UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2005

  • Michael Gove – 2005 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    michaelgove

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Michael Gove in the House of Commons on 7 June 2005.

    Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye and giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in the House of Commons. Whatever any of us may have done before coming to this House, speaking in the Chamber for the first time is a nerve-racking moment, and I am therefore grateful for the courtesies that the House extends to new Members during their maiden speech.

    I feel a particular sense of nervousness coming after the hon. Members for Bristol, East (Ms McCarthy), for Newport, East (Jessica Morden) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who all gave accomplished speeches.

    The hon. Member for Newport, East spoke with great charm about her constituency and with great force about her passion for social justice. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran follows in the distinguished footsteps of Brian Wilson and a hero of mine, Sir Fitzroy Maclean. She is a worthy follower in that tradition. She spoke without notes but with great fluency and conviction. The hon. Member for Bristol, East also follows in distinguished footsteps, and she lived up to that in a speech of great wit and authority.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree spoke with great force and persuasiveness. He gave a maiden speech in the best traditions of the House and I congratulate him. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a witty and forthright speech which I greatly admired, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough gave a personally powerful and principled speech on which I congratulate him. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness also spoke without notes but with tremendous aplomb and authority. I wish them all well in their careers in the House.

    This Bill is of particular concern to my constituency of Surrey Heath, which is an economically vibrant home to both multinational companies and a wealth of small and medium-sized enterprises. There have been a number of distinguished contributions to this debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), as befits a former Foreign Officer Minister, ranged far and wide in his remarks. Other Members, such as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), were rather more tightly focused. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to be a little less than tightly focused and to use this opportunity to look at the broader themes underlying the Finance Bill.

    As the son of a small business man who ran a flourishing fish merchants in Aberdeen, at a time when that city’s fishing industry was in ruder health than today, I know personally how regulation and legislation conceived from the best of motives can stifle enterprise and limit opportunity.

    Any opportunities that I have in life I owe to my parents and to the sacrifices that they made. They adopted me when I was just four months old, and I was fortunate therefore to be raised in a secure and loving home. That has left me with a profound sense of the importance of helping families to withstand all the pressures placed on them by modern life, and I hope in my time in this House to do what I can to improve the lives of children born to disadvantage and to support all parents in the difficult but immensely rewarding task of raising families.

    Before turning to the legislation that is before us, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor as MP for Surrey Heath, Nick Hawkins. Nick served for 13 years in this House, first as Member for Blackpool, South and latterly as MP for Surrey Heath. During his time here, Nick set an example as a diligent and caring constituency MP, as well as a robust and principled scrutineer of legislation. During my time as a parliamentary candidate and in my brief weeks as an MP, I have met many constituents for whom Nick was an indefatigable champion; he set a standard that it would be difficult to match. I also know, not least from his many friends still in this House, how valuable Nick’s sharp legal brain was in the scrutiny of legislation. Nick’s belief in defending the principles of our common law and standing up for the liberty of the individual do him great credit, and I wish him well in the legal career to which he has now returned.

    Following in Nick’s footsteps is a challenge, but it is made far easier by the charm and friendliness of the people of Surrey Heath. It is both an honour and a pleasure to represent the most attractive and vibrant constituency in the county judged by “Country Life” to be England’s most beautiful. I know that there may be some dissent among my hon. Friends, but as a flinty Scot, and someone who therefore judges English beauty with an unclouded eye, I can only say that I concur with the judgment of “Country Life”. Surrey is indeed God’s own county; it combines the best of England’s civic traditions with large areas of still unspoilt rural charm.

    Camberley is the largest town in my constituency. I am sure that memories of it will be dear to those hon. and gallant Members who passed through the Royal Military academy or the Staff college, both of which lie in its precincts. Camberley’s particular charms are not, however, known only to those who pass through the RMA’s gates. Thanks to John Betjeman’s most famous poem, “A Subaltern’s Love Song”, the romance of Camberley is well known:

    “nine-o’clock Camberley, heavy with bells,

    And mushroomy, pine-woody, evergreen smells”

    is how he immortalised that beautiful town. While the scent of Camberley is now tinged with the odour of fumes from the M3, which cuts a swathe through my constituency, there is a still a pine-woody and evergreen quality to the town that is very pleasing to this Scottish exile.

    John Betjeman is not the only great writer to have drawn inspiration from the air of Surrey Heath. John Gay’s “The Beggar’s Opera” draws on the history of Bagshot heath in my constituency as a haunt of highwaymen and cutpurses. “The Beggar’s Opera” is a satire in which comparisons are drawn between the highwaymen of 18th-century Surrey and the politicians of 18th-century England; both, John Gay suggests, were charming rogues who made it their business to deprive honest citizens of hard-earned money, only to squander the plunder on their own vanities. I will leave it to other Members to decide what relevance, if any, John Gay’s insights have to discussion of this Finance Bill.

    One area where I believe that public investment continues to be more necessary than ever is in our security, and I want to touch briefly on that matter. The contribution of the military to the life of my constituency has been, and continues to be, immensely valuable. As well as the Royal Military academy, Surrey Heath also benefits from our association with the military in many other ways. Our excellent local hospital, Frimley Park, works closely with the Royal Army Medical Corps to provide a matchless service for the whole community. We also house the headquarters of the Royal Army Logistics Corps, and it was on the heathland of the Chobham ridges that the world-famous Chobham armour was developed, which has helped to give our armed forces the protection that they need on the field of battle.

    I hope that during my time in this House I can play a small part in giving our forces the support that they richly deserve. Britain’s contribution to extending the cause of liberty has been distinguished, and it is a source of pride to me. In a proper spirit of bipartisanship, I pay tribute to this Government for their role in defending the cause of freedom in Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Iraq. I hope that it will not be considered wrong of me, however, to pledge that I shall use my position here to ensure that in future those who risk their lives on our behalf are given all the support—political, moral and financial—that they need.

    The tradition of public service that the military exemplifies is richly alive in many other ways in my constituency. We have some of the best state schools in the country, a superb hospital in Frimley Park, as I said, and thriving voluntary organisations as well as active parish councils that serve our more rural communities such as Chobham, West End, Bisley, Bagshot and Windlesham. But the quality of life that the people of Surrey Heath enjoy and have done so much themselves to maintain is, I fear, threatened by insensitive overdevelopment. Plans to build tens of thousands of new homes in our area, imposed by an unelected and unwanted regional authority, combined with planning guidance that demands an increase in housing density, is wholly detrimental to the character of our communities and risks placing great strain on already overstretched public services.

    I firmly believe that all parties in this House in the past 25 years have ensured that power has become too centralised. Decisions are now taken at too distant and remote a level. Intimate questions of planning should be decided by the local people most affected. Planning decisions affect the social capital that individuals and communities have built up over generations. That is why planning law must be seen to be fair, responsive and sensitive. In Surrey Heath, like many other rural areas, we have suffered as a consequence of a small minority—I must stress, a very small minority—of Travellers, who have defied the planning rules by setting up unauthorised encampments on greenfield sites. I hope, while in this House, to be able to change the law in such a way as to ensure the fair application of planning rules. I appreciate the contribution that Britain’s travelling community has made to our national life over many generations, but equality before the law is the best guarantee of civilised treatment for all.

    As I said, one of the many attractive features of Surrey Heath is its economic vibrancy. We are lucky to have in the constituency a wealth of local entrepreneurs, including Bob Potter OBE, whose Lakeside hotel in Frimley Green is globally renowned as the home of the world darts championship, thus demonstrating that one does not have to risk going on to Ministry of Defence property in Surrey Heath to see targets being hit with rare skill.

    We are also fortunate in employment terms in the opportunities offered to us by multinational companies that serve my constituency, such as Eli Lilly, BAE, Novartis and S. C. Johnson. All those companies are excellent corporate citizens playing a valued part in the life of the community as well as generating jobs, wealth and taxes for the Exchequer. It is with their contribution in mind that I want to say a few words about the precise measures in the Bill.

    I recognise the need for legislation to reform the tax system and to limit tax avoidance, and there are many provisions in the Bill that may take us in the right direction, but I am concerned that in their zeal to regulate the Government may risk damaging Britain’s competitive position. Retrospective and arbitrary changes to the tax code do not contribute to the atmosphere of stability and certainty that encourages investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out, chapter 4 and clause 39 give cause for concern, as they seem to create the power for arbitrary and retrospective application of the Revenue’s powers. I find that a worrying element of the Bill.

    Historians of this House will know that our finest hour came in the 17th century, when we in Parliament insisted on limiting the arbitrary powers of the Executive to impose taxation. In that battle between king and Parliament, I have no hesitation in saying that Parliament was on the right side. I know that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr. Brown) sometimes revels in his reputation as a roundhead; it is a great pity that in this legislation he should be so cavalier with the tax code.

    To my mind, the best way of preventing tax avoidance—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—is through tax simplification. At a time when economies in eastern Europe are making themselves more attractive to international investment by radically simplifying their tax codes, we should not go down the road of further complicating our own tax system.

    I believe that my constituency has equipped itself well for the challenges of the 21st century by staying true to eternal British virtues—keeping what is cherishable and distinctive, celebrating excellence, having a pride in tradition, but always looking outwards. I hope that we can adopt a similar approach as a nation. Our economic strength has been built on sound traditions and an awareness of the importance of low and simple taxation, light and flexible regulation and wise and prudent investment. When we stray from those traditions, we undermine our future prosperity.

    I want to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in calling me, and in particular, I want to thank very much the people of Surrey Heath for giving me the opportunity to serve them in this Chamber.

  • Ed Balls – 2005 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    balls

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made in the House of Commons by Ed Balls in the House of Commons on 25 May 2005.

    It is a great honour to make my maiden speech in this House on this, the final day of debate on the Queen’s Speech, to follow the thoughtful speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for West Dunbartonshire (Mr. McFall) and to follow a series of excellent maiden speeches, not least that of the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb), which together show that we can look forward to a number of thoughtful and constructive contributions in the debates of this House in the years to come.

