UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2005

  • Charles Kennedy – 2005 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Kennedy, the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, on 5 March 2005 to the party’s Spring Conference.

    Conference,

    We Liberal Democrats are ready for a General Election.

    And we are looking forward to it.

    We have a strong message and a powerful case to put forward.

    In so many ways the story of this parliament, now coming to an end, has been the way the Liberal Democrats have emerged as the real opposition to Tony Blair’s Labour Government.

    The Real Opposition to an illegal war in Iraq.

    The Real Opposition to Labour’s authoritarian instincts.

    The Real Opposition against student top-up fees, against poverty pensions, against the Council Tax, against false choice in our public services.

    We have been principled.
    We have stood up for the people of Britain.
    We have not wavered when the going got tough.

    We have shown our resolve as a national opposition party.
    As a result we have grown in strength and in support.

    At this General Election – we will be the Real Alternative.
    We will be the party that people turn to.
    People want a credible, principled political party which offers a different vision of what Britain can be.

    They want a real alternative to Labour.
    At this General Election the Liberal Democrats will be that Real Alternative.

    The main issue currently before parliament – is an issue and a set of principles alongside it which go to the very heart of our democracy.

    And it shows just how important it is to have a real alternative in Britain.

    I am talking of course of the proposed control orders being introduced by the Home Secretary.

    The Liberal Democrats – for the past three years – have been principled and persistent critics of the situation at Belmarsh Prison.

    For us it is utterly unacceptable for individuals to be incarcerated – facing indefinite detention – without charge and without trial.

    That it is not the Liberal Democrat way.
    And that is not the British way.

    And that’s why the Law Lords declared the Government’s policy illegal.

    So the government were duty-bound to respond.
    And respond they did with their ill-fated proposals for house arrest.

    3 weeks ago, at Prime Minister’s Questions, I raised with Tony Blair our central concern.

    It must be a judge – never a politician – who decides whether someone is to be locked up.

    Mark Oaten and I sustained that key concern at the Downing Street discussions which then followed.

    And we welcomed the degree of undoubted movement on the Government’s part which had taken place in the intervening period.

    Welcome movement – but by no means enough.

    Fundamental objections remained.

    And those concerns still remain.

    Now, as this legislation is before the House of Lords, let us be crystal clear about the ongoing Liberal Democrat position.

    There is an onus here on the politicians – irrespective of party – to seek a consensus where responding responsibly to what I acknowledge is both the threat and the reality of international terrorism.

    We are willing to try and find a solution which delivers proper security with a respect for human rights.
    We are not however about to set off down a path which leads inexorably to a surrender of principles.
    Anything but.

    That is the spirit in which we have engaged on these matters.
    We have a real alternative which will maintain our security and protect our liberties:-
    And these will continue to be our guiding principles.

    1. Prosecution should always be the first option.

    2. Decisions over detention must be judicial and not in the first instance political.

    3. The standard of proof must be of the highest possible order.

    4. Defendants must have access to defence lawyers and to see the evidence against them.

    A sensible Government would have come up with proposals based on these principles in the first place.

    Without these safeguards Liberal Democrats in Parliament will not support this Bill.

    All too often with this government, when presented with a genuine problem the instinctive response is an authoritarian one.
    Undermining trial by jury, house arrest, compulsory Identity Cards

    That is not the Liberal Democrat way.
    That is not the British way.

    This issue is not the only one where our party has been well tested in this parliament.

    Take of course the issue of Iraq.

    With regard to the war itself, our views of course are well known.
    We took that stand in Parliament against the war.
    The Conservatives backed Tony Blair.

    Tony Blair took us to war in Iraq on the basis of the supposed threat of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

    Mere weeks before the war the Prime Minister was still telling Parliament “I detest his regime?but even now, he could save it.”

    Now, because it has been shown that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the Prime Minister says that the removal of Saddam justifies the war in itself.
    Not what he was saying just before it.

    And today – if he is so confident of his case – why will he not allow the Attorney General’s legal advice to be published?

    The Prime Minister wants us to move on – but we cannot until we know the full facts.

    He should publish – and if necessary be damned.

    Of course Britain should honour its legal and moral responsibilities with regard to the situation in Iraq.
    But we need to focus on a proper exit strategy – as we warned at the outset.
    That should mean a phased withdrawal of British troops to coincide with the end of the United Nations mandate this year.

    It is vital to apply your principles with consistency – at home and abroad.

