UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2003

  • Annabel Goldie – 2003 Speech to Conservative Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Annabel Goldie at the 2003 Conservative Spring Conference on 8th March 2003.

    I welcome this opportunity to join with fellow Conservatives as the only party that stands for a low tax, low regulation regime, and the commitment to actually deliver a better transport system.

    I believe, like you, that Scotland has the potential to be a dynamic and competitive economy, worthy of its historical reputation as a nation rich in ideas with an innovative and creative people. Given the right environment our businesses have the potential to increase our economic growth that has been so stagnant in comparison to the rest of the UK since 1997.

    Unlike the other political parties in Scotland, the Scottish Conservatives have consistently argued for a pro-enterprise agenda by cutting business rates and investing an additional 100 million pounds in our transport infrastructure. I believe that these two policies will have the greatest impact on Scotland’s economic growth to the benefit of all businesses.

    I do not find it acceptable that Scotland can suffer a recession while the UK economy remains stable and that business rates can be almost 9% lower in England and 9.4% lower in Wales. Both Labour and the Lib Dems have proved that they do not understand how to create a dynamic and competitive economy.

    It is also clear that there is not one single tangible policy that the SNP will deliver for businesses on May 2. They have already conceded that their policy on business rates will only be completely delivered at the end of a four year parliamentary term. The SNP’s opposition to public-private partnerships indeed directly undermines its credibility as a pro-enterprise party, as it seeks to exclude the private sector and, in so doing, denies people the choice in quality services.

    The recent press coverage about the Scottish Government’s failing economic agency, Scottish Enterprise, highlights that its approach is failing the Scottish economy. Allegations of programme slippage, laxity of management, failure to apply for European Union funding, and excessive use of consultants, does little to inspire anyone with confidence that our economy is in good hands. Make no mistake, Scottish Enterprise is the responsibility of Iain Gray and Jack McConnell, as well as the highest paid public servant in Scotland, Robert Crawford.

    The Enterprise Networks spend over £116 pounds per year for every man, woman and child in Scotland, and they need to be accountable for their actions, or inaction. We are determined that an independent audit be done and have called for an evaluation of the organisation’s staffing arrangements to clarify how much this massive organisation spends on its own PR and consultants. It has become quite clear that there is growing unrest and unease both within the organisation and from the business community that Scottish Enterprise cannot effectively deliver the Scottish Government’s smart, successful Scotland that we have been promised for four years.

    The Scottish Conservatives will reform this organisation and we are committed to ensuring both value for money and delivery of higher economic growth. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will be retained as signposting organisations and will be tasked with offering advice to all businesses and providing training to improve their relative competitiveness.

    It is our belief that although there may be a role for the state to help businesses improve skills and provide advice, it should not be expected to dish out grants to a few businesses that are not available to all. It is not and should not be the role of government to pick winners. We seek to reduce the dependency culture that is clearly not working as is evident from the 22.6% drop in new businesses recorded in the third quarter of 2002, compared to the second quarter alone.

    Our opponents also accuse us of threatening the present focus and funding of training and skills, but let me make this clear, the Scottish Conservatives will be retaining the entire budgets of lifelong learning and the present priority area of training and skills within the enterprise networks.

    But there does need to be a complete rethink of how government improves the current economic climate, and contrary to what Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP believe, the answer is not simply more money.

    Politicians and bureaucrats do not have all the answers. As Conservatives we trust business men and women to spend their own money on their businesses to best effect. The other tax and spend parties suffer from the misconception that higher spending delivers greater economic growth. It doesn’t – widely quoted OECD research has shown that a 1% increase in the tax ratio is associated with a reduction in output of 0.6-0.7% of GDP.

    The Scottish Conservatives are committed to cutting over £260 million pounds from the overall enterprise budget to restore the uniform business rate, improve transport infrastructure and focus on skills.

    This is our agenda for generating stronger economic growth.

  • Liam Fox – 2003 Speech to Conservative Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox to the 2003 Conservative Spring Conference on 16th March 2003.

    Our proposals need to be seen against the backdrop of one simple, stark and shocking fact. The British people do not enjoy the standard of healthcare we deserve.

    During our extensive and detailed analysis of healthcare provision in more than a dozen countries over the last two years, we have seen systems which share our ideals, but which offer a considerably higher standard of care and much better clinical outcomes than the NHS.

    Unless there is fundamental and radical reform, the NHS will never produce the quality of care we have a right to expect in the World’s fourth largest economy.

    That reform must occur on three broad fronts:

    – taking politicians out of running the NHS;

    – giving real freedom to health professionals; and

    – ensuring patients have real choice in health.

    Only the Conservatives will be able to undertake that reform. The result will be an NHS which offers high quality care, free at the point of use and irrespective of the ability to pay.

    There is a clear ideological difference between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party over where power should lie in the NHS. Labour believes that the best way to achieve a quality agenda is for Ministers to determine clinical priorities and to try to enforce them through a rigid target culture.

    Conservatives believe that politicians should be taken out of the running of the NHS, that clinical staff should be given more power and that only by giving patients greater freedom about where and when they are treated can the NHS produce quality care better tailored to the needs of individuals.

    We believe that the NHS is there to service the patients not vice versa.

    We will give new freedoms to patients, empowering them to take more control over the health care they receive. We also intend to develop new capacity by encouraging more spending on health on top of that already spent in the NHS.

    The principle will be that we will want to see total spending on health increase, but we will want to see the proportion of that spending that comes from other sources increase at a greater rate than that coming from the state.

    In today’s NHS choice is highly restricted. Freedom of choice cannot be limited just to those who opt to pay for extra care on top of what they contribute to the NHS. Choice must be available for all patients whether they receive their health care from the NHS or from another provider. Unlike Labour, we do not believe that this choice should only become available after the system has already failed you.

    There needs to be a profound improvement in the overall quality of healthcare available.

    This can be brought about only by increasing the volume of treatment carried out, and raising the standard of such treatment.

    Increasing the volume of treatment carried out can be achieved only by either increasing the output of existing suppliers or introducing new suppliers. Under Labour, despite vast increases in expenditure on the NHS, the total output of the system has barely increased. All the indications are that further huge increases would not be matched by increases in output, since Labour refuse to introduce the radical reforms needed to encourage diversity and innovation. In order to create new capacity and to encourage diversity, it will be necessary to persuade new, non-NHS suppliers of healthcare to invest.

    At present, the state holds a near-monopoly on the supply of healthcare. The most recent available data on health expenditure in the UK shows that it comprises 85% from the NHS, 4% from Private Medical Insurance (PMI) and 11% from a variety of self-pay sources.

    Over recent years, whereas there has been minimal growth in PMI, the number of people opting for self-pay has increased by an average of over 20% per annum.

    In order to increase the quality and quantity of healthcare undertaken, we will need to take a number of steps:

    – Create an environment in which the private and voluntary sectors believe it is worth their while to invest, in order to generate extra capacity.

    – Reform the NHS, removing political interference and giving clinical freedom back to professionals

    – Funding the NHS on the basis of real activity not block contracts

    – Allow patients the option of moving between any NHS provider based on a national tariff system which would define set costs for specific procedures

    – Allow NHS patients to take some or all of the NHS tariff with them if they decide to have treatment outside the NHS.

    The most effective way of stimulating the creation of new, non-NHS capacity is to make it more attractive for individuals to supplement what is already being spent by the state through the NHS. This will allow total expenditure to rise in a pattern more like that in neighbouring European countries where the amount of money spent on health by private citizens is higher than in the UK.

    There are three main candidates which might be incentivised:

    – Personal private medical insurance (PMI)

    – PMI available through company schemes

    – The pay-as-you- go market where patients pay for a single procedure or item of care.

    Other countries use a combination of cash rebates, tax incentives and reductions of the cost at source with the state reimbursing providers.

    PMI offers a chance to insure against unforeseen circumstances in a way that self-pay cannot do. Experience in Australia with the use of financial incentives has resulted in a large increase in those carrying PMI.

    Company PMI schemes have the attraction of greater risk sharing, and thus better value for money and a wider income distribution than personal products provide.

    The self-pay market accounted for 250,000 procedures last year; if these patients did not opt to offload themselves in this way the NHS would be unable to cope with the extra demand. It is vital that this number is maintained or increased. It will therefore be necessary to produce a carefully balanced system of incentives to prevent the NHS (with its tiny increases in recent capacity) from becoming swamped.

    We want that choice to be extended to as many as possible.

    We will introduce a Patients Passport which will enable patients to move around a number of providers, NHS, not-for-profit, voluntary or independent. This freedom is essential if we are to see greater plurality and diversity in both the funding and provision of healthcare that we seek. We intend to move away from the state monopoly with its increasing centralising targets and standardization of supply.

    The changes to the organization of care set out in “Setting the NHS free” will enable us to move towards an NHS where the patient as a consumer is sovereign for the first time.

    Knowing the cost of all NHS procedures and treatments and funding providers on the basis of activity will enable us to radically change the balance of power in the direction of the patient.