    This is the first maiden speech by a Member of Parliament for Normanton for 22 years. Bill O’Brien, my predecessor, was a hugely respected MP, whose commitment to improving the lives of hard-working families in our area is beyond question. Almost everyone I have met in our constituency has a personal story to tell of how Bill has helped them, a friend or a family member. I know, too, that he is widely respected in the House for his parliamentary experience, for his detailed knowledge of mining and local government matters and for his wisdom. I have been told by many hon. Members how they have turned to Bill for advice and support during their parliamentary careers.

    I also want to mention Bill’s family and in particular his wife, Jean, who has also served for 22 years, as an MP’s spouse. It is my considered view, speaking from some personal experience, that the role of the MP’s spouse is not always fully appreciated at a political level. I want today to set the record straight: Jean O’Brien has consistently been by Bill’s side, a tower of quiet strength and dignity. I am sure that all hon. Members will want to wish them a long and happy retirement from the Commons and to thank Bill for his commitment to public service.

    I have had the privilege of speaking to many hundreds of voters in the past year about issues that directly affect their daily lives—pensions, skilled jobs, plans for a new hospital at Pinderfields, out-of-school child care and the need for more police and community support officers on the beat. All those issues I will be actively pursuing in the coming months. As we have talked, time and again I have heard and felt first hand the powerful traditions that run deep through Normanton.

    My constituency forms an arc around the north of the city of Wakefield, running from Sharlston and the town of Normanton in the east, through Altofts, Stanley, Outwood and Wrenthorpe to the north, and then round to Ossett and Horbury in the west, all linked together by the M62 and M1 motorways, which intersect in the constituency. It is a constituency united by a strong industrial tradition in manufacturing, railways and coal mining, and by a long-standing civic, trade union and co-operative tradition. In our district, the Co-operative party is our conscience, and I look forward to participating actively as a member of the Co-operative group of Labour MPs.

    Most important, Normanton boasts a historic Labour tradition, with the longest continuous Labour representation of any seat in England—a continuous representation, that is, since 1885, when the Liberals stood aside for 12 working-class Lib-Lab candidates. We are proud of Normanton’s Labour tradition, matched only by the Rhondda valley in south Wales, and if I may be so bold, long may it continue.

    We are now in a time of great change, as the revolution of globalisation transforms communities such as ours, but these challenges of technological change, foreign visitors and new investors are, for us, nothing new. Few constituencies can boast visitors as distinguished as Queen Victoria, Prime Ministers Gladstone and Disraeli and US President Ulysses Grant, all of whom visited our area in the mid-19th century, Normanton being, for passengers travelling north to south in the pre-buffet era, the restaurant stop of choice.

    One visitor above all left his mark: the Emperor of Brazil, Dom Pedro II, who stopped for lunch in August 1871, heard about the local colliery at Hopetown, arranged a visit and caused such a stir that the pit shaft was renamed Dom Pedro and became known as the Don. The emperor also visited the Normanton iron works, was shown a special rail and immediately ordered a batch to be sent back and used in the expansion of the Brazilian railway.

    To us, globalisation is nothing new, and well over a century later the same strengths that made my constituency an industrial leader—our strategic location, our manufacturing expertise and our skilled work force—are now the key to our future prosperity. It is the task of the Wakefield Way steering group, on which I serve, to ensure that we exploit those advantages to the full. We want to see the Wakefield district established as a key logistics cluster, and a centre of industrial and manufacturing expertise.

    We also have to be honest about the weaknesses that we must address. We still have too many people trapped on incapacity benefit, who want to work but need extra help and support to return to work. Compared with other parts of Yorkshire, we have skills shortages  alongside low levels of qualifications in the adult work force. It is both an affront to social justice and a real economic threat that so many 16-year-olds in my constituency still leave school without a proper qualification. I therefore welcome the measures set out today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Queen’s Speech debate on science, skills, employment, housing and regional policy, which will really help us in that task.

    We are able to debate today how our wider economic policy can build on stability—rather than, as used to happen, how we can avoid stop-go—because the Labour Government have put in place a new British model of monetary and fiscal policy for our country and taken the tough decisions to establish and entrench economic stability. Twenty years ago, the Wakefield district was labelled a “high unemployment area”, with one young person in every four unemployed for more than six months as a result of the devastating loss of manufacturing jobs and the closures of the pits. It was not a price worth paying. Today, because of our economic stability, our district has an unemployment rate, not above, but below the national average. The new deal has cut youth unemployment from a peak of 3,300 young people out of work in 1984 to just 130 today—20 in my constituency. It is because of the proactive and forward-looking approach that Labour has taken to economic policy—Bank of England independence, the symmetric inflation target and the two fiscal rules—that, for the first time in a generation, my constituents are benefiting from what is close to a full employment economy.

    That stability—that prudence—has been for a purpose. We have shown that a Government committed to progressive goals—increasing investment in our public services, introducing a national minimum wage, lifting 1 million children out of poverty—can also deliver the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years and record levels of employment. Some said that a Labour Government could not run a stable economy and pursue progressive goals. The present Government have proved them wrong.

    At this point, I must confess that, yes, as a young economist working in opposition back in 1994, I wrote that truly immemorable phrase, “post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory”—but there was a penultimate draft from which that infamous phrase had been excised, and it was not I but a rather more distinguished Member of this House who wrote in the margin, “Put back the theory.” From 1997, I was proud to serve the Labour Chancellor and the Labour Government for seven years as economic adviser and then chief economic adviser to the Treasury. I was privileged to chair the International Monetary and Financial Committee Deputies during a period in which Britain, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, have led international efforts to reform the international financial architecture and meet the millennium development goals.

    I know that those opportunities—all the opportunities that my family and I have had—were made possible only by the achievements of the Labour party in government. My grandfather, a lorry driver, died from cancer soon after the war, when my father, the youngest of three boys, was only 10. My father—from a widowed family in a working-class community in Norwich—was able to stay on at school at 16 and get a scholarship to university. All the opportunities that he and we have been able to enjoy were made possible only because of the welfare state that the Labour Government created in 1945, reflecting our core belief that opportunity should be available for all, not just for the privileged few.

    I am now able to be in public service once more, as a Member of this House and as Labour’s ninth MP for Normanton. My Labour predecessors—Benjamin Pickard, William Parrott, Fred Hall, Tom Smith, George Sylvester, Thomas Brooks, Albert Roberts and Bill O’Brien—were all coal miners, every one of them. They were Labour because the adversity they suffered taught them not selfishness, but solidarity. However insurmountable the obstacles seemed to be, they never settled for second best for themselves or anyone else in their struggle for full employment and social justice. I hope that, in the coming years, I shall be able to demonstrate the humility, hard work and commitment to public service for which previous Normanton MPs are known, remembered and honoured, and thus enable my constituency’s historical traditions to live on renewed in this century. We owe it to our predecessors, as we owe it to our families and to future generations, to complete their work and, on the platform of stability that we have built, secure an economically strong and socially just society of which we can be proud.

    I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today.

  • Stephen Crabb – 2005 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Stephen Crabb
    Stephen Crabb

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Stephen Crabb in the House of Commons on 25 May 2005.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech on the final day of debate on the Queen’s Speech. It was a pleasure to listen to the maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), and by the hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), for Worsley (Ms Keeley), for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I wish them all the best in their parliamentary careers. I would like to add my own tribute to those that have already been made to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for his excellent work, both in Northern Ireland and in the Principality.

    I count it a huge honour to be elected as the new Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. I am only the second Member to represent the constituency, which was created before the 1997 election, when it was won by Jackie Lawrence, and again in 2001, for the Labour party. Jackie retired at the end of the last Parliament. She and I were opponents in the election held four years ago, and we both fought robust campaigns. The more that I saw of her during that election, however, the more that I was struck by the sincerity and humanity with which she carried out her duties as a Member of Parliament. She entered Parliament for exactly the right reasons—to improve the lives of Pembrokeshire people—and served her constituents well during her eight years as an MP. Her parting remark to me on election night in 2001 was, “Best of luck with your parliamentary career, Stephen, just not here in Pembrokeshire.” I am afraid that I have disappointed her, but it was typical of her integrity and grace that not only did she send her congratulations after my win on 5 May but, last weekend, she welcomed my family and me to her home, where she passed on some excellent advice on being a Member of Parliament and treated us all to excellent home-made scones. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in wishing her all the very best in retirement.

    Preseli Pembrokeshire, with much justification, can be described as one of the most beautiful parliamentary constituencies, containing as it does much of the Pembrokeshire coastal park with its 185 miles of footpath running alongside scenes of spectacular beauty. The coastline is important to Pembrokeshire. We are surrounded by the sea on three sides, and that has been the source of our comparative economic advantage throughout our history. Even today, after whaling, fishing, oil refining and defence-related industries have all flourished and then declined, the sea is still important to our local economy.

    We have two ports: Fishguard, with its ferry service to Rosslare in Ireland; and the port of Milford Haven, which is the UK’s fifth largest port, with major oil interests, a remnant of the fishing industry, and an Irish ferry from Pembroke dock. As I speak, construction is under way on two major liquefied natural gas terminals near Milford Haven. When completed, those could provide 30 per cent. of the UK’s natural gas needs, which will be shipped into the nearby port of Milford Haven. Not surprisingly in an area of such outstanding natural beauty, the liquefied natural gas development is not without controversy, and some specific issues need to be addressed. The LNG investment, however, will bring a vital injection of economic activity to west Wales, which could provide a substantial long-term pay-off for many years to come.

    As well as our coastal heritage, Pembrokeshire is also home to Britain’s smallest city, St. David’s, with its picturesque streets and beautiful ancient cathedral. St. David’s was a site of huge importance in early Christendom. It lay on the intercontinental route that took Irish pilgrims through Britain on the way to Rome and sometimes Jerusalem. Still today, the A40 trunk road, which leads from Fishguard through Pembrokeshire towards the M4 corridor is recognised by the EU strategic trans-European network, which links western Ireland with mainland continental Europe.

    Travelling along the single-lane A40 through Pembrokeshire can be a slow and frustrating journey, however. Upgrading the A40 to a dual carriageway is certainly overdue. Local business needs it, local people want it, and while I am a Member of this House I want to do whatever I can to make the case for it, and, I hope, to persuade the rather Cardiff-centric Welsh Assembly of the need for investment in critical infrastructure in other parts of Wales.