    And nowhere is that responsibility more required of politicians than when it comes to discussion of the issues concerning immigration and asylum.

    I believe the duty here for politicians is to begin with a straightforward statement of personal belief.

    And this is mine.

    I believe that our country is a richer, more vibrant society precisely because it is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society.

    Let that be the starting point for any debate over immigration and asylum.

    And let us not confuse the two in people’s minds either.

    On immigration we have no problem over identifying quotas for skilled shortages in our society.

    But we would do so on the basis of an independent evaluation of the needs of the British economy – not the prejudices of politicians.

    Where would the National Health Service be without the numbers of migrant workers – doctors and nurses – on our wards?

    On asylum, let us not go down the route of declaring artificial limits.

    This country has a proud history of opening its doors to generations of people fleeing personal persecution, civil unrest and war.

    We must never surrender that track record.

    So my message here is clear.

    Where immigration and asylum issues are concerned, the challenge is for the politicians to make the systems work in the best long-term interests of the country.

    But never to pander and play to people’s fears.

    In recent weeks, much of the political debate has centred on what the parties plan to put in their election manifestos – and rightly so.

    But if you take the big issues of this Parliament – Iraq, the Hutton and Butler inquiries, anti-terrorist legislation, top up fees, foundation hospitals – these were scarcely mentioned during the campaign four years ago.
    They largely fall into the category – which Harold McMillan once described as ‘events, dear boy, events.’

    Manifestos will obviously matter, but voters will simultaneously be making a more fundamental judgement;
    They will be assessing how the different parties might deal with those ‘events’ in the next four years;
    And seeking solutions which reflect their personal hopes and fears.

    How will they judge the Conservatives?
    Their record in this parliament has been pathetic.
    They have flip-flopped over the big issues of the day.
    Iraq, Hutton, Butler, top-up fees, ID cards?I could go on.
    When called upon to make a judgement – in the heat of the moment – the Conservatives have consistently made the wrong one – then tried to back-track when they see political advantage.
    Poor judgement and opportunism.
    You won’t win elections like that because people won’t trust you with Government.

    And Labour?
    What a squandering of the good will which greeted Tony Blair in 1997!
    What an abuse of public trust!
    Will voters really forgive being misled on Iraq?
    Or the broken promises on tax?
    Or top up fees?
    Or the instinctive authoritarianism?

    And what about the dismal failure to take a lead on Europe?

    Which leaves us – the Liberal Democrats.  The Real Alternative.

    Throughout the course of this parliament, week on week, issue after issue, we have acted in accordance with our principles.

    We argue sincerely for what we believe is in the best interests of our country.

    For us politics isn’t about gimmicky pledge cards with vacuous statements.
    It’s about real solutions to real problems.
    It’s about being straightforward about how you will deliver.
    And it’s about being straightforward also about how much it will all cost.

    Throughout this parliament, I have insisted that our balance sheet must add up.

    And on tax, we seek to be both bold and fair.

    Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world.
    We have world class businesses and a world class workforce.
    So why are 2 million of our pensioners living below the poverty line?
    And why are the poorest in our society paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest?

    There is another way – that is what being the real alternative is all about.

    Being bold doesn’t mean making promises we can’t keep.

    Boldness requires us to make the case for taxation.  Why? Because people know you can’t get something for nothing.
    And boldness means making the case for tax reform, so that it is fair.

    At the last election Labour promised not to put up income tax. What did they do? They raised National Insurance.

    The Conservatives are currently suggesting that they can cut income tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, council tax, savings tax, small business tax, environmental taxes AND increase public spending all at the same time.
    Oh – and cut the national debt while they are at it.
    No one really believes them. Candy floss economics.

    And even if you do look at the small print of their plans it shows the tax burden will actually rise under the Conservatives – by £24 billion.
    So much for straight-talking there.
    In contrast, what we propose is credible.

    Anyone who earns over £100,000 would pay 50p in the pound on every pound earned above £100,000.
    According to government figures, that would raise £5.2 billion a year.
    What would we use that sum for?
    1. We would abolish top-up and tuition fees
    2. We would provide free personal care for the elderly, just as we have delivered in Scotland
    3. We would scrap the Council tax and hold down the rate of local taxes.

    Now this is targeted taxation for targeted spending commitments.

    And for those who predict gloom and doom, the end of civilisation as we know it – remind them, this is still a lower rate of top tax than was the case for the majority of the period that Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister of this country.

    And, strange to record, the sun kept rising in the east and setting in the west.