    Our Patients Passport would enable patients to move around the NHS and to take the standard tariff funding with them. This would set them free from dependence on block contracts agreed between PCTs and agreed providers. The NHS is there to service the patients not to control the patients.

    It would seem sensible that the point of entry to this passport system should be the GP who is best able to determine the type of referral and the level of clinical urgency. GPs could act as independent professional advocates for patients advising them on factors such as waiting times, outcomes and different options on locality. This counters the argument that patients would be unable to make decisions about their own treatment- a view that is both patronizing and outdated.

    We will extend the “Patient’s Passport” system to those services beyond current NHS hospitals – in the voluntary, the not–for-profit and private sectors.

    This will yield two important benefits. It will become a realistic option for a much larger proportion of the population to have access to a very much wider range of healthcare providers than is now the case. Further, those who choose to have their health care provided within the NHS will reap the benefit of shorter queues if more patients choose to access care elsewhere. Patients will, of course, be able to stay entirely in the NHS if they choose.

    The proportion of the standard tariff funding that patients can take beyond current NHS hospitals will need to take account of several factors: the total cost to the public purse, the level of available capacity from other providers, the predicted effect on NHS demand, the effect on the current private insurance market and the need to promote greater diversity in provision.

    We will produce a level relevant and suited to the UK and the varied, pluralist and consumer responsive health service that the Conservative Party would like to see.

    Only by raising our sights can we achieve the level of care that the people of this country deserve.

  • Alex Fergusson – 2003 Speech at Conservative Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alex Fergusson at the 2003 Spring Conference on 7th March 2003.

    One of the principle factors which motivated me to put my name forward as a candidate for the first Scottish Parliamentary election of 4 years ago was the absolute certainty that rural Scotland would need every voice it could get to speak in its defence in a Parliament that would, inevitably, focus on the urban agenda of the majority of MSPs. Many people, from all parties and all walks of life in rural Scotland feared the consequences of that agenda. Today, 4 years on, those fears are proven to have been entirely justified and rural Scotland today is more divided and distrusting than it has ever been. No wonder.

    I don’t blame the Labour party. They are, and always have been, an urban party with an urban agenda. They don’t understand the problems of rural Scotland and I have sympathy with that. What saddens me is that they show no signs of even wanting to understand those problems. No, the real tragedy is that, because of Labour’s indifference, they have left the fate of rural Scotland in the hands of their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats who are the architects of the muddled thinking and the mixed messages which are the real cause of the cynicism and enmity that I encounter all over Scotland whenever the legislative performance of this first Scottish Government is debated.

    Who, other than the Liberal Democrats could give virtually free access to all land – field and hill alike – to anyone who wishes to take it – on the one hand – and tell all farmers, in the biosecurity Code of Practice – that they must keep people away from livestock at all costs on the other?

    Who – other than the Liberal Democrats – could restructure Scotland’s fishing industry by destroying our fishing communities?

    And who – other than the Liberal Democrats could make such a mess of Agricultural Tenancy reform that a Bill which purports to revitalise the tenanted sector (an aim with which we wholeheartedly agree) has already effectively killed it stone dead?

    Over the last four years it often seems that it is the bureaucrats who have taken over the running of rural Scotland. How else do we explain the almost savage authority with which SNH now carries out its remit? How else do we explain the crippling penalties imposed on farmers who make the tiniest of errors in filling out the increasingly complex forms which they are required to complete? How else can we explain the ever increasing influence of so-called charities and partnerships such as RSPB, Environmental Link and the many others whose place in the decision making process seem wholly inappropriate, unduly influential, and highly questionable?

    Rural Scotland must be offered a real alternative, and it won’t be offered one by the SNP. Perhaps that is unfair, at their conference – they will offer an alternative but it’s an alternative that is more likely to resemble the politics of Stalin and Karl Marx than the politics which are needed in rural Scotland today.

    That real alternative won’t come from the SNP it won’t come from the Greens, from the Scottish Socialist Party, the fisherman’s party or even the often rumoured but entirely invisible Country Party. The real alternatives will be offered by the Scottish Conservative Party whose natural understanding of what makes rural Scotland tick has become increasingly obvious over the last four years.

    Accordingly, as soon as we are given the opportunity, we will instigate a total review of the regulatory burden which is suffocating rural Scotland today, with a yardstick of minimising regulations rather than maximising them, and I include outright rejection of the proposed sheep tagging regime and abolition of the 13 day rule. We will overhaul agri-environmental funding, in conjunction with the industry, to identify a more equitable pattern of distribution rather than continuing the current lottery of applications for the Rural Stewardship and Organic Aid Schemes.

    We will trim to a minimum the remit and operations of SNH, while maximising the local knowledge and practical input which should influence all their operations.

    We will reinstate the much-lamented Rural Forum in a more up to date form and explore every possibility for the greater regionalisation of production and marketing of the high quality products for which Scotland is so justly famous.

    We will restore a tenable balance between communities, tenant farmers, access takers and landowners by repealing parts 2 and 3 of the Land Reform Bill and reviewing the Access provisions of Part 1.

    Never let it be said that this party is against community ownership, access to land or tenants buying their farms. We are not – but it should always be done by mutual agreement and co-operation rather than by the confrontational approach which this Government has turned into an art form.

    In short, conference, we will deliver genuine integrated rural development – an overall package which encompasses housing, health service delivery, education, transport and infrastructure priorities alongside the traditional rural industries of farming, forestry, fishing and tourism.

    That is the approach which rural Scotland needs and which only we will offer. I believe that the electorate will endorse it strongly on May 1st and I commend it to you today.

  • Frances O’Grady – 2003 Speech to TUC Disability Conference

    Below is the text of a speech made by Frances O’Grady at the TUC Disability Conference which was held in Blackpool on Tuesday 9th December 2003.

    The TUC is delighted once again that the minister for disabled people has joined us for our conference. I know that you have always demonstrated a strong commitment to the same causes that the TUC supports, and that the work you have been doing to advance the rights of disabled people has been very important – even if we may sometimes have disagreements over some aspects. I am very pleased that you have been so interested in hearing our views, and that you recognise that the TUC is a strong and principled voice for equality, and that the people we represent have experiences that are really important, and have opinions based on real life that certainly help us at the TUC to arrive at our conclusions. We are very pleased as well that you have always agreed to stay to take questions from our delegates, because that way you get, directly, a flavour of what these experiences are, and what our members’ views are.

    I know that the whole conference will be looking forward to hearing from you this afternoon, and I imagine that you will be telling us a little bit about the new disability bill that you announced just last week. At this conference last year, delegates were keen to discuss what changes need to be made to existing disability law, and no less keen that, as soon as possible, the Government should deliver on its undertaking to reform the DDA. At the previous year’s conference, so strongly did the conference feel about this, that it voted to select, from all the motions agreed at the conference, a motion calling for a strong new disability bill to submit to the TUC Congress – where as you may know, it was debated and carried unanimously. Last year, we were very disappointed that up to that time, no progress had been secured in this vital question.

    Now, since this has been the European Year of Disabled People, it has been especially appropriate that we will now have a draft bill to consider. We know, of course, that the prejudice and discrimination faced by our disabled citizens cannot be removed just by having good legal rights – although having good legal rights would be a step forward indeed! That is why we will listen very closely to what you have to say about the scope of the new bill, and why I can promise conference that the TUC will consult closely with the unions as we go into the New Year to prepare a submission to help make the bill as strong as possible.

    Conference will know too that as part of the TUC’s commitment to achieving equality for disabled people, we have been campaigning on several fronts during the last year. We have organised training for thousands of workplace representatives to deal with the connection between disability rights and health and safety issues in the workplace. We have continued to advance the arguments for improvements to the benefits system, as part of our approach of making it more possible for those disabled people who are out of work, but who want to work and who can work, to move into work.

    But the biggest public thing we have been doing this year has been our petition, and on behalf of the TUC I want to thank every union here that helped us in this campaign for their contribution. Through promoting this petition, we have taken the message to thousands of trade union members, disabled but also non-disabled, that the TUC wants the law changed, that we want it changed as soon as possible, and that we want it changed significantly, so that some of the most serious problems with the DDA are got rid of. And our members have responded powerfully, and we have the petition here with us, and Maria [Eagle MP], in a few moments, it will be my privilege and honour to present it to you on behalf of the British trade union movement.

    But as I have already said, however good we manage to make the law, the challenge we all face is much deeper. We know that at a time when employment rates in Britain are as good as they have ever been, the proportion of disabled people of working age who want to work but are out of work has moved up, but only by a small percentage. We are worried that for every step of progress made in climbing this mountain, where employers come to understand the value and the need to recruit disabled workers, at the other end of the scale other disabled workers are being forced out, made redundant, given early ill health or disability retirement. Many of those who do find work are to be found in low paid and insecure jobs, in so many cases unable to afford to contribute to pension funds. So the cycle of poverty continues into retirement even when people do find employment. There are many other issues, too, that relate to this crucial challenge, and it was a motion on this topic that the conference selected last year to send to the 2003 TUC Congress.