    In the heart of Pembrokeshire is the old town of Haverfordwest—the county town of Pembrokeshire—which I am blessed to be able to say is my home town. I grew up there, in a street of council housing, which backed on to my old secondary school. Many of the houses in that street have now been bought and had small porches, kitchen extensions and other improvements added to them. I want to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), who said that no one should lose sight of what the Conservative right-to-buy scheme did for hard-working, working-class families in constituencies such as mine. Of course we need to provide an adequate rented sector for individuals and families who might, through different circumstances in their life, have to fall back on social housing, but the aspiration of the vast majority of people in this country is towards home ownership, which should be recognised as a key goal of housing policy.

    There have been Crabbs in Pembrokeshire for many generations, and not just on our wonderful beaches. My grandfather was a baker in Haverfordwest at a time when, like other small market towns, it was full of independent traders, grocers, shopkeepers and tradesmen. In those days, there was no such thing as a small business sector; there were only small businesses. Times change, and today Haverfordwest has a Tesco, a Morrisons, a Kwiksave and an Aldi, and I am told that we will soon have a Lidl store as well. I am not a betting man, but I am willing to wager that not many of our long-suffering local farmers who still constitute a significant part of the local economy will see much of their produce on the shelves of that supermarket when it comes to Haverfordwest.

    A principal reason why Pembrokeshire is such an attractive place for the food discounters is that our per capita GDP is so much lower than the UK national average. GDP in Pembrokeshire is less than 70 per cent. of the EU’s 15-member average, which qualifies us for objective 1 status. We are currently in receipt of structural funds through that programme. I do not want to be too controversial today, but I am more than a little sceptical of the long-term success of EU structural funds in closing the wealth gap between regions. The targets for the EU cohesion and structural funds have consistently not been met.

    Objective 1 did, however, provide an important opportunity for many stakeholders in west Wales to focus like never before on what needs to be done to improve the region’s economy. My fear is that that was a missed opportunity. Many business people in Pembrokeshire tell me that they do not feel that the business community was actively involved in the objective 1 programme, and that the process was dominated by public sector bodies. I believe that small business is the backbone of the Pembrokeshire economy and I want to do whatever I can while I am a Member of the House to provide a voice for the hard-working men and women who comprise that sector.

    I greatly value the commitment in the Queen’s Speech to reducing burdens on business—business regulations. The small business community in my constituency is looking for action, not more words, from this Parliament.

    I am grateful for the courtesy of the House this afternoon, and to the people of Preseli Pembrokeshire for giving me the opportunity to be their representative during this Parliament.

  • John Hutton – 2005 Speech at NHSFT Forum

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Minister of State for Health on 11 January 2005.

    Good afternoon.

    I’m delighted to take advantage this opportunity to say a few words to you today because it is very important we have an open and effective dialogue over the future of NHS Foundation Trusts. But first I’d like to say 1 or 2 words about what it is we’re trying to do – because NHS Foundation Trusts are very much a means to an end.

    Establishing NHS Foundation Trusts was all about re-invigorating the delivery of NHS services by introducing new freedoms and new rewards for good performance. As far as the Department and Government are concerned we remain absolutely committed to these objectives and they will continue to guide our thinking about the next steps in the process of establishing new waves of NHS Foundation Trusts.

    For the vast majority of the people who live in our country, the NHS remains central to our national identity and national sense of purpose. It stands for a set of values and principles our society continues to hold dear. Our task in Government is, and remains, to ensure the NHS delivers its services in a way that will allow support for these core values to be maintained and strengthened. That is what NHS Foundation Trusts are all about. They are designed to sustain not to supplant these essential principles of equity and universality.

    If we are going to succeed in doing this we cannot afford to stand still, because the challenges the NHS faces today are different from those of fifty, twenty or even ten years ago. Our national expectations, both as consumers and taxpayers are higher today then they’ve ever been before. Rightly so. We know how important good health is to the quality of our lives and those of our families. We expect a more personal service. We want our healthcare to be provided at a time and place that suits us best. And we want more choice over what sort of service we can use.

    That sort of healthcare service has of course always been available to those who could afford it. For most of our fellow citizens however, it has sadly always been out of reach because this wasn’t the service that the NHS provided. This is what has to change. Making this change is I think the biggest challenge facing the NHS today. People want the NHS to succeed in rising to this challenge, because we know it is the fairest and most efficient way to organise and deliver the highest quality healthcare to the largest number of people.

    NHS principles stand head and shoulders above private insurance or voucher based alternatives in terms of equity of access. Every piece of research, both national and international, confirms this. The task facing all of us today is how to convert the principle of equity of access that rightly underpin the NHS into a modern delivery mechanism that guarantees patients the kind of service they have come to associate exclusively with the private sector. To succeed in this historic challenge we need two things. Investment and reform.

    We need significant and sustained investment so that we can make good decades of under funding which has left the NHS short of the necessary capacity and the infrastructure to meet the needs of the people we seek to serve.

    The extra investment is already making a very big difference to the NHS. Waiting times are falling quickly in every part of the country. The quality of the care we provide is improving too. Fewer people with cancer and heart disease are dying from their illnesses. New treatments and drugs are being made available more quickly. More doctors and nurses than ever before are helping us to realise these improvements in the standards of care that we provide. We cannot claim that every single problem facing the NHS has been solved in the last seven years. That’s palpably not the case. But we are now heading firmly in the right direction.

    But one thing is clear. Although essential, this investment on its own would never have been enough to complete this process of transition from the old NHS to the new. That’s why the way we deliver our services needs to change as well.

    We have set out the changes we believe are necessary in order to help the NHS become the service we all want it to be. Led by greater choice for NHS patients, resourced through payment by results and supported through the largest investment in new information technology underway in any healthcare system anywhere in the world, the NHS stands on the threshold of the most radical reforms since it was created over fifty years ago.

    NHS Foundation Trusts and the work of MONITOR are at the forefront of this programme of change. That is why the Government remains absolutely committed to the principles that underpin NHS Foundation Trust status and to making these reforms a success.

    To make these reforms work in the acute sector, we need greater operational and financial freedom for providers, less bureaucracy and red tape, stronger local accountability, and greater rewards and incentives to raise the standards of patient care. In all of these key areas, NHS Foundation Trusts are quite literally leading the way. All of you can point to real improvements and benefits to your patients that Foundation status has helped deliver. All of you have helped the NHS rise to the challenges it faces today. Less than a year into these reforms, I believe the progress you have made has been truly impressive.

    It is clearly right however that we should look carefully at how we take forward this policy over the next few years. Firstly, we have to learn from the experience of the first wave. In particular, we need to reflect carefully on the support the Department provides applicants for NHS Foundation Trust status to see what more we can do to help Trusts prepare for the new financial regime under which they will operate.

    Secondly, we all need to consider very carefully the experience of the first wave of NHS Foundation Trusts in operating the new Payment by Results system in order to make sure the wider NHS can benefit from the new incentive and reward systems. I think this is particularly true in the area of emergency care and outpatient activity.

    Thirdly, we need to be mindful of the need to keep bureaucracy and red-tape to an absolute minimum so that hospitals can focus on the job at hand – treating patients and raising standards of care. This must be a shared priority for all of us. I was particularly glad last week that we were able to announce that NHS Foundation Trusts no longer need to inform the Department of Health every time there is a false fire alarm. I’m sure there is more that we can do on this front.

    Fourthly, we need to maintain a strong focus on making the new governance arrangements work as they were intended by strengthening the new links that exist between hospitals and their local communities. I think we’ve got to ensure that this new form of public ownership adds real value to the NHS – strengthening the concepts of local accountability and public engagement.

    And finally we will need to consider the report of the Healthcare Commission into how the new freedoms for NHS Foundation Trusts are working in practice.

    So there is a full agenda in front of us. For our part, we are fully committed to working with individual NHS Foundation Trusts, with the FT Network, with MONITOR and the wider NHS to make a success of these reforms and a success of NHS Foundation Trust status. That is why we remain open to new ideas and suggestions from all of you about how foundation status can lead to a more dynamic, flexible, entrepreneurial and higher quality NHS.

    I want to finish with this observation. At the beginning of this reform process two years ago, what mattered most was what Ministers said about NHS Foundation Trusts. Now what matters most is what you do with the new freedoms that you have – how you use them to improve the quality and convenience of the care you provide to your patients.

    Thank you.Good afternoon.

  • David Davis – 2005 Speech on Police Reform

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Davis, the then Shadow Home Secretary, on 19 December 2005.

    The matter we are debating this afternoon – the prospective reduction of 43 police forces to 12 regional forces – is enormously important.

    The constitutional independence of the police, their local accountability, their operational effectiveness, their cost effectiveness, the stability of their finances, their very identity with their local communities, are all at risk.

    That is why the Association of Police Authorities has rightly called for a full parliamentary debate on this important issue.

    In his recent letter to their Chairman, the Home Secretary said “there will be an opportunity for Parliament to debate in full the issues raised by the review on Monday 19 December”.

    So what do we have?

    A debate timed to fall after the formal meetings of most or all of the relevant police authorities, despite the Home Secretary’s demand that those authorities meet his deadline of the end of this week.

    A debate held just before Christmas, after a major Prime Ministerial statement, without a substantive vote.

    You know, one might almost come to the conclusion that the Home Secretary did not want much press coverage for this issue.

    This is hardly the full debate this subject deserves.

    The Home Secretary should know that on this side of the House, we expect a much more extensive debate on the future of policing in the New Year.

    We are not opposed to changing policing in Britain.

    We have long argued for reform and for a greater focus on neighbourhood policing.

    We are keen to work with the Government to find the best way to achieve it.

    We recognise that Britain faces growing threats from terrorism and organised crime which often require greater co-operation across forces.

    But the Home Secretary would do well to heed the words of one Chief Constable who said rightly that “All serious and organised crime has a local base”.

    That is why we are very concerned about plans to force mergers between forces, which will inevitably make policing more remote from the people.

    And we believe this is all happening too fast.

    It’s happening without serious thought about the consequences.

    And it is being driven by the wrong motives.

    Rather than taking their time, the Government is trying to force the changes through almost without proper debate.