    What’s more, this tax change will affect just 1% of the wealthiest income tax payers in the country.
    So by definition 99% of people will not be paying more.
    But the benefits will be for 100% of people.
    Now that is a real alternative.

    As for tax reform – a fair tax system is one which is based on the principle of people’s ability to pay.

    Council tax is fundamentally unfair.  It bears no relationship to earnings and means that the poorest in our society pay more from their income than do the richest.  That cannot be right.

    So we would scrap the Council Tax and replace it with a local income tax.
    We would do it through the Inland Revenue which is cheaper to administer.
    As confirmed by the Institute of Fiscal Studies last week about half of people would pay less.  A quarter would be unaffected.  And a quarter would pay a bit more.
    A typical family would be £450 a year better off.
    And over half of all pensioners, would pay no local tax at all.
    Now that is the real alternative.

    Being in Government is all about priorities.
    What you choose to spend tax payer’s money on – and what you choose not too.

    Being the real alternative means spending public money differently.

    We would raise £5 billion a year by scrapping departments like the DTI and ODPM and transferring key functions elsewhere.
    We would scrap the next stage of Eurofighter, the baby bonds and the compulsory Identity Cards scheme.
    Now these are tough choices.
    But look at what we would deliver with that money

    10,000 more police of the streets – cutting crime and the fear of crime.

    A Citizen’s Pension for the over 75s – Over £100 a month extra on the basic state pension, millions of pensioners off means testing, and an end to the scandalous discrimination in the pensions system against women.

    An end to the hidden NHS waiting lists – quick diagnosis so treatment is not delayed.

    Free eye tests and dental checks.

    Lower class sizes for our youngest children – because children taught well in their early years have a far better chance of successful and rewarding lives.

    Now that is the Real Alternative –
    Costed, affordable polices to make Britain better, fairer, safer.
    The balance sheet is balanced; the costs add up.
    It’s a matter of priority.
    And I think it’s a good deal.
    And what’s more – I think the people of Britain will think it is a good deal.

    All of this will be underpinned by a Green thread running through our manifesto.

    The environment is central to our vision.

    A Britain in which sustainable living is a reality so that we minimise the impact of the way we live on the world around us.

    A Britain that looks beyond the Kyoto treaty to the next stage of the battle to limit climate change; standing up to the conspiracy theorists and those in denial over the threat of global warming.

    You know – a month ago I challenged Tony Blair and Michael Howard about just this issue because I think the seriousness of the threat transcends party colours.

    I wanted the three parties to come together to agree that the science is real and the threat is real.

    To pledge ourselves to pursue new and stronger international goals on climate change.

    And to make sure Britain has its own house in order by agreeing a series of long-term baseline targets for our own environment.

    Sensible, consensual politics to deal with a long-term threat that faces all of us now, and the generations to come.

    But such an initiative simply does not fit in with Tony Blair or Michael Howard’s idea of politics.

    So again at this election, the Liberal Democrats will be the Real Alternative on the environment.

    So far this campaign has had all the hallmarks of the kind of spin that turns people off.

    Take the latest row over cancelled hospital operations.

    The slanging match between Labour and the Conservatives – as they both scrabble for headlines – demeans our politics.

    What people want are positive solutions to sustain and strengthen our National Health Service.
    Right now they deserve better than they are getting.

    What they seek is good schools and hospitals – run efficiently.
    They want proper public provision for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.
    They want straight talk from politicians and fairness.
    They don’t want to be patronised with token promises.

    And they don’t want politicians always interfering.
    People want to get on with their own lives.
    They want to take their own decisions in and about their own neighbourhoods and communities.

    So this election will be about more than just manifesto promises.

    Our party has been the real opposition in this parliament.
    If you voted Conservative in 2001, yet opposed the war in Iraq.
    If you don’t want compulsory Identity Cards cards.
    If you are suffering under the Council Tax.
    If you are worried about the environment.
    What good did it do you voting Conservative?
    Your vote was wasted.

    Because today, the Conservatives are out of the race in Scotland and Wales, and most of urban Britain.
    While they are fading, we are growing.

    The challenge for our party throughout this period, and my aim as your leader, has been to show that the Liberal Democrats are credible; that we are the real alternative.

    When people grow tired of the old parties they turn to us to see what we can do.
    This is what has been happening in Liverpool and Newcastle – big cities run by the Liberal Democrats.
    And Liberal Democrat Ministers in Scotland.

