fill a back hole in his finances should recognise that this decision will have an effect for years to come. The industry has warned that some new fields, on the margin, may not now proceed, and that the tax could deter long-term investment.

    To remove an amount eventually totalling, on some estimates, £1 billion a year from the industry is bound to have an effect on investment decisions and on jobs, especially at a time of uncertainty in oil prices worldwide.

    Not only that but, despite all the Government’s talk about the importance of consultation, there was no consultation with the oil companies at all.

    Until a couple of years ago, Gordon Brown thought users of fuel were a soft target for his stealth taxes. He was proved wrong. Now he is trying to tax the producers as well. Once again he needs to be sent a clear message: hands off our fuel.

    Other Taxes

    The oil tax is not the only Labour tax rise to hit business in Scotland. The aggregates tax may have a disproportionately negative effect on the Scottish economy.

    And it is as a result of Labour’s policies north of the border that Scottish businesses are now expected to pay nine per cent more in business rates than their English counterparts.

    Public Services

    The great tragedy is that none of these tax increases, whether from Edinburgh or from Westminster, is likely to lead to the real improvement in public services everyone – including business – wants to see.

    Every year the Government promise us better public services in return for higher taxes. But every year we just get the higher taxes.

    Now, as in previous years, the Government claims the extra money is for the NHS. Of course the NHS needs more resources. But it also needs change and modernization. And without both, the Government wont be any more successful this year in keeping its promises to improve the NHS than it was last year or the year before or the year before that. And, more importantly, patients won’t get the standard of health care which they are entitled to expect.

    Anyone in England who doubts this just needs to ask the people of Scotland. Here, spending on health rose by 28 per cent ahead of inflation between 1996-7 and 2001-2. Yet the average waiting time for an outpatient appointment has risen by more than 25 per cent since September 1997.

    What’s more, public sector employers across the UK – nurses, doctors, teachers, police and fire officers – will themselves bear much of the brunt of the rise in National Insurance Contributions.

    This just goes to show the sheer absurdity of the Government’s position. First they refuse to change and reform the public services, so we will not see the improvements that we all want. Next they increase employee contribution rates for many of the very public sector workers that we are relying on to try to improve these services. And, finally, they hit the services themselves with a £1.2 billion tax bill, in the name of raising more resources for those very same services. The British people deserve better.

    Regulations

    Higher taxes are not the only ways in which the enterprise culture is being undermined. Last year 4,642 new regulations were introduced in the UK. Not only is that a record. It is an increase of nearly 50 per cent on the number introduced in 1997. That number includes 494 Scottish regulations – up from 203 in 1999, an increase of more than 140 per cent.

    I defy anyone to claim that introducing 4,642 regulations in one year is justified. Whether or not a valid reason can be found for each one, the cumulative total is undermining the enterprise culture. Measure by measure. Month by month. Step by step.

    Conclusion

    And so the Conservative Party north and south of the border needs to put the case for enterprise. In doing so, our themes will often be the same. So are many of our opponents.

    But the emerging success story for the Conservative Party in Scotland since devolution is how our shared Conservative themes and principles are being applied to the distinct circumstances of this nation. Our parties north and south are working together for success in the contests each of us face.

    The most immediate Parliamentary contest comes next year. This Conference is an important spring board for the Scottish Parliamentary Elections. We are showing how we can apply our Conservative principles to the development of fresh and distinct policies.

    Above all, this Conference is helping to demonstrate how Iain Duncan Smith is changing the Conservative Party, and we are getting back in touch with people’s priorities. That means providing better hospitals, better schools, better transport. It means extending a voice to the vulnerable, and opportunity to those who have been left behind. It means making a real and practical difference to the lives of everyone in our communities.

    Your task and mine, and the task of everyone who speaks for our Party, is to show how we are getting back in touch with the people of Scotland and England alike.

    So that north and south of the border we will have the opportunity to put our policies into effect. And to make a real difference to the lives of the people we serve.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech to Scottish Conservative Conference

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech to Scottish Conservative Conference

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 18 May 2002.

    Next year a new Scottish Parliament will be elected. Elections that will be a referendum, not just on the performance of the first Scottish Executive, but also on the performance of the Scottish Parliament itself.

    Three years ago, 129 MSPs were elected with the goodwill and enthusiasm of the Scottish people. And together they carried the high hopes of a proud nation into Holyrood.

    But three years of bickering, pettiness and politically correct trivia have dashed those hopes. Nothing illustrates this better than the way Tony Blair seeks to play games over the European issue. To have Stephen Byers brief the press that they are going to hold a referendum and then to deny it is cynical politics of the worst kind. Instead of trying to jump on the Euro issue he should be spending his time sorting out our failing health service, the rising levels of violent crime and the poor quality of our schools.

    Scotland, like Britain as a whole, faces deep-seated social problems and failing public services.

    The Scottish people looked to the Scottish Parliament for solutions but they have looked in vain.

    The Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive does not share the Scottish people’s priorities.

    As drugs continue to claim the lives of our young people, the only smack that the Scottish Executive seek to protect children from is the discipline of their parents.

    As rising crime drives decent people from the streets, the Scottish Executive seem more interested in making the fields safe for foxes.

    And as vulnerable people in our hard-pressed communities cry out for decent housing, Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians are spending £300m on a monument to their egos.

    For those of us that opposed the Scottish Parliament, the temptation is to say ‘I told you so’.

    But that is a temptation we must resist.

    In the overwhelming result of the 1997 referendum, the settled will of the Scottish people was made clear. And despite all the disappointments of the last few years, that will remains unchanged.

    The Conservative task is to make the Scottish Parliament work by ensuring that it rises to the challenge of serving every person and every community in Scotland.

    The Scottish parliament needs more MSPs with new ideas on how to improve our schools and cut hospital waiting times.

    The Scottish Parliament needs more Conservative MSPs who want to spend money on fighting crime rather than on expensive pet-projects.

    The Scottish Parliament needs more Conservative MSPs who will deliver effective help for the vulnerable.

    The Scottish Parliament needs more Conservative MSPs who will speak up for rural Scotland as well as urban Scotland.

    The Scottish Parliament needs more Conservative MSPs who aren’t going to spend all of their time campaigning for independence.

    It needs more Conservative MSPs to join a team so ably led by David McLetchie.

    Last week David set out the five key themes that will guide the Scottish Conservative Party as it prepares for next year’s Parliamentary Elections: economic security; safe streets; first class public services for all; support for stronger families and communities; and a real safety-net for the vulnerable.

    I spoke about helping the vulnerable during last summer’s Conservative Party leadership election. I spoke of “the caring hearts and practical agendas of men such as Wilberforce and Shaftesbury”.

    Wilberforce and Shaftesbury embody the Conservative approach to vulnerability: blending compassion with practical effectiveness.

    They championed great causes: freedom for the slave, help for the mentally ill, and education for all.

    And today is a time for championing great causes, too.

    People are switched off by politicians who would rather get a good newspaper headline than get something done.

    But they respond to people who hold strong beliefs that are matched by effective policies.

    The Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive is beginning to lose the battle of newspaper headlines but it has already lost the battle on public services and it has failed to help the vulnerable.

    Nearly three months ago David McLetchie and I visited the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow. Today I visited there again to learn about how beyond the reach of Government they are able to help those in difficulty and need.

    These visits are part of a number of visits that I and other Conservatives have been making to poverty-fighting projects all over Britain. But Easterhouse summed up the challenge that vulnerable people and vulnerable neighbourhoods face.