    Rather than being driven by operational effectiveness, the changes are being driven by a blind belief in centralisation that defies the facts.

    Rather than focusing on the needs of local people, they are being driven by an agenda of regionalisation that this government continues to pursue against the will of the people.

    So while we welcome today’s debate, I would say to the Home Secretary that he has a long way to go before he proves the case for the changes he is advocating.

    Real neighbourhood policing

    We on this side of the House have long had a clear view of the kind of reform our police service needs.

    We want to see genuine neighbourhood policing, which is responsive to the needs of local people.

    We want the police to be genuinely accountable to the people they serve, which is why we continue to believe in the concept of elected police commissioners.

    The evidence suggests that smaller policing units are the most effective.

    Recent research from the think-tank Policy Exchange puts it like this:

    “smaller forces, with a strong commitment to visible policing, are among the most successful at cutting crime and providing public reassurance”.

    In Policy Exchange’s ranking of police forces, the smaller forces – such as Dyfed-Powys, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire and Dorset – came out on top.

    That evidence accords with the Home Office’s own Performance Assessments for 2004-05, which shows that three of the top five performing police forces in Britain have less than 4,000 officers.

    This evidence mirrors the international experience.

    The greatest and most high-profile success in tackling crime in recent years is found in some American cities, notably New York.

    They managed to cut crime by more than a half in just ten years.

    How?

    Because they adopted a system of locally managed, directed and financed policing.

    So with all this evidence to hand, we believe in retaining and enhancing the connection between local police and local people.

    The Government’s centralising approach

    But as the House will know, the Government wants to move in the opposite direction.

    Fuelled by the O’Connor report – on which the current debate is based – the Home Secretary is proposing to replace many existing constabularies with larger and more remote police forces.

    He justifies this with his now familiar claim that it is necessary to tackle the new terrorist threat.

    That argument, it seems, can cover a multitude of sins.

    But should this go ahead, we fear it will be the thin end of the wedge – the first step down the road to making all policing more remote and less responsive to local people.

    In an earlier debate, the Hon Member for Stockton North (Frank Cook) – who has been very vocal on this subject – quoted the report’s author, Denis O’Connor, as saying:

    “I was asked to put forward a protective services argument, not a critical assessment of forces” .

    That suggests that the Home Secretary is trying to use this report as something it is not.

    As so often, the Government seems to have come to a decision and then tried to find the evidence to support it.

    Lack of public support

    That perhaps is why the Home Secretary was very quick to say which of the five options outlined in the report he preferred.

    He supports the proposed move to fewer, strategic forces.

    There was absolutely no mention of this in the Labour Party’s election manifesto earlier this year.

    Perhaps that is because they knew how unpopular it would be.

    One opinion poll conducted by MORI for the Cleveland Force found public support for the plan at just 8%.

    A similar poll for the Cumbrian force found a majority against the merger proposal.

    This is mirrored elsewhere.

    In the earlier debate in Westminster Hall, my Hon Friend the Member for Aldershot reported how his own police force of Hampshire had told him:

    “At an independently run, public focus group consultation event held with residents, on November 19th our residents were unanimous across all groups that Hampshire Constabulary should not be amalgamated and should remain a single force.”

    Indeed, there has been a burgeoning concern across the country as people have come to realise that their local police force might disappear.

    And little wonder.

    Some of the proposed new forces are simply too huge to be as effective as those they would replace.

    Take the proposed mergers in the South East for example.

    If that goes ahead, Kent’s officers could be closer to Calais than to their new regional headquarters.

    Some officers in the proposed South West Regional Force would have to drive for 5 hours to make it to their new regional home.

    Officers in the North West would have to travel for 2 and a half hours to make it from one side of their new force to the other.

    Some officers in Wales would have to travel for around 5 hours to visit a headquarters in Cardiff.

    Regionalisation

    Mr Speaker,

    We could accept this if we thought there would be genuine benefits to the community.

    But, as I said earlier, all the evidence demonstrates that the best police forces are the smallest ones that are able to respond to the needs of the local community.

    There is absolutely nothing to stop those forces co-operating effectively as they do now, but they should not be forced to do so.

    Now the Home Secretary will claim that local policing will remain through the Basic Command Units which, he says, are accountable.

    But there is absolutely no true accountability here at all.

    The BCUs take their direction from above and report to those above them.

    Local people have no control over them whatsoever.

    What happens if they do something wrong?

    Can they be fired? No.

    Can they be replaced? No.

    Can they be held to account in any way by the people they serve?

    Answer, no.

    And how much more damaging will it be when they take their direction from a Chief Constable who may be hundreds of miles away?

    The Home Secretary says that he has a “desire to establish mechanisms that … effectively hold BCU commanders to account”.

    But then he admits that these mechanisms would be “non-statutory”.

    Mr Speaker, it’s not enough for the Home Secretary to “desire” accountability.

    There must be formal mechanisms to put local accountability in place.

    But the Government has shown minimal interest in this issue, and frankly we know why.

    There is a wider agenda behind the Government’s plan.

    We can already see how the Government’s failed regionalisation agenda is being brought in through the backdoor.

    What began in planning is now filtering through to the emergency services.

    The ambulance service is being reorganised.

    So is the fire service.

    The police are just the latest body to face the zeal of the Government’s great drive towards regionalisation.

    The Home Secretary cannot deny the regionalism lying beneath his proposals.

    Why, if this reform is not driven by a regional agenda, would the Hampshire Police Authority be forbidden from amalgamating with the neighbouring Dorset or Wiltshire forces – as my Hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Andrew Turner) pointed out in the debate in Westminster Hall?

    The answer is that they would then cross the arbitrary Government Office boundaries.

    It is clear that the amalgamations the Government envisages can only take place where there is a regional driver behind them.

    As Warwickshire Police Force – the smallest force in the country outside the City of London – said in an early response to the report:

    “The Home Secretary has made it clear that the restructuring of forces has to take place within existing regional boundaries”. (Press Release, 11 October 2005).

    Why?

    If it is so important that we create larger, strategic forces to fight terrorism and organised crime, why should we let regional boundaries dictate how those forces are formed?
    Are the criminals going to mysteriously respect regional boundaries?

    If this reform was truly about operational effectiveness, it should be solely about doing what is most effective, not about fitting the government’s discredited, one size fits – all prejudices and preconceptions.

    Mr Speaker, this Government’s plans for Regional Government were defeated soundly in a referendum of the people.

    When will they accept that fact – rather than trying to implement them through the back door?

    The speed of change

    There may be a case for amalgamation in some parts of the country.

    We accept that.

    Our concern is that the Government is forcing it on police forces that do not want it, and do not need it.
    As one Chief Constable said:

    “There’s not been enough critical examination of the report.

    Restructuring may be exactly what two or three forces in one part of the country need and may make totally sound sense.

    But it does not follow that it needs to work like that in every part of the country” (Tim Brain, Gloucestershire Police, The Telegraph, 12 December 2005).

    And the speed with which this is all being done is one of our greatest concerns.

    As that same Chief Constable outlined:

    “This is going to be the most profound chance since the modern police service was created in 1829.

    Maybe it is not necessary to have a two-year royal commission now, but a debate – not even much of a debate – that is based upon a report which took three months to write and which we have really only been given a month to respond to, is just too hasty”.

    The last time such a change was proposed a Royal Commission was indeed established.

    It was established in 1960. Finally reported in 1962.

    And its recommendations were put into place between 1964-5.

    This time the report was called for in June, published in September and implemented if the Government gets its way as early as next year.

    As the Labour Chairman of the Cheshire Police Authority, Mr Peter Nurse, told the Home Secretary:

    “Your timetable is so absurd that it is impossible for us to have a meaningful dialogue with our communities and for us to fully appraise what is the best structure for policing in this area that not only effectively tackles those serious criminals in our midst but also protects our neighbourhood.”

    This speed leaves many questions unresolved.

    The most important of these being that of costs.

    The O’Connor report is 113 pages.

    Of these just 1½ pages cover how merging forces will deliver savings.

    A figure of £70 million is asserted but completely unsubstantiated.

    So the change ‘could’ save around £70 million in the long-run – but equally it ‘could’ not.

    There is every chance that costs will go up, not down, particularly information technology costs, in which both the Home Office and the police have such a brilliant track record.

    If nothing else, all experience shows that the process of amalgamation itself will be a ferociously disruptive and distracting exercise, probably for several years.

    During which time neither the criminals nor the terrorists will rest.

    The draft calculations in the report are far from convincing.

    So is the evidence from history.

    I’m sure many Hon Members will remember what happened on a previous occasion when a Labour Government amalgamated two institutions to try and drive up standards and cost-effectiveness.

    They took one failing car company and one successful van and lorry firm, put them into one, and created a disaster called British Leyland.

    The history of amalgamations does not inspire confidence.

    Rather than raising the average of all, they often pull successful institutions down.

    Financial Implications

    Even if the projected operational and cost improvements are capable of being achieved, it seems clear that we could achieve them through the simpler federated structure – which would have the added benefit of avoiding the heavy, upfront costs.

    The O’Connor report admits that reorganisation “is bound” to entail up-front costs.

    It says that these “cannot be avoided”.

    In view of this warning, did it not occur to the Government that it might be a good idea to find out what the costs might be before they demanded that amalgamation proceeded?

    It has been left to the police authorities to do that job.

    The estimates are as wide-ranging as they are disturbing.

    We have heard figures of £25-30 million being suggested simply to amalgamate IT systems across two neighbouring forces.

    The Hon member for Stockton North has been very vocal about this from the Government back benches.

    I hope he will allow me to give the example he has cited before.

    His local force of Cleveland has been told that they will have to merge with Durham and Northumbria.

    They think they will have to borrow £50 million to pay for it.

    Servicing that loan will cost around £5 million a year.

    But some forces will have to borrow even more.

    I have here a memo from Leicestershire Police Authority which puts the cost of a amalgamation to create an East Midlands Regional Force at over £100 million with ongoing costs of anywhere between £30 and £52 million.

    The Chief Constable of Gloucester, who is ACPO’s head of Finance and Resourcing, estimates the total set-up cost at £500 million. The APA assess it at £500 – £600 million.

    I suspect that the cost of this is going to be like the infamous ID cards scheme: the harder we look at it, the more expensive it gets.