    What are the answers? Well, if ever there was a need for a joined-up approach, this is it. We need at least to promote the benefits of employing more disabled people at the same time as improving legal protection against discrimination on grounds of disability. Easily stated, of course, but as both we and the Government have seen, quite hard to achieve. Because as well as changing the law, we know it requires a big change of attitude. There isn’t a magic wand to wave that will overcome so much commonplace ignorance and prejudice in a flash. So we welcome most sincerely the promise in the new bill to introduce a public duty to promote disability equality. This could be a critical step in helping change attitudes, too.

    But what about private employers? It may be getting a bit tedious to have to keep repeating the same old message, but we have argued for a long time that schemes like Access to Work, where they have been used, have been a fantastic success, but not enough people know about it, and despite the very welcome increases in the budget that the Government has organised, year after year, the potential demand is still vastly greater than the supply, yes, but the potential impact on increasing employment rates for disabled people is greater still.

    Workstep, too, has witnessed increases in its funding, and this is most welcome. But again, potentially, the number of more severely disabled people who could possibly benefit from such a scheme vastly exceeds the few thousand who do, a number too which has not increased. There are other important issues too about the way Workstep now operates that unions have brought to our attention, issues we have raised with Government. But the key message I want to get across here is that these are measures where the Government, directly, can make an impact, can help to tackle the problems disabled people have in getting properly paid, secure employment. Of course they cost money, but in terms of cost benefit, it is a small price to pay.

    We have also made the case that the problem must be tackled from the other side. It isn’t a secret that a lot of disabled people currently on benefit are themselves reluctant to take up work, for the very real fear that if the employment doesn’t work out, they will find themselves facing even greater problems than they faced when on benefit in the first place. The TUC has proposed ways to deal with this, and has welcomed several of the Government’s initiatives to reform the way the benefits system works. Let’s press on with easing the path from unemployment into work with all the powers available to us. But to meet this challenge isn’t cost-free, either, and we need to see significant improvements in the funding for schemes like the New Deal for Disabled People. And while we continue to urge more resources for measures such as these, nor must it be forgotten that there are large numbers of disabled people who have retired, or are very unlikely ever to be able to work, for whom providing the support needed to maintain respect and dignity along with an adequate standard of living are key indicators of a civilised society.

    Of course it’s easy to set out the problems, and to make a list of things we believe should be done, not quite so easy to actually do them. So it would be rather one-sided of me if I didn’t at least acknowledge that trade unions too have a way to go before we can claim to be properly accessible, properly representative of our disabled members and potential members. As you know, the TUC carried out an equality audit earlier this year, that was reported to Congress. Our audit found that while some great progress has been made by trade unions over recent years, there was also much still to be done. And in this hall, too, you will know that at least as far as disability is concerned, time to take the next steps towards proper accessibility is strictly limited – next October, in fact, when the new disability regulations come into force that apply to unions both as employers and as trade associations. I am delighted to tell you that the TUC has looked at this, and has drawn up some advice for unions on how to comply with the new regulations, and on how to build on the law as a minimum standard. We will be looking at this at our Executive next week, then circulating it to trade unions. After all, when we talk to Government about what needs to be done for disability equality, we need to be sure that we are doing all we can, too, to be inclusive. I am confident that with all your help, we can and will meet this particular challenge.

    So conference, I know you will be discussing a wide range of important questions over the next couple of days, and I can confirm that the TUC will pay full heed to your advice. I will close by wishing you all a very successful and enjoyable conference, and I know you are with me as I take this moment to present to you, Maria, on behalf of the TUC and the trade union movement, this petition with its ten thousand signatures that urge the Government to legislate quickly, but also effectively, to secure another vital step towards equality for disabled people in this country.

  • Mike O’Brien – 2003 Speech on the Future of NATO

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Office Minister, Mike O’Brien, at Salter’s Hall in London on 24th January 2003. The speech was made at a conference debating the future of NATO.

    I am grateful for this invitation to talk to such an impressive audience about one of the most interesting and topical issues in the European security field today. Lord Robertson’s remarks set the context for the day’s discussions. Before I begin, may I pay tribute to him for his leadership of the Alliance through the remarkable changes of the last three and a half years.

    The NATO peace-keeping mission in Kosovo; the rapidly developing relationship with Russia; the transformation of the Alliance’s command structures; and the historic enlargement agreed at the Prague Summit. Any of these would constitute a significant achievement. All of them together represent a genuinely exceptional record. I would like to wish Lord Robertson well for the remainder of his time as Secretary General and for his future beyond NATO.

    Today I should like to focus on the European dimension of strengthening the Alliance, in particular on the UK vision of the strategic relationship we are building between the EU and NATO.

    UNDERPINNING EUROPEAN DEFENCE

    The decisions at the Copenhagen European Council and in the North Atlantic Council just before Christmas represented the culmination of two years’ work to secure the agreements between the EU and NATO to underpin European Defence. These will allow the EU to start conducting military operations with support from NATO and will lead to a strengthening of European capabilities, which will reinforce NATO.

    European Defence is, of course, NATO’s core business. NATO was created to defend Europe. It was – and remains – the basis for the American political and military commitment to the security of Europe.

    Despite the end of the cold war which removed the threat of conflict between east and western Europe, this transatlantic link remains central to NATO’s purpose and thus every bit as central to European Security in the 21st century as it was in the second half of the 20th. But neither NATO nor European security can afford to remain frozen in time. The threats we face, sadly, have not remained static. Europeans are no longer confronting each other in a cold war on the Central European Plain but we do face fragmentation in the Balkans, terrorism and threats emanating from other countries.

    MODERNISING NATO

    NATO has modernised itself continuously and impressively over the past decade and a half since the fall of the Berlin Wall. That process will continue, as Lord Robertson has told us. NATO has enlarged and is continuing to grow. It has shown its value as an active military alliance, peace making and peacekeeping in the Balkans. As the Prague Summit demonstrated, it is transforming its structures to cope with the new tasks and challenges it faces, particularly the threats from terrorism and WMD. But NATO, though necessary, is not sufficient for all aspects of European security.

    It is neither fair nor reasonable for Europeans to expect the Americans and Canadians always to contribute military forces to problems involving our security interests. Nothing would be more certain to place a strain on the health of the Alliance than continuing European dependence on American support at every turn. We must be prepared to bear our fair share of the burden. Also, the European Union has a Common Foreign and Security Policy, which should be underpinned by the ability for EU nations to conduct military operations.

    It was because of this understanding of the need for Europeans to do more for their own security and because we wanted this to happen through the EU as well as through NATO, that the Prime Minister proposed the development of a European Security and Defence Policy. Today, I should like to set out the UK’s vision for European Defence in NATO and in the EU.

    UK OBJECTIVES FOR ESDP

    The UK conceived and has developed ESDP to meet three main objectives:

    – to strengthen the European contribution to NATO by enabling European forces to take a fairer share of the European Security burden in circumstances where NATO as an Alliance was not involved;

    – to set a target for European nations to make their military forces more rapidly deployable, effective and sustainable – this will also be highly relevant to the modernisation of NATO’s force structures agreed at Prague;

    – to enable the European Union to play its full role on the international stage, recognising its uniquely wide range of external policy tools, from political dialogue, trade and aid to JHA co-operation and now civilian and military crisis management operations.

    DISPELLING MYTHS

    EU initiatives in this country tend to get a distorted reception from the Eurosceptic sections of the media and the political debate. ESDP has been no exception. It has been portrayed as everything from a Euro-Pentagon to a Euro-Army and a dagger at the heart of NATO. It is of course nothing of the sort.

    Too often the debate about the EU/NATO relationship treats the two organisations as if they were institutional monoliths – or two boxers circling in the ring, the experienced one warily eyeing up the new kid on the block, fearing his next shot.

    In reality we are talking about 23 nations, 11 of whom belong to both organisations. After enlargement it will be 32 nations of whom 19 belong to both.

    Deployment of military forces – for EU, NATO, UN or any other operation – will remain a matter for national governments. Javier Solana, let alone Romano Prodi, will not be ordering troops into Euro-battle on the basis of EU directives.

    The command, control and planning of ESDP operations can be done by NATO for the EU under the so-called Berlin Plus agreements now being finalised. Berlin Plus means that the EU has guaranteed access whenever it wants it to the resources of NATO’s operational and strategic planning capabilities.

    The EU also has the strong presumption that when it asks for it, NATO will supply the EU with command structures and capabilities to support an EU-led crisis management operation. This does not mean the EU can act militarily only when it has support from NATO. The EU will act either in operations using NATO’s assets and resources, which will be planned for by NATO, or in operations, which do not require NATO assets and resources, which will be planned for by the national headquarters of an EU nation. In all cases the EU will act on the basis of consultation and coordination with NATO to determine the most appropriate form of response to a crisis.

    THE FUTURE

    What then is the future for ESDP and what does it mean for NATO?