    All of the major signs of vulnerability were present: crime; drugs; inadequate housing; failing public services; too many people without rewarding work; and too many children who never see their fathers.

    But there were sources of hope, too: neighbours helping each other out; single mothers dedicating their lives to their children; and community and churchleaders providing constant care and support.

    People in Easterhouse have been failed by politicians. But they don’t want government to give up and run away – they want government to do things differently.

    I believe in a government that devolves power and responsibility to local communities. While Labour trusts the state, Conservatives trust people.

    When Labour thinks of community – it thinks of politicians, committees and taskforces. When Conservatives think of community we think of the family, local schools, charities, and places of worship. These are the people-sized institutions that operate on a human scale. In them we find friendship, identity and belonging. They are the building blocks of a neighbourly society.

    Government cannot solve every social challenge but government can support these institutions and the values that energise them.

    That is why the Conservative manifesto for the next Scottish Parliamentary elections will contain practical ideas to support families, charities, social entrepreneurs and other people in the frontline against poverty.

    The manifesto will also focus on schools, hospitals and crime-fighting. When I talk about failing schools, patients on waiting lists and street crime Tony Blair says that I’m exaggerating.

    When I read the relentlessly optimistic spinning put out by the present government, I am tempted to quote Groucho Marx: “What are you going to believe? Me? Or your own eyes?”

    For whatever Labour might want us to think, you do not need me to tell you that our schools and hospitals are getting worse. Our great public services desperately need reform.

    But not Labour’s kind of reform. Suffocating schools and hospitals under even more layers of bureaucracy, while leaving the underlying problems untouched.

    No, that kind of reform is all about helping Labour throw a cloak of lies over the evidence of their failure.

    It’s the sort of sleight of hand that keeps Tony Blair out of trouble, but leaves vulnerable people more exposed than ever.

    And it costs. Hard working families pay more in tax to fund these fake reforms. But as we know in Scotland, Labour can raise spending on schools and hospitals and still fail pupils and patients, teachers and nurses.

    Labour tax more and deliver less. The burden grows on rich and poor alike. But, the rich at least have a choice. They can pay again. They can buy their way out of the public sector and into private schools and hospitals.

    Most people don’t have that choice. Most people have nowhere else to go. Labour’s failure to reform the public services makes millions of people vulnerable – when illness strikes, when classrooms are disrupted, when crime brings fear to the streets.

    Labour’s fake reforms increase vulnerability. Conservatives are committed to real reforms that increase security.

    Conservative reforms that are straightforward and easy to understand. Conservative reforms that are built around familiar and trusted institutions and values.

    Conservative reforms that respect the public service professionals and strengthen the neighbourly society. What does that mean for the National Health Service?

    Its means an NHS that is responsive to local needs, local patients and local GPs. It means giving patients and their doctors a choice over their hospital treatment. It means freeing our hospitals from bureaucratic control and political interference. Hospitals will be part of the communities they serve.

    The same is true of our schools – which we will re-establish as local institutions. I want to stop that pitiless rain of central directives and clear the way for the leadership of head teachers and school governors.

    I am determined that teachers and school boards will have the respect not just of government, but, even more importantly, of their pupils too.

    We will not allow the disruptive few to damage the education of the many, we will give heads the authority to restore discipline in schools.

    And discipline will be the strength of schools that prepare their pupil not just for work, but also for life in all its fullness.

    Young people are under pressure as never before and parents want schools that help them to build character in their children, the strength to resist self-destructive behaviour and to achieve their hopes and dreams.

    We have failed our children for too long. And the evidence for that can be seen on the streets where young people are the victims of a culture of drugs and crime.

    We look to the police for protection and to the courts to stop the spiral of decline in both individuals and communities.

    But here too, the fake reformers are at work. Bureaucracy takes the place of action, central control the place of local accountability, political correctness the place of genuine care.

    Our police are pulled back from the fight against social disorder: and out of the petty crimes of vandalism, drug dealing and intimidation comes the threat and reality of mugging, rape and murder. None of us are completely safe, but again it is the vulnerable that suffer most of all.

    There is something seriously wrong with a society that leaves the poor, the young and the old unprotected on the frontline against fear. Conservatives will bring about real reform. We will put police back on the streets.

    Neighbourhood police officers that everyone knows – especially the local yobs.

    We will back them up with the powers that brought security back to the streets of American cities like New York.

    We won’t just hold the line against fear, we will take back the ground lost to forces of disorder and hand it back to the vulnerable.

    I want Conservatives to be the party most associated with new thinking on the real problems facing people and their communities.

    Conservatives will put forward real solutions to the problems of poverty, crime, hospital waiting times and poor discipline in schools.

    Only by focusing on real issues and effective solutions will politics be rescued from its current unpopularity.

    But politicians must also set a better example.

    Last week another terrible tragedy occurred on the railways. Every person who uses the railways sought reassurance that the government was serious about understanding what went wrong and that everything was being done to put things right for the future.

    Frankly, Stephen Byers was in no position to offer that reassurance.

    I simply do not understand why the Prime Minister keeps him in his Cabinet.

    Mr Byers is not only doing damage to the reputation of the Labour Party – my concern is that he is doing much greater damage to the whole reputation of politics and public life.

    People watch a Cabinet minister who lies and misleads but is never punished or rebuked.

    Mr Byers has demeaned Parliament and the office he holds. The longer he stays the deeper the taint in Tony Blair’s government.

    Politics will never be free from the kinds of people who make mistakes or behave badly. That is sadly the reality of human conduct in every walk of life.

    But politics needs leaders who will not excuse misconduct.

    I will not tolerate unacceptable attitudes or dishonesty from any Conservative politician.

    It is time that Tony Blair ended his weakness over his Transport Secretary.

    Mr Byers should go and he should go now.

    Labour in Scotland have had their own share of problems.

    David McLetchie properly exposed the office expenses scandal when the SNP opposition was either asleep or, perhaps, planning a photo opportunity at a TV studio.

    But the scandal of Scottish politics is as much about its scale as it is about its nature.

    There are simply too many politicians in Scotland.

    I began my speech by urging Scotland to elect more Conservative MSPs.

    But the Scottish Parliament needs fewer MSPs overall.

    Money being spent on extra politicians and their accommodation, spindoctors and bureaucracy can be much better used by the Scottish people themselves or by Scotland’s public services.

    Scotland’s voters reject the SNP because the SNP only have the one big, bad idea of smashing the United Kingdom.

    Scotland’s voters reject the Liberal Democrats because they surrendered their principles in return for a little power and must now share the blame for Labour’s terrible record on schools, hospitals and crime.

    For a long time Conservatives have been on the back foot in Scotland.

    In recent times there has been strong evidence that the tide is turning.

    For a start, there are more elected Conservatives across Scotland and for that I pay tribute to all of your hard work and to the leadership of Jacqui Lait and David McLetchie’s team.

    But even more significantly Scotland’s Conservatives are the party of new ideas. The party with the determination to find new solutions to the problems facing our schools, hospitals and other public services.

    In the 1980s and 1990s Conservatives focused upon the economy and by releasing the creativity of the British people the country was saved from economic meltdown.

    But we were not rejected without reason in 1997.

    People had not only become bored with us. Scotland’s people, in particular, felt we didn’t share their concerns and their values.

    The introduction of the poll tax in Scotland – one year ahead of the rest of Britain – encapsulated the problem.