    The full costs could be astronomical.

    But we are told by the head of the police resources unit at the Home Office that the “Government does not have the money” to pay for it.

    It is amazing, though, what Ministers can do when their backs are against the wall.

    After the Association of Police Authorities refused to meet the Home Secretary’s rushed deadline of 23 December, he suddenly found £50 million next year and £75 million the year after that, in a rather clumsy attempt to bribe forces to accept his merger plans without question.

    The APA was rightly outraged.

    In its response entitled Policing Not for Sale, it condemned the Home Secretary’s attempt to bribe police authorities into abolishing local police forces.

    Its Chairman, Bob Jones, said:

    “we will not be bought off…

    It is disappointing that the Home Secretary is now trying to bribe some police authorities to merge their local police forces at the expense of those police authorities who still have serious concerns about whether this will deliver the best policing for local people.”

    And even with this rather cack-handed attempt to influence opinion, the shortfall in funding will be massive.

    There are only two places to go to fill the gap.

    One is to borrow the money.

    The other is to raise it through a higher precept on the council tax.

    It is clear that, in the end, the cost for this exercise will fall on the council taxpayer.

    This is just one of the reasons why the Association of Police Authorities opposes the Government’s plan.

    As their highly critical statement of 7 December put it:

    “the APA does not accept that HMIC’s Report “Closing the Gap” provides a complete or comprehensive business case for the creation of strategic forces and… the APA will urgently explore alternative models, such as a Federated approach to establish if these offer a quicker, more cost effective approach to improve protective policing services”.

    I welcome this approach.

    It makes sense to explore alternative options, particularly when the Connor report proposed them.

    Why is the Home Secretary so hostile to federation?

    He says that a “compelling case” for federation has not been made.

    Does he seriously contend that he has made a compelling case for amalgamations?

    Alternative options need to be explored objectively and costed properly – not summarily ruled out because they don’t fit the Government’s regional blueprint.

    My own survey of Police Authorities – conducted last week – revealed overwhelming opposition to the Government’s plans.

    Most Authorities cited the speed and cost of the mergers to be a major factor in their opposition – together with concerns about the lack of accountability.

    Conclusion – time to think again

    So Mr Speaker, I hope the Government will now accept that they have handled this debate appallingly – which is why we find ourselves discussing such an important matter today, in the last week before Christmas.

    Frankly, as the Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys police said this weekend [?], the Government’s plans are “verging on a shambles”.

    The Home Secretary needs to pause and reflect on the full implications of what he is proposing.

    We are not opposed to any change in the current structure of 43 police forces, but we do believe there are very serious problems with the current proposal.

    It makes policing remote, when we should be making it local.

    It makes policing unaccountable, when we should be giving people greater control.

    It threatens massive costs for no extra benefits and it is driven by a regional agenda which has already been rejected by the British people.

    Quite simply, it seems to be trying to meet a resources problem with an organisational solution.

    We should be designing the right organisation and then finding the resources to implement it.

    It would be a tragedy indeed if we sacrificed good and effective policing on the altar of regional dogma.

    It will be a tragedy if the government pushes through this hasty, ill-considered, costly, disruptive, and dangerous plan.

    A tragedy the British people cannot afford.

  • David Cameron – 2005 Statement on EU Policy

    davidcameronold

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Cameron, the then Leader of the Opposition, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2005.

    “This was the year Europe needed to change direction.

    This was the year the people of Europe rejected the constitution.

    And this was the year people called for the end to the obscenity of protectionism that damages the developing world.

    The Prime Minister rightly talked at the time of a crisis in European leadership.

    So the question for the Prime Minister is whether the British Presidency and the new budget even begin to measure up to those challenges.

    We warmly welcome the accession talks with Turkey and Croatia. We welcome what he said about Macedonia, and the EU partnership with Africa.

    But hasn’t progress elsewhere been desperately slow?

    On the budget, does the Prime Minister remember having three clear objectives?

    First, to limit its size, when almost every country in Europe is taxing and borrowing too much.

    Second, to ensure fundamental reform of the CAP.

    And third, to keep the British rebate unless such reform occurs.

    Isn’t it now clear that he failed in every single one?

    First, the Prime Minister said he wanted the size of the budget to be set at one per cent of Europe’s income.

    Can he confirm that the budget he’s just agreed is higher than that; higher than the compromise he tabled; and will actually mean £25 billion in extra spending?

    The Prime Minister says it’s to pay for enlargement. So will he confirm that Ireland, which is richer per capita than Britain, is getting more per head than Lithuania, Slovakia and Poland?

    Second, the Prime Minister wanted to change the things the budget was spent on.

    Isn’t it clear that he has failed to do that as well?

    Isn’t it the case that CAP spending will be higher next year, the year after that, and in every year up to 2013?

    The Chancellor said CAP reform was necessary to make poverty history

    The Prime Minister told this House in June that he wanted to `get rid’ of the CAP.

    Will he confirm that, four months later, his own Europe Minister said that the Government hadn’t put forward any detailed proposals to reform the CAP?

    Isn’t it the case that something which the Prime Minister thought was essential the entire Government spent four months doing nothing about?

    Will the Prime Minister be clear about what he has secured on the CAP?

    It’s a review. And it takes place in 2008.

    Can he confirm that in that year the Presidency will be held by France?

    Is he aware that the French Foreign Minister has said: `Jacques Chirac has secured that there won’t be reform to the Common Agricultural Policy before 2014′?

    Isn’t that the opposite of what the Prime Minister actually wanted?

    In other words he’s completely failed to deliver CAP reform.

    What about his third objective: if all else fails, keep the rebate?

    Well all else did fail.

    And the Prime Minister’s position was clear.

    He used to say the rebate was non-negotiable.

    He said at that Despatch Box in June: `the UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period’.

    The Chancellor said it was `non-negotiable’ and fully justified.

    Then the Prime Minister changed his mind. The rebate could be negotiated, he said, provided there was fundamental reform of the CAP.

    So it was clear Mr Speaker. The only circumstances in which the rebate would be given up was if there was a `commensurate and equal giving up’ of farm subsides.

    Now, that is not an unreasonable position.

    And at that time he knew about all the other considerations he mentioned today, including the importance of supporting enlargement.

    But what happened?

    The farm subsidies remain. And £7 billion of the rebate has been negotiated away.

    If this was always the Government’s plan, why wasn’t any reduction in the rebate in the Chancellor’s Pre-Budget Report?

    We are told the Chancellor didn’t even know about the final deal.

    Normally it’s the Chancellor who doesn’t tell the Prime Minister what’s in the Budget. This time the Prime Minister didn’t tell the Chancellor.

    Can he confirm that by 2011 the UK will be losing £2 billion a year – the baseline from which we will negotiate?

    Will he confirm that the amount he’s given up from the rebate is almost double our entire overseas aid budget this year?

    In June the Prime Minister told the House that no deal was better than a bad deal. `Europe’s credibility’ he said `demands the right deal—not the usual cobbled-together compromise in the early hours of the morning’

    Did he remember that as he was cobbling together this compromise in the early hours of the morning?

    Why did he give up £7 billion for next to nothing?

    And – vitally – how is the Chancellor going to pay for it?

    More taxes?

    More borrowing?

    Or cuts in spending?

    Which is it?

    A good budget deal would have limited spending.

    It would have reformed the CAP.

    And it would have helped change Europe’s direction.

    Isn’t it the case that none of those things happened under the British Presidency?

    Europe needed to be led in a new direction.

    Aren’t we simply heading in the same direction, but paying a bigger bill?

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2005 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    jeremyhunt

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Jeremy Hunt in the House of Commons on 24 May 2005.

    I congratulate the many new Members who have made their maiden contributions this evening. The hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for Brent, South (Ms Butler) expressed great pride at being the first women to represent their constituencies, and I am particularly proud to be the first man to represent mine in more than 20 years. I am also proud to be standing next to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton). She worked extremely hard to win her seat, and no one is prouder than I am to be with her this evening. [Hon. Members: “Love on the Benches!”] I believe that my hon. Friend is married.

    Let me now undertake the enormously pleasurable task of paying tribute to my predecessor, Virginia Bottomley. This House will know that she played a distinguished role on the national stage as Secretary of State for Health and as Secretary of State for the then Department of National Heritage. The House may be less aware that she was also a hugely conscientious constituency MP, a determined champion of local causes and a passionate advocate of the many charities and voluntary organisations in my constituency. She is also immensely photogenic and cuts a wonderful dash in the hills of Haslemere, the gardens of Godalming and the fetes of Farnham. That, I fear, is an area in which I will be unable to follow in her distinguished footsteps.

    [Jacqui Smith: You’re not so bad yourself.]

    I am grateful for that compliment from the Labour Benches; I fear that that may be the end of them.

    My constituency consists of three historic towns and a number of villages that lie between them. Farnham is the largest of the towns, Haslemere is a town of great charm and character, and Godalming has a special place in my heart as I went to school there and my family are originally from there. My late grandmother was still alive when I was selected as a prospective parliamentary candidate, and no one could be happier than she would have been to see me standing here today.

    In many ways, both the problems and the opportunities in my constituency reside in the same fact: we are only an hour from London. That creates not only huge economic opportunities—more than half the working population in my constituency commute to London—but huge development pressures that threaten the special character of my constituency’s towns and villages. I do not wish to depart from the tradition of not being controversial in a maiden speech, but I want to let the House know that I will be campaigning vigorously against the housing targets set for my constituency by the Deputy Prime Minister, who used as his vehicle the unelected, unwanted and unnecessary South East England regional assembly.
    I will also be campaigning strongly for a tunnel for the A3 at Hindhead. There is a huge traffic bottleneck there and enormous problems for traffic coming from London to Portsmouth. The tunnel is a project of national importance, and I urge the Government to reconsider their decision last December effectively to withdraw funding for it.

    The final issue currently of great concern to my constituents is the future of Milford hospital, which is a specialist rehabilitation hospital. More than a quarter of my constituents are retired, and the demand for the services offered by Milford is only likely to increase. However, I am told by my primary care trust that a short-term cash crisis leaves its potential future funding in doubt. I will be campaigning very strongly, locally and nationally, to ensure that Milford hospital does not become a victim of that cash crisis.