    The UK has a positive, ambitious and wide-ranging agenda for moving ESDP from the institutional to the operational phase. Much of the gestation of ESDP has been about institutional structures and bureaucratic rules-writing. This is necessary but it is not sufficient. ESDP also requires the development of military and civilian capabilities and the political readiness to put these into action.

    OPERATIONS

    The first opportunity is likely to come in a few months’ time, when an EU-led military operation replaces NATO’s Task Force Fox in Macedonia. This will be an EU operation based on planning done by NATO and with an operational commander provided by NATO. Given the crucial role that NATO and the European Union, in particular Lord Robertson and Javier Solana, played in preventing conflict in Macedonia, it is right that a NATO force should be replaced by an EU mission in that country.

    It is also right in terms of the wider EU engagement in the future of Macedonia, which was the first of the former Yugoslav states to have a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU. These agreements open the perspective of eventual membership of the EU for the countries of former Yugoslavia and Albania. The Agreements will help prepare the way by encouraging reform and modernisation across the board, including in the security sector.

    A bigger task for ESDP, but one which this Government thinks the EU should be ready to take on, will be replacing the NATO-led Stabilisation Force in Bosnia. The European Council at Copenhagen in December declared the EU’s willingness to take over from NATO in due course in Bosnia.

    We would anticipate that force also being an EU operation planned, commanded and conducted with recourse to NATO planning, assets and capabilities. This would not mean the end of a NATO presence in Bosnia. NATO should continue the Partnership for Peace activities, which are so important to developing European standards in that country and in its former Yugoslav neighbours. These states should develop their relationship with NATO in parallel with the European Union.

    As I just said, the scale and complexity of the operation in Bosnia would be more significant than that in Macedonia and the EU would want to be well prepared militarily and strategically to take on the task. But it would be consistent in our view with the strategy of Lord Paddy Ashdown, as the international community’s High Representative and as the Special Representative of the European Union, to help move that country in a European direction.

    The Macedonia operation from this Spring, in testing out the EU structures and the links to NATO, will be useful preparation for a potential operation in Bosnia. Also, towards the end of this year, the EU and NATO will conduct an exercise premised on an EU operation with recourse to NATO assets and capabilities. Coming after the operation in Macedonia and before that in Bosnia, this will be a useful opportunity to test and refine the links between the two organisations and their internal structures at top level.

    CAPABILITIES

    The crucial underpinning for ESDP and for the European pillar at NATO has to be continuing improvements in European national capabilities.

    At the heart of the ESDP process, the UK and France proposed and the EU adopted the so called ‘Headline Goal’. This is that European Nations should, by the end of this year, be able to deploy at 60 days notice a force of up to 60,000 and sustain such a force in operations for at least a year. This was a deliberately challenging target.

    The signs are that EU nations will be able to match the simple quantitative requirement, but aspects of the qualitative element, especially in terms of readiness, logistic support and sustainability may not be reached at full by the end of 2003. So work to improve our military capabilities will need to continue across Europe.

    NATO, under Lord Robertson’s leadership, has stressed the importance of investment by all Allies in modern defence capabilities. At Prague, NATO leaders agreed to the Prague Capabilities Commitment – specific undertakings to improve the ability of our armed forces to deal with new threats. The UK has pioneered work in the European Union and NATO to provide a mechanism to link the capability development processes of both organisations to ensure that, in particular for countries like us who are members of both, the efforts we make nationally to develop military capabilities will inform, and be informed by, EU and NATO requirements.

    RAPID REACTION

    The other element of the equation is, of course, ensuring that appropriate and capable force packages can be put together, if necessary at short notice, to conduct EU or NATO operations in the field.

    To this end, NATO, at Prague, agreed on an ambitious transformation towards rapidly deployable and flexible forces, able to deploy wherever needed, to deal with the security challenges of the 21st century. At the heart of this concept is the NATO Response Force. This will enable NATO to field a highly effective force of up to 20,000 troops, able to move very quickly to wherever it is needed.

    The UK strongly welcomes the NATO Response Force. It plays to our national strengths and it underlines the requirements in particular of rapid deployability that we think are crucial for NATO and ESDP. It complements work going on in the EU to place more emphasis on the rapid reaction elements of the Headline Goal.

    THE DEMISE OF NATO?

    Some commentators during the Prague Summit chose, paradoxically, at this moment of great success for NATO, to question the Alliance’s relevance to the post-11 September world. NATO has a role.

    Of course there will be occasions where the UK and other nations will act in coalitions of the willing. This was the case of the Gulf in 1991 and in Afghanistan in 2001. But five years after the 1991 Gulf conflict, NATO deployed to implement the Dayton peace settlement in Bosnia and three years after that, NATO ended Serb repression in Kosovo and deployed a peacekeeping force to that province.

    For each crisis that arises it is the responsibility of the governments whose interests are concerned to decide which is the most appropriate form of response. This may be a UN operation as in East Timor, a NATO operation as in Kosovo, an ESDP operation now that the EU/NATO links are in place, a national operation, as the UK conducted in Sierra Leone or a coalition of the willing as in Afghanistan. It is right that this range of options should be at the disposal of the governments concerned. This has always been the case and will continue to be the case.

    In no way does it change the fundamental relevance of NATO to European security. Nor does it change the argument, in which the UK believes strongly, that a European Union Common Security and Defence Policy can lead to fairer burden sharing between NATO and the EU and can simultaneously strengthen both organisations by enabling the countries involved to strengthen and modernise their round forces and their ability to operate together.

  • Paul Goggins – 2003 Speech on Restorative Justice

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Home Office Minister, Paul Goggins, to the Restorative Justice Conference on 28th November 2003.

    I am delighted to be able to make a contribution to today’s conference which provides us with an important opportunity to highlight the benefits of Restorative Justice and to feed back some of the responses we have received from the consultation that has been taking place over the last few months.

    I hope that today will also be an opportunity to exchange ideas and good practice. As Sir Charles has already said, it is an exciting time for restorative justice.

    Of course this approach isn’t new, and many of you have been working in this area for a long time – spreading the word and developing good practice. But I do sense that Restorative Justice is beginning to capture people’s imagination and to gather some real momentum.

    So I want, first of all, to thank you all for the contribution you are making to the development of Government thinking on Restorative Justice; in particular for your thoughtful and thought-provoking responses to the strategy document; and indeed for the ways in which you continue to take restorative justice forward in practice.

    I especially want to thank Sir Charles and the Restorative Justice Consortium who have done so much to press and pioneer this work. The Government is determined to put the victim at the heart of the criminal justice system. It was no co-incidence that we published our National Strategy for Victims and Witnesses on the same day as the Restorative Justice strategy, indeed the two are designed to support each other.

    The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims bill announced in this week’s Queen’s Speech will, for the first time, give victims of crime guaranteed rights to information and advice from all the criminal justice agencies and ensure that the interests of victims are championed right across government.

    And Restorative justice is, of course, centred on the needs of victims: their need to spell out the harm an offender has inflicted on them; their need to draw a line under events and put the crime behind them; their need to see an offender put something back into the community to make restitution for the damage they have caused.

    Some people argue that this is a soft option – but I don’t agree.

    Facing up to the consequences of what he has done and making amends can be a real turning point for an offender. It certainly was for the 17 year old I came across who had met face to face with the person whose house she had burgled and had resolved to make changes to her life – change that now includes a full-time college course.

    It also transformed the attitude of the young boy I was told about on a visit to a local Youth Offending Team after he met the leader of the disabled persons’ group who were regular users of a building he had recently damaged.

    And in reality it is this kind of change that victims want. Of course they are deeply angry and hurt by crime and their sense of justice will mean they want to have punishment meted out. But they also want to see attitudes challenged, to see people given the chance to change and to make amends for the harm they have caused.

    Without doubt one of the biggest obstacle we face in the criminal justice system at the present time is the perception that it lacks public confidence. Crime is down 25% in the last 6 years and you are less likely to be a victim of crime now than at any time in the last 20 years. But people simply don’t believe it – they feel afraid and sceptical.

    Part of the answer at least lies in greater public participation – and restorative justice can help achieve that – whether by direct contact between the victim and offender or through the kind of community improvements delivered through sentences like the Enhanced Community Punishment. One of the things I particularly like about the Enhanced Community Punishment is the distinctive logo that will enable local people to recognise that someone has been putting something back into the community as payment for the damage they have done.

    Justice shouldn’t be something far removed from the individuals and communities harmed by crime. And a more open and engaged process will give people the grounds for greater confidence in the Criminal Justice System.

    But I don’t want Restorative Justice to simply be reserved for serious offenders. I also want to see this approach become firmly embedded in the everyday life of local communities. It can guide the way that schools develop effective discipline and anti-bullying strategies. It can help deal with low level anti-social behaviour as well as provide a way of mediating between neighbours who can’t get on – and don’t have a clue about how to start putting things right.

    Restorative justice should be a way of restoring balance to relationships and situations where conflict and fear may otherwise reign.

    The consultation process on Restorative Justice has been crucial to the development of our thinking. We received just over 100 responses to the strategy document and I want to warmly thank every one of you who sent in your views. Your thoughts, ideas, criticisms and comments will form the basis of future policy and practice.