    Things are changing.

    A difficult chapter of the recent Conservative Party history may be most associated with Scotland but it is a closed chapter.

    I urge Scotland’s people to look forward because the renewal of the Conservative vision was declared in Easterhouse and my commitment to helping the vulnerable is not a passing phase.

    We will deliver on the Conservative commitment to fight crime and improve Scotland’s schools and hospitals. No stone is being left unturned as we search for practical solutions in America, France, Sweden, Holland and Germany to improve peoples lives.

    Next year’s local and Parliamentary elections are vital for Scotland.

    Scotland’s voters will have a chance to endorse the terrible record of Labour and the Liberal Democrats or they can vote for real change.

    The SNP will never deliver real change because they never have any new ideas.
    David McLetchie and I are united as Conservatives but we are also united in our love for this country.
    Scottish Conservatives are from Scotland, of Scotland and for Scotland. We are the only alternative to the socialists, the separatists and the cynical Liberal Democrats.

    Only Scotland’s Conservatives will deliver action against crime. Action to improve our schools and cut waiting times. Action to cut the cost of politics – real solutions to the problems of vulnerable communities.

    Now is our opportunity to show the Scottish people that the Conservative and Unionist party deserves their trust again. It is a challenge for all of us and a challenge we must rise to.

  • Jacqui Lait – 2002 Speech at Scottish Conservative Party Conference

    Jacqui Lait – 2002 Speech at Scottish Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Jacqui Lait, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, on 18 May 2002.

    Ladies and Gentleman, before I begin, I have to make an announcement.

    A diary has been found, and it is clearly the property of someone who probably wants it back as soon as possible. It is a big – rather grand affair – BUT looking through it, it is pretty empty. It might help identify the owner if I read out a couple of the entries, in fact given how little of substance there is in the diary, I’m tempted to read out a whole week. – But I won’t!

    Whilst there is little real work listed, there does seem to be a lot of travelling, a lot of party meetings, and plenty of social events. There is even a reference to mid-week, mid afternoon French Lessons!!! It sounds just like Helen Liddell’s week and, so if she is watching, and lets me know, I will be happy to pass it to her.

    Since I accepted the Leader’s invitation to shadow Helen Liddell, I have been sad to see how the great office of Secretary of State for Scotland has been reduced. We now have a Cabinet Minister paid a salary of almost £120,000 who has so little to do that she spends an hour in the middle of the working week learning French. If she worked a 40 hour week, and took these lessons every week for a year, that would mean you and I paying £3000 to her to learn French. Now I know that we Scots have always had an affinity with the French, but I wonder how many of you think the Auld Alliance is worth paying for like this.

    Having a French surname as I do, you won’t be surprised to learn that I’m not anti French, in fact, I like them – but I don’t expect the taxpayer to fund me to learn their language!

    I believe that Scotland has a right to see the position of Secretary of State made to work properly. Scotland deserves a Secretary of State who does a full time job.

    Helen Liddell has my sympathy; after all, it cannot be easy sitting in a Cabinet with Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, who both think they own Scotland. Where every political event is interpreted as a power play between them with Robin Cook as a bit player in the wings. BUT if neither will back off and Tony Blair won’t give her the authority to do her job properly, she should resign. Wining, dining and learning French may be a nice way to spend her time. But what would serve Scotland better, some more nurses or a continuation of her part-time tenure? I know which I would vote for!

    Now it may of course be the case that our Secretary of State is actually far more active than we perceive. But she does little to make me believe it, for example, every time I ask her in the Commons to detail the action she is taking for Scotland she attempts to fob me off with empty and meaningless answers. Personally, I don’t doubt for a minute that there is a real job to do. However, the clear perception of many of those I talk to is that the once proud position of Secretary of State has become a part time job. Scotland needs and deserves a strong voice in the Cabinet, and to borrow a couple of well worn political slogans – Scotland deserves better, or to put it another way – Helen, it’s time for a change.

    But she need not go, if she is prepared to fight Scotland’s corner. To do this properly would mean standing up to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I doubt she will ever be able to do this, but I live in hope that she will. TIME WILL TELL. Scotland needs and deserves someone at Westminster to fight our corner in Cabinet. What we do not need is an expensive ceremonial position.

    At last year’s Conference, despite our great success in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, we were rather low but I think that as we look ahead now we can draw strength from the new realism that has gripped the Party – both North and South of the Border in the last 6 months. Yesterday, we heard from Murdo Fraser, Brain Monteith, David Mundell, Bill Aitken, Lord James Douglas Hamilton and, of course, David McLetchie, about the future that faces us. What is clear to me and will, I am sure, be clear to you is the fact that as a Party we are now prepared to recognise that the world has moved on from when we last won power.

    Here in Scotland, we now have a new approach with a new team. We have elected representatives at every level, from local councils, to the Scottish Parliament, Westminster and the European Parliament and I am delighted as I look around the Hall today to see so many of you representing the Conservative Party in all our democratic forums. Whilst everyone has been returned by the will of the Scottish people, I feel that I should especially congratulate Councillor Alasdair Hutton, who took a Liberal seat in a by-election in Kelso. Now, the Liberals are always saying that by-elections show the way ahead. In Kelso this certainly seems to be true.

    Since the Scottish elections in 1999 we have been winning seats from the other parties; in all the council by-elections since then our vote has gone up more than the other main parties.

    In my time as Shadow Secretary of State, I have come to realise the depth of talent we have in our team. I must briefly thank a number of people for the support they have given me, and for the work they have put in fighting for Conservative commonsense in Scotland. This battle is fought on a daily basis by our MEPs, John Purvis and Struan Stevenson who has the crucially important portfolio of chairman of the EP fisheries Committee, our MP Peter Duncan who is a true support to me and in the short time he has been in Westminster has shown himself to be both a great fighter for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and an effective performer in the Commons. In the Lords, the Duke of Montrose and his team are able to hold this overweening government to account and do so on your behalf on a daily basis. And could anyone forget Tom Strathclyde, Leader of the Conservatives in the Lords, architect of many government defeats!

    In Holyrood, David McLetchie and the MSPs he leads deserve special praise for the extremely effective way they are working as a group in the Scottish Parliament. They are the real opposition to the leftwing hegemony of Labour, Lib-Dem and SNP. I am particularly impressed by the way David is preparing our Party for next year’s elections. I look forward to the battle to win more first past the post seats as well as more list places.

    Increasingly in Council Chambers around Scotland, our councillors have flown the flag and they and our candidates will be a crucial part of the election battle next May. At all levels our elected representatives have been supported very effectively by the team in Central Office in Princes Street. They in turn have worked closely with our small but dedicated team of professional agents and I thank them all for all they do. They are often the unsung heroes.

    This leaves one group, our volunteers and members. Since my appointment I have visited about a third of our Scottish constituencies and already there are many more visits booked. I am always pleased to receive invitations to support the vital work you do. You, above all, deserve our thanks, for it is you who make our party work, and work it will do – once again.

    The recent past has not been kind, but the future offers us the opportunity to re-establish ourselves as the party that represents Scotland’s interests. Most people I know in Scotland are increasingly fed up being told what is good for them. They are not convinced that the only way to sort out issues like the NHS is to throw vast sums at it, they see the need for real reform, not more central directives. Especially when it is their money that the Government is throwing at the problem.