    My own background is in education. With a business partner—he is in the Gallery—I set up an educational publishing business that produces guides and websites to help people choose the right university, college or course. I will mention it in the Register of Members’ Interests, and I declare it today because I want to say something about education. I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for Education for sparing time from her schedule, and for making the effort to come and listen to what I have to say.

    We live in a highly competitive world, and most Members in all parts of the House would accept that some inequality is the inevitable consequence of maintaining the link between effort and reward in our society. But given that that is so, there is surely not just an economic necessity but a moral duty to ensure that we give every child in this country the best possible start in life.

    As a prospective parliamentary candidate, I followed in the footsteps of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) and did a week as a teacher in a local secondary school; I also did a week as a classroom assistant in a primary school. I welcome some of the changes in education that we have seen in the past eight years, particularly the literacy and numeracy hours, which have been important contributions. However, if we are to address the shortfalls in our education system, we have to recognise that it is not just a question of funding; we also need a disciplined learning environment and academic rigor. Respect for teachers is vital, but we also need to pay due attention to academic standards. If everyone gets a prize, in the end the prize itself becomes worthless, and the people who suffer most are those with the least. For them, a credible exam result is the very passport that they need to help them to break out of the cycle of low expectations with which they may well have grown up.

    I come briefly to education in the third world, given that the developing world will be discussed at the forthcoming G8 summit. I was recently involved in setting up a charity to fund education for AIDS orphans in Kenya. I did so after sponsoring an HIV-positive child for a couple of years, and I make no apology to the House for coming to the problems of Africa through the prism of a small child’s experience, because in the end this is about individuals and individual suffering.

    I was greatly helped in setting up that charity by Estelle Morris, who was willing to work across party lines to help me get it off the ground. She once said to me, “Jeremy, you care a lot about education and you care about the developing world. Just why are you a Conservative?”, to which I say this: no party has a monopoly on compassion—the challenge is how to apply that compassion in a modern context. For my part, compassion alone is not enough; it needs to benefit the people to whom it is directed. Compassion should lead to independence for those who lack it, to freedom for those who need it and to opportunity for those who crave it. Creating opportunities for those who really need them—whether in this country or in the developing world—will be a major preoccupation of mine for as long as the people of South-West Surrey give me the privilege of representing them in this House.

  • Anne McGuire – 2005 Speech on Disability Discrimination Act

    Below is the text of the speech made by Anne McGuire, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Work and Pensions, on 22nd September 2005.

    There are important challenges we must face if our society is to become more equal – and if all parts of our community are to be able to fulfil their potential.

    Today’s event is about the public sector disability duties in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 – and about how the new duties will help public bodies to rise to meet those challenges.

    The event will hopefully give us all the opportunity to learn about what the new duties will require and to think about what they will mean for your organisations – as well as giving you the chance to ask a few questions.

    The need to think ahead and plan is, of course, fundamental to these duties – and I know for many of you here today, you’ve already started thinking and this event is a vital part of that process.

    I hope my contribution this morning will help to set these duties in context for you – to explain where they come from, what they mean and why we think they were necessary.

    When we took office in 1997, disabled people had only limited civil rights.

    Where those rights were in place, they had only been granted reluctantly – after many frustrated attempts to bring forward legislation. So our challenge in Government, after years in opposition, was to put that right.

    I think we made a good start in establishing the Disability Rights Taskforce – to recommend the changes that needed to be made to advance disability equality in our country.

    Amongst other things, the Taskforce recommended that we establish the Disability Rights Commission – to act as a champion for disabled people.

    Well we did that – and this year the DRC celebrates its fifth anniversary. With the new legislation establishing the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to replace the current equality commissions, we are working to ensure that disability will be at the heart of the new Commission.

    I’m delighted that the DRC are represented here today – because in their short five years of existence, they have played an important role in helping us develop the duties, and in producing the code of practice which will shortly be laid before Parliament.

    And, of course, we have worked very closely with the DRC in delivering the biggest extension of disability civil rights this country has ever seen.

    So there has been progress towards our goal of equality for disabled people. The legislative measures we have taken have driven real change in the way that both public and private organisations conduct their business.

    Thankfully, I think we are also starting to see that society as a whole is starting to change.

    I think everyone in this room would agree that it can’t change fast enough. Some might even say that, in spite of advances, the pace of change has been painfully slow.

    The challenges are certainly still enormous.

    Disabled people are still more than twice as likely to have no educational qualifications.

    Disabled people are still less likely to be in work – and when they do work, they earn less than non-disabled people.

    Disabled children are still more likely to live in poverty – and the children of disabled parents are more likely to live in poverty.

    Here in London, the Greater London Authority found that one in three disabled people face discrimination on a regular basis. Half experience abuse or bullying – being laughed at, spat at and even physically attacked.

    Shockingly, disabled people are still more likely to die from conditions unrelated to their disability than other people.

    We must ask ourselves why – for example – people with learning difficulties are many times more likely to die young from physical illnesses which have nothing to do with their impairment.

    Many of you will be all too familiar with these facts. But I set them out because they demonstrate the scale of the challenge that faces us.

    And they also demonstrate that in areas where the public service has a key role – in education, in healthcare, in work – disabled people still do not get:

    – the same services and opportunities;

    – the same support; and

    – the same treatment that non-disabled people get.

    It is not just in those areas of course. Wherever you look, you will find that disabled people are comparatively worse off.

    There can be no single answer for overturning generations of disadvantage – as a Government, as a Minister, there is no magic formula for making equality a reality.

    But we have put measures in place which enable disabled people to challenge discriminatory behaviour and the cultures which perpetuate exclusion.

    Around 10 million people have individual rights under the DDA to get adjustments made when it is reasonable to do so – and to obtain compensation when these rights are breached.

    Yet, as I hope I’ve already demonstrated, disabled people still face disadvantage in public services.

    One reason for this is that individual rights cannot easily address a fundamental generic issue which leads to many of the problems faced by disabled people.

    That is – how do we ensure that the culture of our public institutions is one where consideration for disabled people, the barriers they face and how they are overcome is integral to how people do their jobs.

    We know that this does not always happen now. Everyone – from the Chief Executive to the shopfloor – needs to ask difficult questions of ourselves as individuals and of our organisations.

    Do we give enough thought to the impact of new policies, new procedures and new services on disabled people’s lives?

    Worse, might we, in fact, be putting fresh barriers in place which prevent disabled people from enjoying opportunities we all take for granted?

    Let me give you a real life example of what I mean.

    A local authority – I’ll spare their blushes by not saying which one – contracted its refuse collection service on the basis that all residents would leave their rubbish at the border of their property, dragging their wheelie bins up their garden paths for collection.

    No regard at all was given to the fact that some residents would find that difficult or impossible.

    The local authority then – in order to avoid discriminating against disabled people – needed to either negotiate a change to the contract or make alternate provision, both of which were costly.

    A simple example, but if things had been done differently – if, for example, the need to ensure disabled people get their refuse collected without unreasonable difficulty had been a priority at the beginning – the local authority need not have been burdened with the extra costs of putting things right.

    The bottom line is quite simple – proper regard should be had to the needs of all residents, whether disabled or not, 100% of the time.

    The measure that we are discussing today is designed to ensure that this happens. From December next year, the DDA 2005 places a legal duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

    It will no longer be legal for public bodies to design services or carry out functions without thinking about how disabled people are affected.

    Public bodies will have to demonstrate that – in everything they do – they are considering the impact on disabled people and that they have due regard to the best ways of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality of opportunity.

    These new duties must make us work and do things differently. If they result in box-ticking exercises – without effecting real change to the lives of disabled people – then sadly we will have failed.

    I said that making our society more equal was a great challenge: in fact, it is a central challenge for the public sector.

    We in Government are not complacent – and the new DDA 2005 is only part of a broader strategy.

    However, I can reassure you that I am not asking you as representatives of public authorities to do something that we in national government are not prepared to do ourselves.

    Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit published a report called “Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People” which set out our ambition.

    An ambition that – within a generation – disabled people should have the full opportunities and choices necessary to improve their quality of life.

    An ambition that – together – we can build a society where no-one is written off.

    A key part of the strategy we have set to help achieve that ambition is the reform of Incapacity Benefit. We want to make sure that disabled people have the appropriate support – financial, advisory and rehabilitative – when they need it, when they want it, which would allow them to move towards work.

    The Strategy Unit report also sets out other practical measures including:

    Establishing an Office for Disability Issues to help coordinate and promote change across Government;

    Creating a National Forum for Organisations of Disabled People to ensure that disabled people are involved in developing policies that impact on their lives; and

    Moving towards individual budgets – leading to more choice for disabled people about the way they receive the support that is provided for them.

    As with the new public sector duties, we know that disabled people must be right at the heart of all these initiatives if they are to make a difference.

    I want to be very clear about our agenda. It is not about burdening public authorities with extra layers of bureaucracy: it is about achieving greater opportunity and fairness in our society.

    The principle behind the new duties is that we must plan for a more equal future – where the needs of all our citizens are anticipated and, where possible, accommodated.

    We must address the ignorance and prejudice which holds disabled people back. And we must give disabled people confidence that they can rely on public services – and not be an afterthought, as has often happened in the past.

    This is a massive challenge. The legal framework is there – what we now have to do is to change the culture of our organisations as a step towards changing society. This challenge is one that I’m sure very many of us welcome. It is one that I am confident we will all rise to meet.

  • Gerry Sutcliffe – 2005 Speech to the Trading Standards Institute Annual Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Trade Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, to the Trading Standards Institute Annual Conference in Brighton on 21st June 2005.

    Introduction

    They say you can measure your success by the amount of repeat business you get. Since May 5th the country’s invited us back for another term; I’ve been invited back to the DTI to be Consumer Minister again; and now, Ian, you’ve invited me back here.

    I hope this means I’m doing something right.

    So I want to thank you for inviting me to open this year’s conference for the third time in a row.

    Two years ago – Scotland.

    Last year – Manchester.

    This year – Brighton.

    Ian – I can see the pattern you’re developing here. So let me say right now I’ll be happy to carry on moving southwards and accept what’s clearly going to be your invitation for Paris next year. And Rome in 2007.