    Christine Stewart is going to go into this in more detail, but I want to outline some of the key themes that have emerged.

    One of the key issues to emerge from the consultation is the pace of implementation. It was striking that so many people who passionately believe in Restorative Justice want to see it introduced in a careful, gradual way. They want to be sure that as it grows it keeps its integrity. They want to be sure that that too much enthusiasm does not lead to this approach being used when it isn’t actually appropriate.

    I take heart from this caution, because it reflects the approach we are in fact taking: careful development, continuing innovation, safeguarding standards, and ongoing research into its impact and effectiveness.

    As we promised in the document, work has started with a group of practitioners to develop accreditation standards for restorative justice. We have also invited bids from those who are interested in carrying out research into the trial of the new diversionary Restorative Justice. It is important that we put in place a strong evidence base for the work we are doing.

    A second key issue, that many of the responses raise, was that restorative justice should be more than just an add on to the Criminal Justice System, more than just another tool in the toolbox.

    There are, of course, a number of other very important goals for the criminal justice system in addition to restoration. Punishment, public protection, the reform and rehabilitation of offenders and crime reduction are all clearly stated purposes of sentencing in the new Criminal Justice Act. But Restorative Justice does have a legitimate place alongside them: helping to meet the needs of victims, repairing harm, rebuilding relationships.

    Restorative justice is a way of doing things that we need to get into the thinking and working of every agency and every sector.

    A third key issue raised is about the respective roles and contribution of voluntary and statutory agencies in the delivery of restorative justice. A few people questioned whether the police should have a role – I certainly think they should.

    Others argued for a distinct restorative justice service – independent of any existing CJS agency. Many respondents highlighted examples of existing successful practice of Restorative Justice within the Criminal Justice System.

    The truth is, of course, that we don’t yet have all the answers – we’ll learn more as we go along, from the research commissioned by the Home Office as well as from projects on the ground. But what we do know for certain is that voluntary sector practitioners have been and will continue to be crucial to the development of Restorative Justice.

    Along with the great majority of the responses, I welcome and celebrate the current diversity of provision. Restorative justice has grown up from the grass roots. It is innovatory – people are continuing to discover new ways of applying it, in care homes, in schools and prisons, to resolve disputes in the community, and to tackle anti-social behaviour.

    This innovation should not be constrained or held back by making Restorative Justice the preserve of any one sector or organisation.

    A further key issue emerging from the responses was the need for a broader understanding of Restorative Justice. Many identified this as fundamental to public confidence and success.

    So we need to work together, in a co-ordinated way, to raise understanding of Restorative Justice – within all the Criminal Justice agencies and across the public as a whole. That doesn’t necessarily mean a big public information campaign. It’s probably too early for that and we need, as always to make sure that we have sufficient capacity in place to meet demand and expectation.

    What will raise people’s awareness and appreciation of restorative justice – and gain their trust – is their own direct involvement in and experience of restorative processes. Hearing about it from people they know and trust and seeing it in action.

    I know this from my own personal experience. Having read and heard about Restorative Justice I was already a supporter, but seeing at first hand, in Pentonville prison, a meeting between an offender and a victim really brought home to me what a powerful process it can be, and the kind of transformation it can bring about for all those involved.

    So these are some of the issues that have come out of the consultation, together with a few of my own observations. As I said at the start, whilst it is still relatively young there is a momentum behind Restorative Justice now.

    That momentum has come largely from local agencies, and from the dedication of practitioners applying RJ in their work – and in their everyday lives.

    And perhaps this is the most important feature of Restorative Justice. It is not merely a process or a system – it represents a set of values that acknowledge harm but emphasise the need for reconciliation and the possibility of reform.

    So thank you for your work, your commitment to and passionate belief in Restorative Justice and your contribution to the development of our overall strategy and policy.

    I feel confident that we are really on to something and hope that you will continue to work with us – building a criminal justice system that meets the needs of victims, and has the trust of the community.

  • Charles Clarke – 2003 Speech on Secondary Education

    Below is the text of a speech made by the then Education Secretary, Charles Clarke, on 10th February 2003.

    Thank you for coming to this important event today. An important occasion for three reasons.

    First, because today we are responding to head teachers of secondary schools who last autumn came to talk with us at a series of conferences. I and my Ministerial colleagues travelled pretty well the length and breadth of the country discussing with heads the challenges they faced and listening to their views on the reforms we were making.

    The document we are publishing today takes on board much of what they told us.

    A new relationship

    This dialogue characterises the relationship we want to have with schools, heads and teachers. And that is the second reason why I see today as being important.

    We are seeking to build a new relationship with schools, head teachers and governors. A relationship where schools have more freedom and flexibility in the way they use their resources, in the way they design the curriculum and in the teaching methods they use. But schools in turn recognise that they work within a framework where they are accountable for their standards and performance;

    A relationship where we in Government recognise success and encourage successful schools, departments and teachers to innovate and lead change. But schools understand that the Government has a duty to intervene where there is serious underperformance or chronic failure.

    A new specialist system

    The third reason for today being significant is that it marks another big step in creating a new specialist system. A specialist system that is, I believe, starting to transform secondary education. A specialist system that encourages schools to build on their distinctiveness and strengths to benefit all pupils. A specialist system, which encourages diversity and where excellence is a spur to equality, not its enemy. A specialist system where every school has a clear focus on teaching and learning. A specialist system where every teacher is equipped both to teach their subject effectively and to inspire a desire to learn.

    A specialist system is one in which every school has a centre of excellence, available to every pupil in the school and as a resource for other pupils in the area. Every pupil has an opportunity to develop their talent in an area in which they are keen to specialise. Every teacher is able to develop their own distinctive contribution to the school team, notably through their leadership of teaching and learning in a particular subject. A specialist system works by spreading the lessons from excellent provision across the school and across the system.

    So a specialist system does NOT mean demanding schools only teach one subject. It does NOT mean that pupils will be asked to specialise early in their school careers. It does NOT mean every place in the school going to pupils according to aptitude – only a maximum of 10% can be selected on aptitude.

    The two words, ‘specialist system’, are equally important: institutions will make a special contribution to their own pupils and to the system, and the system will add together a range of specialisms to provide an enriched educational experience for all children.

    Where we are now

    I start from the belief that every child is capable of attaining high standards. All children should leave school having achieved their potential. They should all acquire the knowledge, qualifications and life skills they need to succeed in the adult world.

    Over the past six years we have been making steady progress towards these aims.

    The percentage of children getting five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C has been steadily improving. The number of failing schools in “Special Measures” has fallen dramatically. And the quality of teaching and learning – according to the Chief Inspector’s latest annual report – is the best it has ever been, with 96% of lessons observed considered satisfactory or better.

    But we know that there is still a long way to go.

    Almost half of all pupils still do not leave school with five GCSEs A*-C. There is four times as much variation in pupil attainment within schools as there is between schools which indicates some teachers in the same school are more effective than others in helping their pupils make progress.

    Some children and some groups of children are not being well served by the current system. For example, in the 2002 key stage 3 English tests, 76% of girls achieved level 5 or above compared to just 59% for boys. And, as the Chief Inspector highlighted last week, there are still too many schools where attendance and behaviour are serious problems.

    This is not good enough. Not least because we know it need not be this way. We can see from many examples across the country that when schools are given encouragement and support, they can and do achieve great things for their schools and communities.

    What some schools are achieving for some children, all schools must provide for all children. A new approach is necessary. And that is where a specialist system comes in.

    Extending the specialist system

    Specialist status provides an incentive for a school to develop its own character and mission. It acts as a spur to improve standards and aim for excellence, not just in one particular subject, but across the whole of the curriculum. Heads are able to use the additional investment to enhance their specialist facilities, to develop excellence in their specialist subjects and to extend the insight to teaching and learning in other parts of the curriculum.

    The specialist system is also encouraging schools to innovate, address the diverse needs of individual pupils and work with their local communities.

    And the results are starting to come through.

    On measures of value-added performance, which allow comparisons to be made between schools with different pupil intakes, specialist schools are outperforming non-specialist schools. They are generating some genuinely innovative approaches to teaching and learning, to curriculum development, school organisation and workforce reform.

    This is why I want every school to aspire to become a specialist school.

    Today I am announcing a further 217 schools that will gain specialist status from September this year. This will bring the number of specialist schools we now have to 1,209 – 38 per cent of all secondary schools.

    We have responded to head teachers’ concerns that funding limits might artificially restrict or hold back the designation of specialist schools and have lifted the funding cap. That means that every school that applies for specialist status and meets the standards will now be designated.

    We expect there to be at least 2,000 specialist schools by 2006. And I say again, I want every school to aspire to becoming specialist.

    New specialisms

    As well as more specialist schools we are also increasing the range of specialisms so that they cover the whole range of the curriculum. The new specialisms will be in music and humanities – that is history, geography and English . And we are also enabling schools in rural areas to introduce a rural dimension into relevant specialisms – such as science or geography.