    As I have visited different parts of Scotland, from Easterhouse to the high technology businesses of British Aerospace and Scottish Power, I have found a wish amongst many of those I have spoken to to see a real challenge to Labour in Scotland. Whatever they may claim, the Lib Dems will never offer this. – And the SNP are now more interested in the return of their former leader than in the people of Scotland. As I have talked to people – both on my own, and with Iain, and with David McLetchie it has become crystal clear that when Labour came to power with the slogan “things can only get better” they misled huge parts of Scotland.

    Time after time, Labour and the Liberals seek to imply that as Conservatives, we don’t care about those in need, and that we have no right to be involved with the vulnerable. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I am fed up being told by a bunch of left wing politicians that they have cornered the market in caring. Throughout my political life, I have fought to improve the lot of those less fortunate than myself. I have worked with drug and alcohol projects, mental health charities and the families of missing people. In fact only yesterday, in my position as a trustee of the National Missing Persons Helpline, I started the Missing Miles Walk in Glasgow.

    I have done my bit for charity, because I believe in the important role charities play in our society. AND you know what, it never ceases to amaze me how often those I meet when visiting charities in the daytime turn out to be the same people I meet in the evenings when I visit Conservative Association events. Time and again, I find charities staffed by the same people who keep our party going, So let’s not take lectures from our opponents about caring!

    And let us put an end to the fantasy that our opponents are business friendly. The businesses I talk to are increasingly fed up with a Government that talks about delivery, and yet is really only interested in headlines and spin. They are frustrated by a Government that claims to be business friendly but that ties their businesses up in red tape and bureaucracy. And they are fed up with higher business taxes than in England. After all, a country that gave the world many of its greatest inventors and engineers suffers more than most when it is ruled by a Party that has an innate hatred and mistrust of initiative and enterprise. Can anyone imagine Andrew Carnegie, Alexander Graham Bell or John Logie Baird supporting a Government that cares so little about business it chooses to raise National Insurance on both employees and employers in the budget.

    In many areas of Scotland, we have seen the equivalent of a one party state ruling in local government. And what exactly has this one party state delivered? Housing schemes like Easterhouse, Wester Hailes and Ferguslie Park.

    As a journalist remarked to Iain during the historic visit to Easterhouse, ‘this is Labour territory, what are you doing here?’ And our Leader, very reasonably replied ‘yes, look at it.’

    The Lib-Lab pact running the Scottish Executive is equally prone to one party state thinking – perhaps Jack McConnell should not be called First Minister, but, more accurately, Third Minister.

    However, let us not fall into the trap of assuming that because the Scottish Executive is not popular, this is also true of our new Parliament. The Parliament is here to stay, and as Conservatives we need to recognise that it is our responsibility to return enough MSPs to have a real say in how it affects peoples lives, as David McLetchie put it so eloquently yesterday. That means we must vote and use all the votes we will have to vote Conservative every time. As I go around, the complaints and concerns I hear relate not to the Parliament but to the Lib-Lab Pact running the Scottish Executive. They are the real culprits.

    We must be clear what we want for the future.

    Labour have backtracked over their legal commitment to reduce the number of MSPs in the face of resistance from those who fear losing their jobs. We however want to see fewer of them and we will not back down on this. Scotland needs a smaller Parliament. The Scotland Act specifies a reduction in the number of MSPs. We want to see the numbers fall from 129 to 108. Let those who oppose the reduction explain just what extra benefit the 21 extra MSPs bring to the average taxpayer. Each one draws a salary, expenses and the cost of staff and offices. Surely, if Labour wanted to put the voters first, it would direct this money to delivering services, not simply keeping its favourites in jobs. And, it is not just the Back Benchers who need culling. Scotland has 20 Ministers. We do not need more than 10! This would still be twice as many as the old Scottish Office.

    But don’t expect action just yet. It’s amazing those who used to despise the trappings of power become attached to those very trappings: once they settle down in the comfy back seat of their Ministerial cars.

    Politics is about people, and good politics is about making peoples’ lives better. Sadly, for the people of Scotland the Prime Minister, his Ministers and his MSPs only seem to care about staying in office. Come the next election Scotland will, I am confident, be choosing between a Conservative Party that has looked, listened and adapted, and a Labour Party that has failed to deliver at almost every level!

    It is there for us to win.

  • Damian Green – 2002 Speech on Labour Party and Education

    Damian Green – 2002 Speech on Labour Party and Education

    The speech made by Damian Green, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 21 May 2002.

    As we pass the fifth anniversary of this Government’s arrival in power, the threadbare nature of their claim to have made improvements in education is increasingly apparent. Today, the Opposition will pay particular attention to their failures on truancy and discipline because they lie at the heart of so many other failures.

    Without effective discipline, there can be no effective teaching. Without regular and willing attendance, there can be no effective learning. If the Government cannot solve this crisis, they will be doomed to fail to solve the other crises in our school system, such as demoralised teachers, the widening gap in standards between the best and worst schools and, in particular, the Government’s complete failure to give effective support to schools in our inner cities.

    It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are not in a position to take anything away from today’s debate, but I hope that the Government will take away one message: the underlying, basic problems of truancy and discipline will not be solved by the usual gimmicks that the Department for Education and Skills loves so much. Grabbing the headlines for a morning may delude Ministers into thinking that they have done something effective, but it does not delude teachers, parents and pupils.

    Let us take this morning’s headline-grabber by the Government, which is on drugs in schools. I do not suppose that there is anyone in the House who does not want tough measures to eliminate drugs from schools and to warn children about the dangers of drugs, but the Government are sending very mixed messages about their attitude to drugs in our society.

    This morning, the Department for Education and Skills announced a crackdown and that it would be tougher on drugs, yet for months the Home Office has been espousing a softer line on drugs. That is a mixed message; nobody can know what the Government really want.

    Quite apart from the mixed message on drugs, the Government are sending a mixed message about exclusions. Today, the Secretary of State and her colleagues have been talking tough. They are to insist that head teachers exclude pupils who are caught drug dealing. There will be no appeal; such pupils will be straight out on their first offence.

    That is a very tough message, but I seem to remember that four years ago the Government sent out exactly the opposite message. They were instructing head teachers to exclude fewer pupils.

    The confusion does not only date back four years. If the Secretary of State had made an honest U-turn, we would have applauded it, because today’s policy is better than yesterday’s policy. Unfortunately for the Government, I have taken the trouble to read the amendment that they have tabled to our motion.

    Before the Minister for Lifelong Learning becomes too excited, I shall quote it. It is fascinating. I assume that it was written yesterday, presumably at the same time as the Department was writing its press releases on how exclusions need to be increased.

    The amendment boasts: “exclusions have fallen by approximately 28 per cent.” since 1996-97. At the press conference this morning, the Government said that a rise in exclusions is a good thing; yesterday, as their amendment shows, they said that a fall in exclusions is a good thing. There is a central confusion. The Government cannot know what they are talking about. It is clear that head teachers across Britain do not know which message the Government are trying to send. The reason is that the Government do not know. All they know is that they must say something tough about drugs.

    The Department for Education and Skills is always one of the most willing Departments to say, “You want an announcement, we’ll make it. Never mind the policy, coherence or implementation, we’ll write the press release for you.”

    Not even the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions would have the gall to say that that central confusion over the attitude to exclusion shows consistency of purpose. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by saying that she is a considerably more honest and straightforward politician than her right hon. Friend.