    This week you’re focusing on Delivering the Vision. Vision is very important to us. But so is delivery. And I think it’s clear that our vision, and yours, is of great changes for Trading Standards. These changes should alter the way enforcement is delivered, the way we interact with consumers and business.

    Launch of New Strategy

    The new strategy underpins what we’ll be doing in the next decade. It sets out a plan for a regime that supports both economic progress and social justice; that protects vulnerable consumers; and which supports markets that are open, competitive and fair, with opportunities for business growth and innovation.

    The regime will be based on proportionate, risk-assessed and evidence-based intervention. Instead of regulating and inspecting on a routine all-inclusive basis, we want to see more effort targeted on rogue traders, and a lighter touch for mainstream responsible businesses.

    We want to see prosperous, and fair, national and international markets, where both business and consumers can trade with confidence, and where everyone receives a fair deal.

    This new strategy sets out our plans to achieve these objectives.

    Some quick highlights:

    We’ll complete the rollout of Consumer Direct across the whole of Britain within a year.

    We’ve already said we accept Hampton’s recommendations. Which means we’ll set up the proposed Consumer and Trading Standards Agency by 2009.

    We’ll implement the conclusions of the “Less is More” report on better regulation. Measuring, and then reducing, the administrative burden of regulations.

    We want to see less attention paid to, and less effort spent on, routine inspection. In its place, a new priority on tackling the most urgent issues, piloting specialist Scambuster teams at a regional level to crack down on genuine crooks. More coordination and joint working across boundaries. And an additional £1.5 million, to be bid for in 2006/7 and 2007/8, to get these teams going.

    We’ll work to improve the performance framework for Trading Standards, rolling out the peer review process.

    We want to see an appropriate balance between the rights of consumers and their responsibilities. Protecting the weakest. Helping people to make the right decisions, including rolling out the OFT Consumer Codes Approval scheme, and work like the new TrustMark initiative, launching to consumers this Autumn. For the first time consumers will be able to make an informed choice when finding firms to undertake work on their homes or – through the VBRA’s code approval this year – on their cars. And I want the VBRA’s code to be just the first step to wider commitment by the motor sector.

    We’ll implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive – introducing a general duty not to trade unfairly. A new, easier to understand basis for consumer protection, with powerful new tools. – Which does not mean an end to criminal sanctions or a drop in the levels of protection.

    We’ll work to improve redress for consumers

    And we’ll work with the Commission to review consumer law across Europe, with a view to simplifying and modernising

    Consumer Direct

    Let me start with Consumer Direct, which is at the core of our new vision.

    Consumer Direct is here to stay. The future success of both Trading Standards and Consumer Direct depends on cooperation and working together.

    So it’s vital that we continue to build on the partnership we’ve developed.

    Last year I told you I knew Consumer Direct was going to be a success. Today, I can prove it. Consumer Direct is working. It’s already taken over four hundred thousand calls.

    But as we’re often told, size isn’t everything. Quality counts as well. Our satisfaction ratings are outstanding. Some of you will know these already, but survey figures show:

    Eighty-four percent of callers satisfied or very satisfied.

    Nine in ten saying they would recommend Consumer Direct to others.

    And it’s reaching new people. Three quarters of callers said they’d never accessed this sort of advice from any organisation.

    Just as importantly, we know Consumer Direct is saving consumers money. Between £150 and £200 each.

    We’re well into Wave 2. I’ve launched Consumer Direct in three new regions – the South East, two weeks ago here in Brighton; two days later, the East of England service in Newmarket and last week in London. Next week, the East Midlands.

    When all four are up and running – Consumer Direct will cover about three quarters of people in Great Britain.

    We’ve only got here because of the hard work and commitment from all of you. Let me thank everyone in Trading Standards for your support and hard work. But in particular I’d like to highlight the work of:

    Peter Denard and Clive Bainbridge in the South East.

    Ian MacLachlan and Mike Hill, East of England.

    In the East Midlands, Richard Hodge and Peter Heafield.

    And in London, all involved at the ALG, and Colin Perrins

    Eight regions running already. Three more to finalise. I know the West Midlands, North West and North East are making great strides as well. I hope to be signing contracts with all three soon. Now we know the service is delivering real results, we’re not going to hang around. Last year I said we’d be finished by the end of 2006. We’re going to beat that. I want the whole country to have Consumer Direct by Spring next year. And we’ll deliver that, together.

    Looking forward – once national rollout’s complete, I’m discussing the OFT taking over the leadership role for Consumer Direct. I’m sure this will be a logical and positive move. It’ll help improve cooperation, build better links, and make the best use of the intelligence the service provides. I recognise the critical role Trading Standards have played in developing and operating Consumer Direct. So do OFT. Both I and John Vickers want you to continue your ownership of Consumer Direct and your partnership with us in taking it forward.

    Talking about intelligence – we’ve now got the pilot phase of the central database finalised. We’re training Trading Standards officers across the regions in using the database. I expect this to quickly become a vital tool to support, and help target, enforcement activity.

    It’ll change the way you operate. First tier advice is now the province of Consumer Direct. You must meet the challenge of providing second tier advice. You need to be able to react to the complex cases referred from Consumer Direct. You – and other partners like Citizens Advice – need to be able to support the most vulnerable consumers, those that are in greatest need of your expertise.

    A fully operational Consumer Direct is at the heart of our new vision. And we see the new Consumer and Trading Standards Agency taking over responsibility for Consumer Direct in due course, as well as drawing on the intelligence it provides to help frame the direction of enforcement activity and inform the work of the Trading Standards service.

    Hampton & Consumer and Trading Standards Agency (CTSA)

    Philip Hampton’s report on reducing administrative burdens marks a new, more intense focus on regulatory services.

    The final Hampton report was published alongside the Budget. It said burdens on business could be reduced by streamlining the regulatory system to have fewer, larger regulators, with which business must interact. We accepted the recommendations, including creating a new CTSA at the centre of Government to co-ordinate work on consumer protection and Trading Standards.

    This is a major new step, with implications for all of you here today. We want the CTSA to be a strong, proactive body responding to the needs of consumers and business in the 21st century. It’ll be consumer-focused, but also ensure a fair trading environment for business, to drive competition.

    Philip made strong recommendations, and we’ve accepted his report. But he also recommended we consult on this, and we’ll be doing so shortly, seeking views on the structure, powers and role of this body.

    Let me give you a flavour.

    We already know that Hampton recommended that the CTSA should co-ordinate all aspects of Trading Standards work. This means it’ll cover issues such as fair-trading, product safety and weights and measures. It will not deal with work currently done by the Food Standards Agency, Health and Safety Executive and the proposed Animal Health Agency.

    Hampton also said the CTSA should include the consumer enforcement functions currently carried out by the OFT, as well as the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, the British Hallmarking Council and the Hearing Aid Council.

    An effective CTSA will meet Hampton’s call for a more coherent enforcement network. As well as its role in consumer enforcement, he said the CTSA should:

    Provide strategic leadership to the Trading Standards Service on advice to business

    Address consumer education needs; and

    Be responsible for a framework of minimum performance standards for you.

    We’re already making progress on this. The Audit Commission’s launching a consultation on the comprehensive performance assessment regime for England. For the first time ever, it includes trading standards performance measures. This is something that we’ve lobbied for long and hard, and I’m delighted the Audit Commission have taken it on board.

    They’ve included not only BV166, but DTI performance measures 1, 2 and 3. And they’ve included our suggested definitions for minimum standards. These standards are not statutory – they’re not a new burden – but they are a major step forward in making clear what we expect from the trading standards service. The CTSA will build on the work that DTI has begun.

    Hampton’s overall objective was to reduce the burdens on business. But setting up the CTSA provides us with an opportunity to ensure additional benefits not just for business, but also for consumers and government.

    Arculus

    Alongside Hampton, we’ll adopt the 8 recommendations in the “Less is More” report. Following the Dutch approach to reducing the administrative burden of regulation and its cost – first measuring the burden, then setting a target to reduce it. Applying a “One In, One Out” approach to new regulation. And a commitment from us to simplifying or removing complex, burdensome regulation.

    Retail Enforcement Pilot

    This and Hampton show the importance we attach to better regulation. We’re going to put our money where our mouth is. So I’m delighted to announce a scheme being piloted in Warwickshire and Bexley. This coordinates approaches by – and from – multiple agencies; sets up a model to pilot new methods of risk assessment; and provides a new feedback mechanism for companies, which will help rank both business and authorities.

    The pilot moves away from inspection and towards advice and education for the business community. We all want more compliant businesses. If we get better at telling them upfront what they have got to do, how they should do it and what help they can get, then we’ll go a long way to helping.

    And the pilot establishes a new mechanism for resolving conflicting requirements within and between authorities.

    Gerry Murphy from Kingfisher will be talking about this in more detail later this morning, so I won’t steal his thunder. But this Retail Enforcement Pilot is one example of how we can deliver substantive benefits in line with the Hampton recommendations.

    Legislation

    On the legislative front, we’ll be bringing in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive – a general duty not to trade unfairly.

    I know this has caused, and is causing, concern for some of you. So I want to spell out again why we support it. And I want to knock a few myths on the head.

    We support the Directive because it will introduce safety-net legislation – a “general duty” – requiring traders not to treat consumers unfairly.

    It will fill gaps in our existing legislation and set standards to judge new practices. Simply put, it will give us stronger legislative tools for preventing consumer harm.

    Take the conmen who evade the timeshare legislation by moving into holiday clubs – same unfair practice, but a slightly different product. Suddenly timeshare legislation doesn’t apply. A general duty would have helped prevent that.

    Filling those gaps is a good thing – as experience around the world shows. Bringing this Directive in will help us meet our target. And it’ll help you protect the people most in need.

    There’s a lot of discussion about this Directive and what it means. And there’s a lot of misinformation out there. So I’m going to be blunt:

    People say this will mean an end to criminal sanctions. Nonsense.

    That it’ll be impossible to enforce. Nonsense.

    Less protection for vulnerable people. Nonsense.

    There’s a lot of detail I can’t cover here. But for those interested – my team will be holding a mini-theatre this afternoon.