    New schools

    These changes will help make our secondary school system more diverse. And we will encourage that diversity in other ways too.

    We will be setting up more Academies. Academies are new types of schools designed to raise standards in the most difficult and challenging areas. They are set up with substantial input from sponsors, who may come from business faith or voluntary groups. They provide £2 million or 20% of the capital cost and make up part of the school governing body. The Government funds the rest of the capital and covers the running costs. The first three Academies opened in September last year and another 30 will be up and running by 2006.

    We are also making other changes that promote diversity. Last week we sent out draft guidance that will make it easier for popular schools to expand. The guidance also encourages new promoters and providers of schools to put forward proposals as we introduce competitions for all new schools. Parents’ groups could, for example, apply to set up a new school.

    Collaboration

    The individual ethos and specialism of a school is vital but the benefits of specialising are multiplied when schools collaborate and share their expertise and experience. The potential to build capacity for improvement is immense when schools collaborate to extend good practice, share specialist resources and expertise, and take collective responsibility for tackling poor performance.

    Federations of schools are one way an increasing number of schools are choosing to work together. The Leading Edge Programme which I am announcing today is another.

    Becoming a specialist school is the start not the end of a process of school improvement. That is why last autumn we invited schools to apply to become Advanced Schools. They had to demonstrate that they were high performers with a recognised specialism, working at the cutting edge of teaching and learning and with a track record of working with other schools to raise standards.

    Over 300 schools have applied.

    Head teachers told us that they supported the idea behind the programme but thought that the ‘Advanced School’ badge was unhelpful if we wanted to develop collaboration. They also said it was important to allow joint bids. We have acted on both their suggestions.

    We will shortly announce the names of the successful applicants of what we are now calling The Leading Edge Programme and those schools not in receipt of the Leadership Incentive Grant will qualify for funding at a level of £60,000 per year to develop their expertise and work with other schools to lead transformation.

    We will invite further applications later this year.

    I have decided that part of this round of bids should include an invitation to Independent schools to participate in the programme – where they meet the criteria and are willing and able to work with schools in the maintained sector.

    We are also going to consider how we can better recognise excellence of departments within schools. One possibility that many head teachers want us to look at is setting up a beacon department scheme.

    Innovation

    Specialism and collaboration are vital. And I want them associated with innovation. I want to encourage all schools to extend the boundaries of current practice by developing new and innovative approaches to schooling.

    One of the most interesting pages in this document is one describing how schools have more powers and more freedoms than they think they have – on pay and conditions, on the curriculum on governance and organising the schools day – and even on funding.

    The Innovation Unit we have established is helping schools to take full use of these freedoms. And if and when schools do find that legal obstacles are getting in the way of innovative improvements to teaching and learning then they should not hesitate to apply to use the very wide ranging Power to Innovate. This will give them the authority they need to make the change.

    Leadership

    Innovation often comes through inspirational head teachers instilling confidence and enthusiasm throughout a school. As in so many other areas school leadership is vital. Excellent leaders create excellent schools. Poor leaders rob pupils and teachers of the chance to excel. As David Bell of OFSTED said in his report last week: ‘Constantly effective teaching across all subjects in a school is unlikely without strong and effective leadership and management’.

    That is why we set up the National College of School Leadership based on the campus of Nottingham University. And it is why we are investing significantly in programmes to strengthen leadership at all levels in secondary schools.

    The Leadership Incentive Grant, for example, is designed to secure a transformation in the leadership and management of 1,400 secondary schools in cities and in other challenging circumstances. Most schools will receive £125,000 a year. Schools will be able to use this money to make joint appointments, pay for a strong head of department to help work with colleagues in a neighbouring school, to restructure or replace the management team or build up leadership skills.

    Partnerships beyond the classroom

    Helping children to learn is not a job just for schools and teachers. Parents and the wider community have a vital role to play.

    I am in no doubt that parents’ encouragement and support for their own children, at home and through regular contact with school and teachers provides a strong foundation for children’s learning.

    Schools have the responsibility to do more to help parents understand the study programmes their children are following. And they should seek to involve parents in the day-to-day life of the school, because where this happens it makes a powerful contribution to school development.

    I also want schools to work better with their local communities. Schools that open up their facilities to community groups – by encouraging family learning, providing child care or health services or organising sporting activities – are doing much more than just making good use of local public facilties. They are putting the school at the heart of the local community and they are promoting learning in the community.

    Schools in which parents and communities play an active part stand a far better chance of teaching pupils who are ready and willing to learn. That is why a community plan is an essential condition of becoming a specialist school.

    It is also important to develop links with local employers, both to strengthen work-based learning but also to draw on their expertise, commitment ideas and energy. We ask schools to raise £50,000 sponsorship before they can achieve specialist status because we know that they if they have strong outside backing it cannot but help them grow and develop.

    Strong partnerships will also help head teachers and schools tackle the problems of poor attendance and bad behaviour. And nationally we are giving a lead on this as well.

    This year, for example, we are investing in Behaviour Improvement Projects in 34 local education authorities with the highest rates of truancy and street crime. We have reformed the way school exclusion panels work so that they provide greater support for head teachers. And we will be legislating to introduce new measures to tackle truancy and reinforce parental responsibility for ensuring children attend school.

    Reform of the School Workforce

    Teachers must be able to get on with the work they are trained to do unburdened by routine administration and with a skilled support team to back them up. In this next phase of raising standards we want teachers to be free to concentrate on teaching with adequate time to plan, review, give their students individualised learning and take good care of their own professional development.

    Less than a month ago the Government, employers and all but one of the school workforce unions signed a national agreement that paves the way for radical reforms of the school workforce. The agreement is flexible. It allows school leaders and teachers to decide for themselves how best to reform their workplaces. It also includes expanded roles for high level support staff who will be trained to make a greater direct contribution to raising standards of pupil achievement.

    Teaching and learning

    Everything we are doing is designed with one aim in mind: to improve the quality of teaching and learning in our schools.

    From key stage 3 to A level we must establish high expectations for all secondary pupils and promotes teaching and learning which engages and motivates them.

    In order to achieve this we must make learning enjoyable. The world is changing. Information is communicated is so many different and visually exciting ways. The demands on young people are changing. So teaching needs to engage pupils’ enthusiasm and to stimulate them to go on learning in the future.

    This is another area where we want to work with teachers on developing new ideas.

    For example, writers, musicians and scientists and others from outside the school can play an important role.

    We are working with teachers in the various subject associations to develop new ways of supporting teachers so that they are better able to communicate their passion for their subject. We all remember particular teachers who inspired in us a love for music, a passion for history, a life-long attachment to a particular author or who encouraged our scientific inquiry. That is the tradition we have to strengthen.

    Part of that is to make the most of technology in teaching. For example, the electronic whiteboard – where used well – can transform the learning experience. We will work with the profession so that the experience of leading teachers and leading schools is quickly spread round the system.

    In addition I have no doubt that ICT will increasingly extend learning beyond the classroom, through providing access in the home to teaching and learning materials and to assessment and attendance data.

    Conclusion

    I believe we are at a momentous point in the development of secondary education in this country. We are in a powerful position to move the whole system forward through a shared vision, a shared strategy and a shared commitment.

    A shared vision based around excellent teaching to help realise the potential of every single child.

    A shared strategy of creating a specialist system tailored to the needs of every pupil.

    And a shared commitment from the Government and teachers to work together to make this happen.

  • Robin Cook – 2003 Resignation Statement

    robincook

    Below is the text of the resignation speech made by Robin Cook in the House of Commons on 17th March 2003.

    This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

    I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

    None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

    It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

    On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

    I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

    The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

    I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

    I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

    I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

    But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

    Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

    France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

    It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

    We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

    The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner – not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

    To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

    Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

    History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

    The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

    Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

    Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

    Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

    I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

    It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

    It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

    The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

    Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

    The threshold for war should always be high.

    None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will “shock and awe” makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

    I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

    I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

    It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

    Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

    For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

    Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes.

    Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

    Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam’s forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

    We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

    Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term – namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

    It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

    Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

    Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

    Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

    I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

    Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

    We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

    I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain’s positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

    Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

    That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

    What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

    The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

    On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

    They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

    Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

    From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

    It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

    Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

    I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

  • Lord Falconer – 2003 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    charliefalconer

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, to the 2003 Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth on 2nd October 2003.

    There have been Lord Chancellors for over a thousand years of British history.

    But in more than 100 years of Labour history, no serving Lord Chancellor has ever addressed our Party Conference. So I am the first. And – as this Labour government is abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor – I am also going to be the last.

    The abolition of that role marks real change – change for a purpose: change to make the justice system serve all of the people – particularly those  who need it most; the kind of change Labour governments are elected to achieve.

    I joined the Labour Party 25 years ago to make changes – spurred on by Tory cuts in Wandsworth, by the values of this party and by the desire we all have to make things better.  And I remember all too vividly the long years of Labour in opposition – where, for all the leaflets, all the canvassing and all the radical ideas, we were unable to make any real changes to benefit local communities.  Now this New Labour government is making some of the most radical and far-reaching reforms to the justice system. Not undermining its independence.  But making it fairer: not just to defendants – but to all those who depend on it.