    Everyone in the House and outside it and everyone connected with education hopes that the Government’s new policy on drugs in schools will work, but we are right to be suspicious and sceptical that a Government who rely on spin and announcements rather than substance will not drive through an effective anti-drugs policy.

    Let me turn to truancy. Again, there is no difference between the two sides of the House. We all agree that truancy deprives children of their best chance in life and that the Government have a duty—which they share, most notably with parents but also with schools—to ensure that children attend school. Let us look at the facts of what has happened since the Government came to power.

    In the 1998 comprehensive spending review, the Government promised to cut school truancy drastically. They said that they would reduce the percentage of half-days missed a year through unauthorised absence from 0.7 per cent. to 0.5 per cent. That was a clear and unambiguous promise, but the result is complete failure. There has been no reduction in the percentage of half-days missed through unauthorised absence, which remains 0.7 per cent. In secondary schools, where the problem is most serious, it has risen since 1997 from 1 per cent. to 1.1 per cent.

    I have taken those figures from the Department’s own survey of pupil absence and truancy, but Ofsted too revealed growing problems.

    Unsatisfactory attendance is up from 22 to 30 per cent. in primary schools, and from 29 to 37 per cent. in inspected secondary schools. Those are not abstract figures on the number of children missing school. Truancy Call, a charity that tries to deal with the problem of truancy, estimates that, on a typical school day, 50,000 children are truanting, their life chances disappearing. Most schools, it says, do not have the time or resources to undertake first-day contact with those children. [Interruption.] The Minister for Lifelong Learning says that she does not believe it. I do not know who else she is going to try to call a liar. Stephen Clarke, the director of Truancy Call, is extremely respected in the field.

    Perhaps the hon. Lady will believe the previous head of Ofsted, who was appointed by the Government. Mike Tomlinson said:

    “Statistics suggest that there are 10,000 children who should be in school but are not.”

    Does the hon. Lady want to disagree with Mike Tomlinson as well? He found that statistic worrying and continued:

    “I wonder about what they are up to when they are not in school.”

    He is right to worry, as we know what too many of those children are doing when they are not in school; they are climbing on the conveyor belt of crime, which will damage their lives and communities, particularly in the inner cities.

    I shall cite someone whom even the hon. Lady will believe—the Secretary of State, who said that official figures showed that 40 per cent. of street crime, 25 per cent. of burglaries, 20 per cent. of criminal damage and a third of car thefts are carried out by 10 to 16-year-olds at times when they should be in school. By any standard, that is a catalogue of failure by the Government, who have not met promises that they made in their early, happier days in office.

    The Government have noticed that they have got a problem and have recently introduced a series of measures to reduce truancy. They announced that they want to put policemen in schools; they have half-announced that they are thinking of taking away child benefit from parents of persistent truants; and they announced £66 million to tackle truancy in the recent Budget.

    Having policemen in schools is a sensible idea, and I welcome the Government’s initiative. If head teachers want that, it is perfectly reasonable. I would be fascinated to know what the Secretary of State has to say about taking child benefit away from the parents of persistent truants, as the initiative appeared to emanate from the Prime Minister and No. 10, and volunteers in the Cabinet were called on to support it.

    It was notable that every other Cabinet Minister took a smart step backwards, leaving the right hon. Lady out at the front to defend the policy. I therefore hope that she will tell us later whether she still thinks that it is a good idea and, if so, when the Government propose to introduce it. I am afraid that if she cannot give us a date by which the Government are willing to do so, we will conclude once again that the announcement was made just to grab the headlines.

    The third issue is the £66 million to tackle truancy in schools across Britain. What the Government have not told us is that the means by which they are funding that—the increase in national insurance contributions—will take £150 million out of school budgets, year after year. The Budget therefore did not put money into schools but took it away.

    The Government are coming up with tough-sounding gimmicks. They know as well as everyone now—notably Mrs. Patricia Amos, who has been sent to jail—that an extremely tough range of measures is already available in the criminal law to stop truanting. It is clear that when Governments and courts have powers that can end up with a parent being jailed for allowing children to truant persistently, even tougher new measures are not necessarily needed. The Government already have all the tough measures that they could want to deter parents from allowing their children to truant.

    The Government are trying to pretend that those tough measures are not available, but their cover has been blown by the jailing of Mrs. Amos. That shows how tough the measures already on the statute book are. I hope that they work, and that every parent with a child who persistently truants looks at Mrs. Amos being sent to jail and thinks, “I don’t want to go that way. I’m going to do something about my child now.”

    The underlying problem is that the children who are let down most badly by the Government’s failure on truancy are those who are most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves. Many of those children, as we know, live in our inner cities and therefore attend inner-city schools. The figures are terrifying. Between 2000 and 2001, in several inner-city areas, truancy rose by as much as 16 times the national average.

    At the same time, GCSE standards—a strongly related issue—are far below the national average in such areas. Growth in truancy has persisted throughout England, where it has increased by an average of 1.7 per cent. in recent times, and the average proportion of pupils achieving the good GCSE score of five grades of A* to C is 50 per cent.

    It is terrifying to compare with those averages the figures for some of our inner-city areas. In Hackney, truancy is up 27 per cent. and the average GCSE score—the proportion achieving five or more A* to C grades—is 33.5 per cent. In Liverpool, truancy is up 26.2 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 35.1 per cent. In Sheffield, which was run until so recently by the Liberal Democrats, truancy is up 24 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 41.9 per cent. In Leicester, truancy is up 21.7 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 36.9 per cent.

    Those figures tell a stark story. The Government are failing our inner-city children; their rhetoric is not matched by action. They are tough on truants and on the parents of truants, but they are soft on the causes of truancy. Let us consider what they could be doing. The basic challenge on which they have failed is that of making every day at school relevant to every pupil.

    If pupils think that nothing that they do at school will be relevant, useful or interesting, they will start bunking off. Clearly, the long-term policy must be to reduce the number of regular truants to the hard core. There will always be a hard core, but we need to reduce truancy so that only that hard core remains. I am glad that Government Front Benchers agree; perhaps they will adopt the policy that I am about to put to them.

    The first and most widespread thing that the Government should do is make a radical improvement in the provision of vocational education in our education system. The first and most important radical change that should be made is that of rewriting the Green Paper in English, instead of the current jargon. The Green Paper is not remotely adequate to cope with the crisis in vocational education.

    The Government do not need Green Papers; they need to do what we do and learn from some other countries. Let me tell them about the experience in Holland and Germany. In Holland, for example, I visited classes in which 13-year-olds were rewiring rooms and plastering real brick walls.

    They were non-academic children in a non-academic stream—the sort of children who are failed by the school system far too often in this country and go out truanting. They were doing something at school that they could see was relevant, which they enjoyed and which they were good at. That was what got them into school, made them do the other lessons and allowed them to leave school having worked on a balanced curriculum and learned something useful, instead of taking the path of truancy and then crime to which far too many of our young people are condemned by the inaction and complacency of the Government.

    The problem is not new and is not even one of the past 20 years; it a problem of the past 140 years. Let me break the habit of a lifetime and quote Lord Callaghan, who rejected 25 years ago the idea that we should fit “a so-called inferior group of children with just enough learning to earn their living in the factory”. He was right that children who need a vocational education need more than that. That is pure common sense, and I am surprised that Government Front Benchers are so exercised by it.