    We’re also carefully considering the responses to last year’s consultation on doorstep selling. This is heavily linked to both the Directive and to aspects of the Consumer Strategy. We expect to make an announcement on our chosen way forward in the near future.

    There are many other aspects to our work – particularly credit, and progress on weights & measures and the General Product Safety Directive. They’ll all be covered at mini theatre sessions on Thursday, so I’ll just say a few words on each:

    Reviewing W&M

    On weights and measures, we’re continuing to progress our commitment to simplify the regulations. On food, the current priority is responding to the Commission’s proposals on specified quantities. Our stakeholders want UK legislation to await the clarification of the relevant European requirements – and of course we’ll be guided by that. But we’ll shortly be publishing consultative drafts of new regulations to simplify the weights and measures requirements on packaged goods. Good for business, we think. And less of a burden for you.

    GPSD

    On GPSD, we consulted on draft Regulations earlier this year.

    Your responses have helped us fine-tune them in some areas, but the balance of views from the enforcement community, consumer groups and business suggested that our proposed approach was broadly right.

    I know that some of you aren’t convinced of the need for the advisory scheme we’re introducing for recall cases. But business argued strongly for a safeguard and this represents the lightest touch possible.

    The legislation emphasises the importance of business voluntarily notifying safety problems and taking action itself to remove risks to consumers as an alternative to formal enforcement activity. Business will need to know about its new responsibilities. And we’ll work with you to make sure the message gets across.

    Consumer Credit

    The Consumer Credit Bill just missed out from getting Royal Assent in the last parliament – due to the PM calling a General Election. But I am very pleased to have been able to re-introduce it so early in this new parliament. It’s now making good progress, and I hope to see it through the Commons by summer. The reforms in the Bill will ensure that consumers are better protected in the credit market.

    We’re making great progress on the commitments in the White Paper on wider credit issues, including new legislation to establish a transparent market, shaping the European agenda

    through the Consumer Credit Directive, and taking forward work on tackling over indebtedness.

    All of this will help consumers understand their credit situation, manage their commitments more effectively, and help vulnerable consumers avoid the dangers of over-indebtedness.

    Conclusion

    I hope all of this reinforces our commitment to supporting the work that you do and the issues you care about. And our commitment to protecting the weakest and most vulnerable. But let me come back to what I said earlier – the way we all work needs to change.

    A greater emphasis on joined up-ness . All of us working more closely together; across authorities; with other enforcers; and with us. With the CTSA coordinating, prioritising and spreading best practice.

    More focus on intelligence-led work – cracking down on the worst rogues and the hardest-to-beat scams, drawing on evidence from Consumer Direct and other sources.

    Less routine inspection and more help for business. Working for consumers. Promoting competitive markets. And ensuring a fair trading environment, fit for the 21st century.

    Let me be clear here. For the first time in a generation, Hampton means you’re right in the spotlight. I want us all to work together to deliver this new vision. Let’s get it right.

    Finally, I couldn’t let Judith go without paying tribute to her leadership. The Institute has been blessed with some wonderful Presidents – Lord Ezra; Lord Borrie; and then Baroness Wilcox took the helm. I’ve seen first hand the drive and passion that Judith has given the Institute and all matters Trading Standards.

    The time has come for her to hand on her role and responsibilities to a new President. Judith and her predecessors are a hard act to follow. – But I am sure Lord Garden will relish the opportunity.

    Tim, you arrive at the TSI and the Trading Standards arena at a fascinating time. I’m sure I will be seeing a lot of you and I wish you and the Institute every success as we move ahead.

  • John Hutton – 2005 Speech to Women and Pensions Conference

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to the Women and Pensions Conference in Manchester on 7th November 2005.

    Good morning everyone. I’m very pleased – although rather surprised – to be here in Manchester to open this Women and Pensions Conference today.

    Can I first of all begin though by taking just a moment to pay tribute to my predecessor David Blunkett. Many of you here will have known David well and worked with him. David saw tackling the issues of inequality as central to the success of any long term pension reform. In every job he has held, David believed in a progressive approach to improving the lives of some of the most disadvantaged members of the community.

    In only a short time as Work and Pensions Secretary he did tremendous work in developing the welfare reform agenda and establishing the National Pensions Debate. I want to build on the foundations he has laid – to take the National Pensions Debate to the next stage – in responding to the Pensions Commission report due in a few weeks time and in building a consensus on a long-term solution to the pensions challenge.

    Developed economies around the world are today all being confronted by the same need to design and deliver modern welfare systems, which are in touch with and responsive to, the aspirations of all their people. But we must also remember that the challenges we face today are reflective of both new opportunities – people living longer, more of us in work than ever before – as well as challenges. How we respond to these challenges – whether on pensions or welfare reform – will have a fundamental bearing on what type of society we want to see develop in our country in the years ahead.

    A Welfare State essentially forged out of the spirit, hope and grief of two world wars, stands as a tribute to an enduring set of progressive values that I hope will last for decades. These values of support for people in times of need; of dignity and fulfilment in old age; of the responsibility to work if able – these decent values, are as relevant and necessary for the next 60 years as they have been for the last 60 years.

    But there are few of us here I believe that could honestly say that a Welfare State designed around the needs, expectations and social norms of mine and my parents’ generation, will not need to change if it is to remain relevant to my children and grandchildren’s generations. The reason we need to make these changes is clear and obvious. Our society is changing and changing rapidly.

    The forces of globalisation and demographic change challenge people’s fundamental assumptions and expectations about many aspects of their lives. In a modern world, where international market forces can impact on the very nature of the work people do; where people can have ten jobs in a career rather than one; the fear and uncertainty of social and economic change risks becoming one of the greatest barriers to our continued prosperity.

    A renewed Welfare State must, first and foremost, provide the support that enables people to make the transition from one job to another – and from one stage of the career to the next. It must help people balance the multiple pressures of work and family life; and to benefit from the opportunities which change creates. And it must always ensure that those who cannot work are properly supported.

    But we should be clear about one other thing as well. We can not tackle inequalities of income in retirement in isolation from tackling inequalities during working life. A renewed Welfare State therefore has a crucial role to play in the way we support people to prepare for their retirement. 100 years ago there were 10 people in work for every 1 person of pension age. Today there are 4 and in fifty years time there will only be 2. And this dramatic change is not confined merely to the UK. Across the EU as a whole, over the next 25 years, the total working age population will fall by 7%; while those over 65 will rise by 51%.

    That’s why, since 1997, the Government has invested in Jobcentre Plus and begun a radical transformation of the Welfare State from a passive one-size-fits-all system to an active, enabling service that tailors help to the individual so that they can acquire the skills and confidence to move from welfare to work. And when they are in work, it is always an improvement to being on benefit.

    By 1997, one in five families had no-one in work and one in three children were growing up in poverty. Inter-generational poverty had become deeply engrained into many of our communities. But now by supporting people in work and providing financial security for those who can’t work, we have helped 2.1 million children and 1.9 million pensioners escape from levels of absolute poverty since 1997.

    Today there are 2.3 million more people in jobs and with around three-quarters of the working age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of any of the G8 countries. But we can and will go further.

    If we are to meet the challenges of supporting an ever healthier – but ever ageing population – our society can not afford to be denied the skills and contributions of all those who can and want to work.

    That is why our aspiration of an 80% employment rate is so important. It’s why I wholeheartedly endorse the Principles of Welfare Reform that David Blunkett published last month; and it’s why I am committed to taking forwards this reform agenda – to build a modern, active and inclusive Welfare State that balances rights with responsibilities; that matches respect of society for the individual with respect for society by the individual; and which above all, helps people to move away from dependency to making their own way in the world.

    Later today, I’m making my first visit to a Jobcentre Plus in Manchester. I’m meeting a local resident who last year suffered severe depression and left work, coming onto Incapacity Benefit. Now, thanks to a local initiative, the leadership of her local city council and support from the Jobcentre Plus she has secured a place on a training course at a local college. With continued advice and support she is seeking to set-up her own business when her course finishes later this year.

    So I truly believe that this agenda must be about helping, supporting and inspiring people – not threatening, forcing or restricting them. It’s about changing the focus of the debate from what people can’t do to what they can. And if we get this right, then we will have the foundations on which we can build a consensus on long-term reform of the pensions system itself – and with which we can look forward to the opportunities of longer and healthier lives with confidence.

    I know that I have much to learn – which is why I was so keen to come here today – to listen and learn from the experts gathered here – and to support the National Pensions Debate in engaging with people from all backgrounds in understanding the issues and contributing ideas. I want to work with you to get these big decisions right.

    I can already tell you that after only a few days in office – I am clear that fairer outcomes for women need to be at the heart of the consensus we seek.

    But this means tackling inequality throughout working life, not just in retirement. Social and labour market policies must go hand-in-hand. It is why it is so important that we build on the steps we have already taken – since 1997 – to tackle past inequality in outcome during working life as well as tackling poverty for today’s pensioners. This is why we have focused on comprehensive measures from early years to extended schools; to extended maternity and paternity leave and flexible working.

    I’m very pleased that Tessa is able to be with us this morning – and I know she will say more about the ways that we can achieve greater equality of opportunity for women – building on the work being done by the Women and Work Commission and going further in tackling a gender pay gap which, while still unacceptable, is now at least at its lowest point for 30 years.

    We have, of course, also taken major steps in tackling pensioner poverty. The UK pension system is today delivering better average retirement incomes than any previous generation has ever enjoyed – with 1.9 million lifted out of absolute poverty since 1997; 1.3 million of whom are women. Pension Credit has been crucial to this – but the State Second Pension has also helped – with the great majority of those accruing entitlement as carers being women.

    Stephen will say more in a moment about the detail of last week’s report and some of the questions that this raises for discussion this morning.

    But I would like to conclude these opening remarks by paying tribute to many of you in the room today who have worked so hard to develop the case for lasting change and to renew our focus on this crucial issue of equality.

    Today I am here to learn from you – to listen to your views and to understand your ideas. Tomorrow I will need to work with you to make the changes that can extend more opportunities to more people, to improve our welfare system and to protect the values that underpin it.

    In particular, I hope we can work together successfully to shape the future of retirement income – a future driven by greater equality, not just in retirement but across our society.

    Thank you.