    The post-war Atlee government wanted to see education and health available to all. That vision is still what New Labour wants today. But Atlee wanted as well to see justice for all.   We share that ambition: but if we are to honour that legacy, then our system of justice urgently needs reform.

    Because people and communities hit hard by deprivation and by crime look to a Labour government: to fight on their side; to renew their neighbourhoods; to protect them against crime; and to give their children a future.

    But there is no hope of renewal if the community is dominated by the fear of crime and drugs. Many people living on run-down estates say that, whatever their housing problems, what’s even worse is the impact of crime and anti-social behaviour, and the fear that their children will fall prey to drugs. So to help our communities, we must fight crime and drugs effectively.

    A proper criminal justice system is essential for that.  But the battle begins well before the criminal justice system: with education, economic opportunity, identifying children at risk and providing alternatives to drugs.  We know we can’t stop every crime.  But the well-being of our communities depends upon a criminal justice system in which people have faith.

    We’ve all heard people say it: what’s the point?  What’s the point of reporting a crime?  What’s the point of calling the police?  What’s the point in coming forward as a witness?  We’ve heard too many stories of offenders bailed for an offence who go out and do it again while they’re still on bail – and nothing happens to them. Or of the defendant who’s fined – and just doesn’t bother to pay it.  Or of the offender who gets off drugs in prison – and then on the day they’re released goes straight back to the dealer.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. We have already put the fight against crime at the heart of this government’s agenda. And we are making good progress. Crime was lower at the end of our first term than when we came to office. Police numbers are at their highest ever. Persistent young offenders are now dealt with in half the time they were when we came to power.

    David Blunkett and I are working closely together in tackling crime.  But to make a real difference, to provide the real drive that our communities so long to see, we must press ahead with reforming the criminal justice system.  Radically.  Radical reform to benefit the public.  Because for too long the system has focused too much on the people working in it.  And too little on the people it’s supposed to be there for: the victims, the witnesses, the community – people harmed by drugs and crime, not people doing the harm of drugs and crime.

    So we need to shift the balance. When defendants are summoned to court, they’ve got to come.  When people are fined, those fines must be paid.  When custodial sentences are appropriate, then the courts should apply them. But we need as well to make sure that we can break the cycle of crime, that we can make a difference to an offender’s behaviour – getting them out of crime and back into civil society. When offenders are clearly driven by drug abuse, we need to ensure that drug treatment is available – and that it works.

    So we must make sure that the system serves the public – not the other way round.

    Let me give you an example. On 15th August 1998, on a normal, quiet Saturday in Omagh, Northern Ireland, 29 people were murdered in an appalling act of terrorism. A terrorist attack on a scale unprecedented in the UK. Of course anyone accused of the Omagh bombing must have a fair trial. They must have the opportunity to challenge any charge. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence. They would be entitled to legal aid. That’s right. And it’s fair.

    But what about the victims? The victims’ families can’t afford all the legal costs to bring civil proceedings to court to seek to establish who committed the atrocity. Under the way things are now, they can’t get the support of legal aid. This isn’t right. It isn’t fairness. And it isn’t justice. The victims of the Omagh bombing deserve exceptional support. We will make sure that the victims can get legal aid, that they can bring their case to court, and that they can seek justice.

    We need a simpler justice system. A more straightforward justice system. A justice system which is more open, and more transparent. And that change has got to start at the top.

    Lord Chancellors in Britain have, throughout their history, performed complicated balancing acts: being head of the judiciary, speaker of the House of Lords and a Cabinet minister, all at the same time. That isn’t right. Tackling crime, making sure the justice system works as we want it to work, requires me, as the Secretary of State in charge of the courts and legal aid, to be working full time on the problem : working with others to deliver results on the ground, driving through radical reform. So we are going to abolish the role of Lord Chancellor. We are going to move the highest court of appeal from the House of Lords to a Supreme Court. We are going to ensure that judges are appointed through an independent appointments commission.

    To restore faith and trust in our institutions we must set decent standards which the public expect to see enforced.  We must make our institutions open, transparent, and relevant.  So it isn’t acceptable any longer, for this party or for this country, to have people in our legislative system, in the House of Lords, who are there only by birth.  We want to go further in reforming the House of Lords.  But we are clear: we can no longer support an arrangement where there are members of the Lords able to vote on the legislation of this country wholly and solely by birth.

    And on our other reforms: we need to see our human rights legislation fully effect a whole range of social and equality issues – not just about the rights of the defendant, but about achieving dignity for those in need. We have to be open in government, too: we have to see freedom of information working, and working properly.

    Our reforms are radical; they are real reforms; they are Labour reforms. They are there for a purpose: to restore faith in our institutions; to protect our communities, and our people; to help people fight terror, to fight drugs, to fight crime.

    That means a fair justice system. A system which understands the needs of the public, and a legal aid system which delivers for the needy.

    When people are dealing with housing problems, debt problems, family problems, we have to have advice available for those who need it most. I want to redouble our efforts to secure access to justice. A justice system is not effective unless there is access for all.

    Without a reformed justice system, and without real and renewed efforts to fight crime, then there’s precious little hope for so many of the communities who look to this New Labour Government for renewal and regeneration.

    We cannot allow that to happen. We will not allow that to happen. So Labour must deliver for all the people. A future fair for all. Justice for all.

  • Lord Falconer – 2003 Speech to the Law Society Council

    charliefalconer

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Falconer to the Law Society Council in London on 17th December 2003.

    I’m delighted to be here today. Frankly, I’m also astonished to be here today.

    Delighted because of the opportunity to speak to the Council of the Law Society. Astonished because I understand that I am the first Lord Chancellor ever to do so.

    However, all I can say is that, given my declared intention to abolish myself, you struck well in getting the Lord Chancellor here for the first time because – depending on the will of Parliament – the first time may also be the last time.

    I want to do two things today:

    Firstly, to say something about that reform, and all the reforms we’re bringing forward, across the whole range of the justice system

    And secondly, to say something – as your Chief Executive, Janet Paraskeva, has asked me to do – about how I see the future of your profession within that landscape of reform

    But before I do so, could I just take this opportunity to thank Janet, and indeed this Council and the Law Society as a whole, for all of the positive contribution you make to our justice system. In Janet you have a first-rate chief executive, and though we are bound to take different views from time to time in our discussions, I believe both you and I would say that relations between the Society and me and my department are positive, constructive and helpful and I very much welcome that, and thank you for it.

    The programme of constitutional reform we have already carried out in government since 1997 is a large one. But we believe there is more to do.

    In The Queen’s Speech a few weeks ago, we set out our legislative agenda for this year. We have made provision to legislate on the policy proposals we put forward immediately on the creation of the Department for Constitutional Affairs That includes:

    – the abolition of that office

    – the removal of the Law Lords as the final appellate committee in the House of Lords

    – the creation instead of a proper Supreme Court

    – the ending of my power to appoint all judges in Britain, and of my role as the head of the judiciary

    – the establishment of an independent commission to recommend judicial appointments

    This is a big programme of reform and going with it is also further reform of the House of Lords.

    But it is reform for a purpose. It is reform to help create a better system of justice in Britain. I’m proud of our justice system in Britain. I flew in this morning from a short trip to the USA, and though there are many fine things about the American justice system, I think we here in the UK can hold our heads up high about the British justice system. It is good. It does work. But just because it is good and it does work doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t seek to improve it. I strongly believe that the best time to reform and improve is not at a time of crisis, but from a position of strength and stability. And that’s what we intend to do.

    Could I spend the rest of my time talking to you today to about the part solicitors play in the justice system. I want to touch on three main areas:

    – how things seem to me now

    – my own view of where we need to go

    – and as a result, what I think we should do to get there.

    Could I say at the outset that I believe and believe very strongly that the vast majority of transactions undertaken by lawyers serve the public very very well indeed. The public rightly look for good service from the legal system and from the lawyers within it, and in the vast majority of cases that’s exactly what they get. I believe that the profession in general, and of course solicitors’ part in the profession, can in the main consider that they do a good job, and do it well.

    But at the same time, there’s no doubt that for too long, many people have found interacting with the legal profession daunting, or sometimes more than that: a complex, challenging, sometimes even alien experience, with lawyers sometimes operating in a manner and in an environment a world away from most people’s lives.

    The significant areas of difficulty seem to me to be these:

    – unmet need

    – unmet demand

    – customer care

    – and associated with this, barriers to entry for people who wish to become solicitors.

    It’s clear to me that there are customers’ needs which the system is not yet meeting. There are people who need advice, who need representation, who are not getting it. The National Periodic Survey of Legal Needs produced by the Legal Services Research Centre for the first time gives us hard evidence of unmet need. A need for help and advice on welfare problems. On family problems. It shows us the need for help and advice on problems arising from deprivation: on housing, debt, benefits, employment, immigration, and community care. People facing social exclusion often have a number of inter-related problems which need expert independent advice. Early intervention to tackle such problems can really help. I’m sure that the results of the follow-up survey, to be released in the New Year, will reinforce this view – and demonstrate clearly that there is unmet need to which the legal system must respond.