    If those children are looking to the world of work, that is what we should prepare them for, by providing both the basic academic tools and proper vocational training when they are still willing to learn. Too often, the tragedy is that we wait too long, and by the time we seek to engage children who would benefit from a vocational education in proper vocational training, it is too late—they have got out of the habit of learning and into the habit of truanting. In five years, the Government have done nothing to help that dangerous lost generation.

    Whatever the situation that they inherited, what they have done has been relatively worst in its effects on inner cities. They have let down all children, but they have particularly let down those in the inner cities. I hope that she will reflect on that in her calmer moments. If she wants to talk about initiatives, I remember that education action zones were one of the great initiatives launched by the Secretary of State’s predecessor and junked by the right hon. Lady as soon as she had the chance.

    Let me move on to the wider problem of discipline.

    One reason why disciplinary problems in schools have increased under this Government is precisely that the authority has been taken away from head teachers to exclude those whom they want to exclude. Teachers, not only heads, are unhappy with the situation. The Government always get cross when I quote the National Union of Teachers at them, so let me quote the Association of Teachers and Lecturers instead. It says that in the past year it received 120 complaints from teachers about physical abuse at school and that assaults on teachers rose fivefold between 1998 and 2001. That is terrible.

    If the ATL is another trade union to which the Government do not want to listen, perhaps they will listen to Ofsted. It points out that the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils is cited as the major reason for teachers leaving the profession. If that is true, it is a great shame that the Government have spent much of their first five years in office encouraging the undermining of head teachers’ authority and therefore encouraging the increase in violence in schools.

    It is extraordinary that, although the Government have so much information at their disposal, they do not bother to collect facts about the scale of violence in schools.

    My colleagues and I have asked the Government for some weeks for the number of teachers who are assaulted each year, the number who are assaulted by pupils and the number of assaults on pupils by pupils. The Government do not know the answer.

    The Secretary of State says, “Oh no”. I refer her to written answers from her colleagues that state that they do not collect that information. Why do not the Government collect it? They know that matters are getting worse and are trying to disguise the fact rather than dealing with it.
    We propose giving power over exclusions back where it belongs — with heads and governors. If they have the power to discipline children, discipline in schools will improve. That would send clear signals to unruly pupils and irresponsible and potentially violent parents that they cannot get away with their behaviour any longer. The Government have spent too long undermining heads and teachers; it is about time that they got behind them.

    The Government’s never-ending stream of initiatives has failed to tackle the two fundamental crises in our schools. Until they use something more substantial than summits, press conferences and initiatives, our most vulnerable children will never receive the education that they deserve. That stands as an indictment against the Government for five wasted years. They are betraying the hopes of a generation of children. They will not be forgiven and they do not deserve to be forgiven.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech at Hackney Community College

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech at Hackney Community College

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 21 May 2002.

    I am delighted to be here at the Hackney Community College. Your mission statement talks of ‘working in partnership, widening participation, raising standards and achievement, to meet the needs of the communities we serve’. The hard work of students and staff here have made that statement a reality. Today I want to talk about how that reality can be spread to other inner city areas up and down the country.

    Three months ago I visited Glasgow’s Easterhouse estate.

    This weekend I went back and spent some more time with the residents there who help their own neighbours.

    A breakfast club run by church volunteers provides more than nourishment before school. One of the children who uses the club never knows if his mum or dad are even going to be at home.

    But in a life where nothing else is reliable he does know that every morning the same person who provides him with breakfast will also listen to his worries and encourage him.

    A positive role model has entered his life for the first time and has offered him the hope of escape from a life of deprivation.

    Yet he is not a target that someone was asked to hit nor is he a statistic that will show up in an Annual Report.

    He is just one child among many who someone took responsibility for and made a difference.

    That is why at Harrogate I rededicated my party to look more deeply into the social challenges facing our country’s most vulnerable communities and particularly the young in those communities.

    How can we involve more fathers in the lives of their children?

    How can we crack down on youth crime and the problems of drugs, to salvage young lives and to improve the communities they live in?

    And most of all, how can we create schools that teach basic standards, and respect for themselves and for other people?

    I remember when I finally decided I wanted to enter politics. I was on active service overseeing Rhodesia’s transition to a democracy.

    We visited a village after the guerrilla fighters had been brought in from the bush.

    A little boy was digging a hole in the riverbed looking for water to wash in. His friends were laughing and playing nearby.

    Their future was about to change for the better.

    It struck me that these simple things that gave those children such pleasure had been impossible during the war.

    Politicians gave them new opportunities, but twenty years later under a corrupt political process their country had slipped back into chaos.

    To understand the power of politics, you also have to understand its limitations.

    I entered politics to help make a difference, but that difference cannot be left in the hands of politicians alone.

    I joined the Conservative Party precisely because it understands these things.

    We have always worked to help people take back control of their own lives, we don’t try and live their lives for them.

    Because of that people too often think the Conservative Party only believes in money; that we are content for the most vulnerable in our society to sink or swim.

    That must change. And under my leadership the Conservative Party is changing.

    Learning from the voluntary sector

    To truly help the vulnerable, we must learn the lessons from those who are already doing the most to help them.

    They work in areas and with people who have been forgotten. Their local roots and independence allow them to get results that governments cannot even imagine.

    Because of the depth of their personal commitment they have the authority to help people who want to change, they don’t simply help people and hope they’ll change.

    You can call it ‘tough love’, but these groups are agents of change, not just another agency of the state.

    And often as not they are provoked into action by the failure of the state.

    I visited Faversham a couple of months ago and met two mothers who had set up a drug rehabilitation centre. One of them had turned her own son into the Police.

    He had become a one-man crime wave, stealing from her and her neighbours and dealing to other children to feed his own addiction.

    These two women had overcome the indifference of the police and the hostility of local officials to take control of their own situation.

    How can politics help people like this without undermining what they do?

    Voluntary groups want to be free to respond to the personal needs of local people rather than become enslaved by the artificial requirements of politicians.

    This Government offered the voluntary sector a partnership, but that partnership has turned into a takeover.

    Instead of forcing the voluntary sector to think and act like the state, politicians should have the humility to learn from what these groups do best.

    They help the vulnerable with care, commitment and innovation, virtues which we must allow to flourish in our public services too.

    The status quo

    The way we organise our public services belongs to a bygone era.

    In the 21st Century we are still running our public services and trying to make them accountable in the same ways we did after the Second World War.

    But since then we have lived through the Cold War, the development of nuclear weapons and the information revolution, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of the internet.

    Imagine what our living standards would be like today if we still ran our economy the way Clement Attlee did?

    Now imagine how much better our quality of life could be if we no longer ran our public services the way Clement Attlee did.

    At the beginning of a new century, no other major country runs their schools or their hospitals the way we do. That is why the quality of our public services is failing to keep pace with rising expectations and living standards.

    For the past five years Labour has spent its time centralising our public services with targets and ten-year plans. It has drowned individual initiative in directives and dogma.

    But central control is delivering neither fairness nor efficiency.

    It is going to fall to the Conservatives to address these issues. We will have to re-examine the entire relationship between central government and the people it is supposed to represent.

    We will have to challenge every principle except one: that people should be helped according to their needs.

    We should challenge the idea that uniformity is more important than quality. That nobody minds receiving a poor service as long as nobody else is getting a better one.

    But poor public services are not fair. They hit the vulnerable the hardest.

    A Health Service in crisis affects the elderly disproportionately.

    A society that turns a blind eye to violent crime and the drug culture condemns many council estates to fear and despair.

    Bad schools keep poor families poor.

    In some of our inner cities, as many as one in ten pupils leave schools without a single GCSE and truancy is rocketing. Compare this with places like Redbridge or Buckinghamshire where more than 90% of children gain five or more GCSEs.

    As our country grows richer those who can, seek to buy their way out of failure, but they cannot avoid the consequences of failure for those who are left behind.

    For generations too many experts have told us all it is unfair to expect children from inner cities to strive for the same standards as everybody else. I say it is unfair to expect anything less.

    The most important thing to me personally, my mission for the Conservative Party, is to provide equal opportunity in our schools for all children – particularly the most vulnerable – wherever they live, however much their parents earn.

    There is nothing compassionate about leaving the most vulnerable in our society to suffer simply because we decree that everybody should be treated the same regardless of their needs.

    Uniformity doesn’t lead to social cohesion it only breeds social division.

    When systems become more important than people and theory matters more than results, this country has lost its way.

    Everywhere else around us services are tailored to our individual needs. We have more choice and more access to information, we are used to our views being taken seriously.

    This is almost impossible in today’s public services.

    The second thing we need to challenge is the idea that centralised politics and centralised public services are what hold our nation together.

    In fact they are in danger of tearing it apart.

    Take the case of Rose Addis, the 94 year old mother of my constituent, who was left unattended in her local Accident and Emergency ward.

    All the family wanted was an apology. The hospital authorities dismissed their concerns. The family went to the press. The Health Secretary rubbished their story on national radio. The family came to me in despair and I raised the case in Prime Minister’s Questions.

    What followed was a 72-hour political row that dominated the national news. The entire political and NHS establishment came crashing down on Mrs Addis. She was even accused of being a racist all because she wanted a simple apology.

    This one case encapsulates most of what is wrong with the post-War welfare state.

    A vulnerable lady did not get the quality of care she deserved. The hospital was too rigid even to offer an apology.

    The lines of political accountability were so centralised that the Health Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister became involved to try and resolve a single case.

    Ultimately this degree of centralisation diminishes our democracy.

    Because Central Government is responsible for everything, it tries to run everything, and because it tries to run everything it ends up running most things badly.

    So it relies on spin to pretend that things are better than they are.

    Detailed target setting, leads to failure, this leads to lies and the setting of new detailed targets. The vicious circle is complete.

    As a result our political culture becomes debased and our public services become demoralised.

    People are crying out to be heard. They want to have a say in the direction their communities take, they want more control over their own lives.

    We must listen to them and we must learn to trust them by placing responsibility for results back where it belongs.

    Better schools and hospitals, more responsive local government, means giving teachers, doctors, nurses and councillors the power to do their jobs and making them accountable for what they do.

    That is what happens in every other walk of life, it is also what happens in every other country whose standards of public services exceed our own.

    Rudolph Giuliani turned crime around in New York because he had the authority to do so, because that is what the voters elected him as Mayor to do, and because he knew that that was how he would ultimately be judged.

    In Stockholm, the county government introduced a choice of family doctor and a choice of hospital for its citizens because Sweden gives different parts of the country the right to run healthcare differently.

    In Holland it takes as few as 50 parents to set up a new independent school, where the Government pays for children to be taught within a slimmed down national curriculum.

    Trusting people is the modern way, followed by countries across the world including those who are considered more egalitarian than Britain.

    What all these nations have in common is that they have put quality before uniformity, people before ideology. It is time for us to do the same.

    Conservatives are rightly suspicious of blueprints. It is that kind of approach that has taken so much power away from people in the past.

    The Government’s plans for regional assemblies will not drive power down from Whitehall they will strip power from local communities. They mean more centralisation, not less.

    And yet I have been struck by the diversity of solutions on offer as I and my Shadow Cabinet colleagues have travelled around Britain and Europe.

    Kent County Council is running a scheme it has initiated with the Treasury, where it is taking responsibility for getting people off welfare and back into work in return for a share of the benefit savings.

    We need to look at our benefit system as a whole. The entire impetus for welfare reform in the United States came from individual states and cities taking charge of welfare programmes from the Federal Government.

    People say that Britain is too small to have the laboratories of democracy that the United States has. But it isn’t a question of size, it is a matter of identity. Switzerland is a very small country. Yet it retains a vibrant and vital local tradition through its cantons.

    People who want a European superstate say that Britain is too small to be a country. With the fourth largest economy in the world, British people are entitled to treat this with derision.

    There will be areas where we want to decentralise directly to people who receive services and other areas where we want to make services more locally accountable. The two need not be incompatible.

    In the end if you want to spread best practice, you have to be prepared to allow best practice by encouraging people to do different things in different places in order to learn what works.

    Parties say they want to decentralise in Opposition, but too often they change their tune in Government. The present administration is more guilty of this than nearly all of its predecessors.

    That is because the way we conduct politics in this country has remained unchanged for more than fifty years. The buck always stops with central government.

    But central government is not delivering the goods any more, nor are nationalised, uniform public services. People in this country know that and we have to be honest enough to say it.

    Our nation is the natural level of allegiance, that is why we believe that control over our armed forces and the power to control our economy.

    But that does not mean the most appropriate level for organising and holding to account every last public service is national.

    If we are to strengthen our nation and our society we have to learn from the modern world and recognise that it is organisations operating on a human scale that succeed.

    The way to revive our politics, the way to improve our schools and hospitals, the way to make our streets safer is to trust the people who can really make a difference.

    It is not just about helping people and hoping they will change; it is about helping people who want to change.

    It is about supporting people who are trying to assert some control over their own lives, seeking help because they want a better life for themselves and their families.

    Education is the key to that opportunity.

    We want future generations to believe in our laws, we want them to contribute to our prosperity and to play their full part in our country’s future.

    But they need something from us: a passion and a commitment to equal opportunity in our schools for all our children.

    The path back to a stronger, more decent society begins in the classroom. It begins in places like this.

    In your example lies our nation’s future.

  • Theresa May – 2002 Speech at Welsh Conservative Party Conference

    Theresa May – 2002 Speech at Welsh Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Theresa May on 25 May 2002.

    The theme of this conference is making life better for Wales.

    Today, I want to talk about why we are the Party fit for that purpose.

    We are the Party that recognises the value of community.

    We are the Party that wants to push power down to people, not take it away from them.

    We are the Party in politics today which knows that we need to change the way we think about public services if we are to give the public the schools, hospitals and railways they deserve.

    We are changing as a Party – not who we are or what we believe, but how we express what we believe.

    We stand by our Conservative principles – freedom, responsibility and choice.

    But we are looking at how we apply these to the 21st Century.

    And to do this, we are learning from local people.

    My Shadow Cabinet colleagues and I have been travelling throughout Britain to see how people are making a difference in their own communities.

    We all know that people no longer hold politicians in high regard. They have seen too many broken promises to believe much of what we say.

    So in many communities they are rejecting politics and finding different ways of improving their quality of life.

    They are building neighbourhoods.

    Our challenge now is to support these local neighbourhoods and to support local people who want to help themselves.

    Too often, politics acts as a barrier to community.

    For five years we have been governed by a party which sees community as a threat. Labour have been the most centralising government for decades.

    But they haven’t simply centralised power and decision-making in Whitehall – they’ve actually put it in the hands of just a few people.

    I know this better than anyone.

    I have the task of trying to root the truth out of anything Stephen Byers says.

    We all know that he has great difficulties in remembering quite what he’s said to whom and what people have said to him. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Chairman of BMW, the rail regulator, the chairman of Railtrack or his own press officer.