    But there is unmet demand, too. Customer attitudes are changing. We should and do welcome that. Customers today demand more choice. Better prices. Higher quality. And again that’s quite right. We need to know in detail what people want from the legal system. What their unmet demands actually are.

    If, for example, we have Tesco law, will we discover that more people have a personal injuries claim ? That more people are victims of domestic violence? And if we do, what does that tell us about the current market for legal services ? Why are these people not going to solicitors at the moment? Why are some Personal Injury claimants choosing to use the unregulated businesses that have been springing up? And as we respond to these needs, we need to ensure that, in giving the customers what they want, we do it in a way which properly protects their interests. The link between regulation and better services is absolutely crucial. We must get the balance right.

    In all this, the customer is vital. That means meeting customer need and customer demand. But it also means taking action when things go wrong.

    Customers must not only be able easily to access the quality services they need at competitive prices, they must also be sure that, if things go wrong, their complaints will be handled quickly and fairly. Solicitors need to handle complaints properly and, if they don’t, the OSS needs to respond, and to respond quickly within a reasonable time.

    I readily acknowledge that the majority of solicitors not only do high quality work but are properly responsive to complaints. But the few who are still unresponsive or take too long distort customer perceptions in a way which impacts on the whole profession.

    I readily acknowledge that the Society has made, and continues to make, considerable efforts to improve its complaints handling regime. But more must be done. If the unhelpful, the inefficient, know that a complaint to the Law Society will be handled quickly and efficiently, they will be more anxious to avoid the complaint getting that far.

    I am watching with interest the recent improvements in turnaround by the OSS, but there too the pressure for sustained, embedded improvement must be maintained. Maintaining that pressure is for you – but, it is also for me.

    Failing the customer not just once, through the delivery of a poor service, but twice, in failing to put the original wrong right, or address legitimate complaints swiftly and fairly cannot, and must not, be allowed to happen.

    To meet the needs of a diverse customer base we will also require a diverse profession. Talent must be drawn from all quarters of our society. We must do all that we can to ensure that the legal profession is open to the most able people in our country.

    So we need to look critically at barriers to entry for solicitors. How can we drive down the cost of qualifying? Is there more the profession can do to help with those costs? It is in the interests of the profession to match the diversity of their customers with the diversity of their lawyers, so it is surely also in the interests of the profession to help bring this about.

    Cost is a problem. So too is the availability of training contracts. I am setting out a vision of a much more competitive, much more responsive profession which is good for consumers. But better competition also benefits the providers by expanding markets; and with that expansion I hope we will see many more training opportunities, opportunities which are open to the widest range of people.

    I believe that to tackle all these issues, the legal system and the role of the solicitor must change. Going forward, the role of the solicitor will only be judged to be working effectively if there is clear and demonstrable evidence that solicitors are continuing to serve the public well.

    So I believe that the solicitors’ profession should:

    – meet the needs and demands of the public looking for legal services by providing advice and services of real quality

    – reach those parts of society which can most benefit from advice, irrespective of their means

    – and be both diverse and representative, so that it is well equipped both to serve the public properly, and to play its full part in both the legal profession and the justice system, in particular by providing a pool from which Judges are appointed

    How can we best achieve this vision ? How can we, working together, secure this better future for the solicitors’ profession within a legal framework, a legal system, which works better for the public?

    Again, I think there are three key issues:

    – regulation

    – legal aid

    – customer care

    How solicitors provide services to the public – in what form, and at what price – is inextricably linked with regulation. Is the balance right between regulation and the needs of the customer? We have to find an answer to that question in a way which provides better service, consistent with proper consumer protection.

    A diverse, flexible and responsive legal landscape will require a flexible, responsive and accountable, regulatory regime.

    I know that, once again, the Law Society is working to meet this need. I welcome the significant work in simplifying the rules of conduct, for example, that has been undertaken by your Regulation Review Working Group. But more needs to be done. Despite welcome steps forward, current users of legal services, whether at the consumer or business end of the market, may not always be served by the existing model of regulation. We know that it can be over complex and can prevent growth and innovation.

    So what we needed was a root and branch examination of the system as a whole, to establish what works well and what needs to be changed.

    That’s why I’ve asked David Clementi to undertake this challenging task. David will report by the end of 2004. Ahead of that, he will issue a major consultation document early in the New Year. I want to see the Law Society supporting and contributing to this review. There can be no sacred cows in seeking to deliver the high standards of services that customers want.

    But we must not let the welcome fact of the work of the Clementi Review put a stop to all progress in the meantime. We need to work together to examine areas where change for the consumer’s benefit can be delivered in the short and medium term. Multi-disciplinary partnerships, the role of employed solicitors, the probate market – these are just some of the areas we should look at quickly and imaginatively to see how we can respond rapidly to consumers’ needs whilst, of course, ensuring that their interests are properly protected.

    Turning to legal aid, I attach particular importance to the legal aid work carried out by dedicated and conscientious lawyers and advice workers. I know their work is not always appreciated. But it is of central importance to our ambition to be a society that protects the rights of the most vulnerable. I intend to ensure that we continue to support the vital public service they provide in tackling social exclusion and in protecting the fundamental rights of some of the most vulnerable members of society.

    I doubt that any one would deny, however, that there are problems with the legal aid system. We are all working to find suitable solutions. I know you in the Law Society have been working hard on a strategy for legal aid, and I very much welcome your contribution to the debate in this vital area.

    But the task of dealing with the problems with legal aid is made all the more difficult by the fact that there is unlikely to be any increase in funding. Our budget this year is some £2 billion. That’s a big bill by any standards – £500 million more than in 1997/98 when the Government came to power.

    The Government has a responsibility to ensure that we are getting the best possible value for money from the legal aid system. We must therefore seek to minimise our transaction costs and reduce bureaucracy on the Government side. In order to develop more robust controls, we need a far better understanding of why the cost per case has increased in some areas. We need look at the legal processes which drive legal aid costs, as well as rigorously cost all policy change so that we can estimate and fund consequential legal aid costs.

    We are also consulting on proposed changes to the Criminal Defence Service. The aim of the changes are to better target resources and to get real value for money by removing from the scheme less serious matters. No final decisions have been made on which proposals to implement, although I have been considering responses received during the consultation period before making final decisions on what changes to make.

    Finally, customer care. Once lessons have been learned we need to share that new knowledge with others – particularly with customers. I very much applaud the Clients Charter that was introduced earlier this year. But I want you to do yet more: more to ensure that the customer can make positive choices based on good information. A simple example of this is that yet again, ‘delay’ and ‘lack of response’ were the main causes of complaint referred to the Law Society last year. How many of those issues would have been resolved if the customer had been better informed?

    I believe that the Society has the potential to bring about significant changes and improvements to practices and policies by working closely with others. It has also demonstrated an ability to adapt to new environments and meet new challenges. The appointment of a Legal Services Complaints Commissioner will provide the Society with a further opportunity to showcase these skills in a prominent and meaningful way. The role of the LSCC will bring a new perspective to how complaints have previously been examined – a perspective I believe which will benefit both the organisation and the complainant. I look forward, with the Society, to a time when the legal profession is heralded as a model of excellence in customer care.

    There are, of course, other issues, such as the Community Legal Service, for instance. I believe that the CLS is a success. I think it has an important role to play in ensuring the responsive and flexible delivery of legal services. Partnership coverage across the country is now extremely close to 100% and continues to progress far ahead of the government’s own targets. The take-up of the Quality Marking scheme has been exceptional.

    But the CLS cannot stand still. We are continuing to move forward in a number of ways. If the Community Legal Service is to reach its full potential we realise that we need to continue to work hard to place legal and advice services at the heart of the government’s social inclusion strategies. We are also working with frontline staff: for example, to provide guidance on the CLS for Job Centre Plus staff. And an independent Review of the Community Legal Service is already underway which will provide a road map for the CLS for the next few years.

    I know all of this, coming as it does within a wider programme of reform of the justice system, is a big agenda, both for you, as a Council, and for the solicitors you represent. And for us as a Government.

    But I know as well that you will want to work to achieve it. Because I know that you want to represent solicitors as well as you can. Because you want to make the legal system in which they operate work as well as it can. Certainly, for those working in it. Of course their work must be properly recognised and properly rewarded. I know there are important financial and other issues to be addressed. But most importantly of all, for those whom the system, and all those working within it, including me and including you, are there to serve: the client, the customer, the public.

    I know that is a shared goal. A shared objective. And I’m confident that you know and believe that the best way of reaching that goal is by working together. That’s always hard. It always needs patience, and co-operation. And sometimes, especially at times of real change, there will be difficulties along the way.

    These are real challenges. Difficult challenges. But I believe that by working together, we can overcome those difficulties. We can resolve what problems we have. Because we want to meet the challenges which are there for us all: the challenge to improve choice, the challenge to achieve excellence, the challenge to promote innovation and the challenge to secure equality.