    So it’s little wonder the Prime Minister has taken his responsibilities from him and given them to an unelected adviser – Lord Birt.

    He’s not elected. He’s not accountable. His only record on transport is running up a massive taxi bill at the BBC. Yet the Prime Minister would rather he decided transport policy than his own Transport Secretary.

    This is an example of how Labour works.

    They put power in the hands of the few – not the many.

    They take decisions behind closed doors. They dictate to people through centralised plans and national targets. They think they know best.

    They don’t trust you to take your own decisions.

    Here in Wales, they said that devolution would bring power closer to the people – but do people here in North Wales feel any better off because there’s an Assembly in Cardiff?

    For too long we have allowed Labour to claim the mantle of devolution.

    We need to reclaim that mantle. Today, it is we Conservatives who believe in a genuine devolution of power.

    It’s not about local politicians. It’s about local people.

    Because the Labour LibDem coalition has not delivered real devolution. But let’s be clear about why.

    It’s not because they couldn’t make life better in Wales if they wanted to. It’s not because they need greater powers or more money.

    It’s because Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians simply don’t know how to deliver better services to people in Wales.

    It’s because they think politicians and the state run things better than people and communities.

    They have increased centralised control over public services.

    On education, housing and social services they dictate policies from the centre.

    They cream off resources that are meant to go to schools.

    They offer councils financial incentives, but only if they sign-up to what they want.

    They believe uniform policies work better than local initiatives.

    Today, I have seen first-hand how this approach impacts upon vulnerable people.

    Earlier this morning, Nigel Evans and I visited a care home here in the town – in fact, as we speak Nigel is still there. We heard from elderly residents who thought they had found a long-term home. It is a community in itself. The residents know their neighbours; the residents know the staff; and the staff know the residents.

    But a politician somewhere has decided that it has to close. It may not have been the intention of the decision they took, but by imposing centrally decided standards on care homes while failing to back them up with resources, they have condemned the residents of plas-y-dre to an uncertain, and perhaps an unhappy future.

    This is the politics of last century.

    So what a relief that we have such a strong team of Conservative AMs in Cardiff.

    A group who have worked to try and make the Assembly deliver the better quality of life the people of Wales were promised.

    A group who are on their side.

    What would the Assembly be without a Conservative group who recognise that people want decent public services not decadent politicians’ palaces?

    And a group who are being straight-forward and honest with people about what they can achieve in Wales.

    I would of course love to see a Conservative victory at next year’s elections.

    A Conservative led Assembly would put to rest the myth that the only problem with it is that it doesn’t have enough power.

    And we will fight every seat vigorously to achieve that success.

    Half of our candidates are already chosen. Soon we will have our full team in place.

    But it’s not just about having the right team – it’s about having the right policies.

    Later this afternoon you will hear more about the policies our Conservative Assembly Members will be putting forward to the people of Wales next year. Nearer the time they will publish their full manifesto.

    But it is important that in building these policies we have been talking to the people who matter.

    On education, we’ve been talking to parents and teachers. We’ve been finding out about their concerns. We know what they want, and we know how to deliver it.

    They want local schools to have the freedom, the flexibility and the finance to deliver world-class education. So we need to stop politicians and bureaucrats dipping into their budgets by ring-fencing the money they are given.

    On health, we’ve spoken to doctors, nurses and patients. They think Jane Hutt’s plans to replace 5 health bodies with 37 different organisations are mad. 80 per cent of NHS managers have already said such a reorganisation won’t achieve better health care. So we should take the politicians out of the NHS and let doctors, nurses and patients decide the best way to organise themselves.

    On transport, we recognise that the best way to improve public transport is not to tax the motorist off the road. For many people in Wales the car isn’t a luxury – it’s a necessity. So we need to improve the road and rail links throughout Wales. Anyone trying to get here to Llandudno will testify to that.

    None of these things can be solved by money alone.

    You don’t improve schools, hospitals or the transport system by simply throwing more money at it. Unless you are also prepared to think about how you spend the money, unless you are prepared to consider changing the systems you are spending it on, then all the money in the world won’t deliver the world-class public services people want.

    And the tragedy is that when public services fail it is vulnerable people who suffer the most.

    It’s the vulnerable who are suffering most as a result of our failing health service. It’s ok if you can afford to buy your way out of it. If you can afford to travel to France or South Africa to receive treatment then the spiralling waiting lists need not affect you. But why should people have to spend their life savings to save their own life?

    It’s ok if you can afford to send your children to private schools. People should of course have that right. But what happens to the children whose parents can’t afford it? What happens to the community where one child is well educated while the next one isn’t?

    How do you build social cohesion when your quality of life depends more on what you have in your pocket than on what you bring to your community?

    That’s why this week Iain Duncan Smith said that his most important priority – and our Party’s most important priority – is to ensure equality of opportunity in our schools for all children, wherever they live, however much their parents earn.

    In the past, we have allowed ourselves to be portrayed as a Party which only cares about money. People felt we were prepared to let vulnerable people suffer.

    It was of course a caricature, but people believed it.

    But under Iain Duncan Smith the Party is changing.

    It’s changing to focus on improving public services; changing to be more representative in our constitution of the society we seek to represent in our politics; changing to give support to our communities and to their people.

    And people are responding to that change.

    That’s why here in Wales people are joining us from all areas of the political spectrum.

    That’s why former Liberal Democrat candidates and councillors now sit under the Conservative umbrella; and why a former organiser for Plaid Cymru is your Assembly candidate here in Conwy.

    And haven’t we seen Plaid’s true colours in the past week? At least people in Merthyr and elsewhere can now see through their false promises and platitudes and recognise the true nature of the party underneath.

    It is clear that we are the only credible opposition in Wales.

    In the Assembly, Nick Bourne and his team are the only Members standing up for the interests of all the people of Wales.

    Jonathan Evans is our strong voice in Europe. He has already shown that he can lead where Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians – to their shame – try not to follow.

    And you can take it from me – the Welsh Conservative voice is heard loud and clear around the Shadow Cabinet table from Nigel Evans.

    We are all united in one aim.

    We want to give power back to local people. We want to push power down; support community and voluntary groups who seek to help themselves; support local councils who want to be free to innovate and try new ways of doing things.

    That’s the message I’m giving to local councillors as I travel around England. Our commitment in Wales is no different.

    Conservatives believe in local people whoever, and wherever, they are.

    It is not always about winning votes for the Conservative Party.

    There are some areas of Wales where a Conservative is seen as an outsider. These are the areas we have to reach.

    It is often in these areas that people need help the most.

    It is often here that the schools, hospitals and transport systems are worst.

    But many of them have one very important thing – community spirit. We can harness this for the good, or dampen it to everyone’s detriment.

    We have made our choice, and Iain Duncan Smith is leading the way.

    So over the next year we have to go into these areas and reach out to these people. Show them that we are on their side. Tell them what a Conservative administration and a Conservative government will do for them.

    Tell them that we trust them to run their own lives, but that we are ready to help where we can.

    This is what devolution is really about.

    People not politicians.

    Communities not committees.

    Pushing power down, not pulling power up.

    We have listened and learned. We are changing. We know that people deserve better than they have had in the past, and much better than what they are getting now.

    It is as true in Wales as it is in Westminster.

    It is the message we shall pursue up until next year’s elections and beyond.

    It is how Conservatives will make life better in Wales.