    Up and down the country the Liberal Democrats exercise real power and real responsibility.

    As we enter this general election people now have a much clearer idea of what we’re about.

    They do see in us a real alternative on offer.

    And a real alternative that’s on their side.

    Where the big issues are concerned.

    Axing the council tax.

    Abolishing student tuition fees.

    Guaranteeing free personal care for the elderly.

    Tackling pension unfairness – especially for women.

    Pursuing positive engagement in Europe – and the wider world.

    With real action to promote the environment.

    Two years ago one million people took to the streets of Britain to try to make politicians listen –
    They wanted to send a message to Tony Blair – don’t go to war in Iraq.
    When I am told that people in Britain don’t care about politics,
    I think about the people I marched alongside that day.

    People of a different political persuasion from me and people of no political persuasion.

    They were fed up with the way the Prime Minister was behaving;
    Fed up with the way both the old parties – Labour and the Tories – were standing shoulder to shoulder in defence of George Bush.

    What they needed was a real alternative;
    A party which was listening to their concerns;
    A party which was prepared to stand up and say so;
    The party which said no to the Prime Minister.

    I am proud that we were the real alternative then.
    I am proud that we have continued to stand apart from the other two parties on important issues of principle.
    I am proud that when it comes to tackling unfairness in this country,
    the Liberal Democrats put that top of the agenda.

    We enter this election as a truly independent political party.
    We will campaign through this election as an independent political party.
    And we will emerge in the next House of Commons as an independent political party.

    That way we will do best – by ourselves and by the country.

    More votes, more seats – beyond that no glass ceilings to our ambitions.

    Now that’s the real alternative in this election.

    And it’s called the Liberal Democrats.

  • Charles Kennedy – 2005 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    charleskennedy

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Charles Kennedy, to the 2005 Liberal Democrat Conference in Blackpool on 22nd September 2005.

    Splits,

    Plots,

    Rival camps,

    Backbiting,

    Leadership speculation.

    How I wish I could be a fly on the wall here at the Tory party conference in two weeks time.

    Some things just don’t change do they.

    The Conservatives are having yet another leadership election.

    Their fourth in seven years.

    I can see their conference slogan already.

    “We’re not sure what we’re thinking”.

    Meanwhile, back in Labourland, the jockeying goes on as ever between the Blairites and the Brownites.

    Tony Blair – desperate to protect his legacy.

    Gordon Brown – desperate to end it.

    The Prime Minister was delighted he had a hand in bringing the Olympics to London.

    It’s said on hearing the news he punched the air.

    He’s getting more like John Prescott everyday.

    But at least he’s not yet claimed credit for the Ashes.

    Even he has learned the lesson that you can’t win with a team of eleven spinners!

    Now, at the general election it was crucially important to see our liberal tradition again confirmed as the growing force in politics.

    Our championing of the individual and the community over the vested interests of the state.

    Our defence of human rights and fundamental civil liberties.

    Our innate sense of fairness.

    Our commitment to social justice.

    Our environmentalism.

    It is my determination that we, as a party, continue to make that fundamental restatement of liberal values in the politics of our country.

    LIBERALISM TESTED

    It’s remarkable the pace of events since that General Election.

    Some events of the most immediate and terrible seriousness – like the awful consequences of the hurricane in the United States.

    The continuing nightmare in Iraq.

    And of course, terrorism – here at home.

    Above all, the London bombings in July have made it critical for those liberal values to be re-asserted.

    The terrorist seeks to smash the most fundamental liberty of all – the right to lead our everyday lives on the basic assumption of safety.

    There can be no compromise with such a mentality.

    It is the Government’s fundamental duty to ensure the security of every individual citizen.

    And the responsibility of politicians is to frame laws which give effect to that principle.

    But the response must always be proportionate to the threat.

    That has always been our party’s approach.

    It long predates those appalling attacks in London in July.

    The Government’s reaction to those tube bombings has been mixed – but so typical.

    At first it was measured.

    Then it was muddled.

    Spin and counterspin.

    When what we really needed was leadership and clarity.

    This is no time for a turf war between No. 10 and the Home Office.

    And it is no time either for the Prime Minister to play politics with the leaders of the opposition.

    I believe when the country feels threatened it is important that we are seen to be working together to find an appropriate structure for dealing with terrorists in our midst.

    But I won’t play a walk-on part.

    This process can’t be all show and no substance.

    We now have the details of what the Government is proposing.

    And I want to make it clear.

    We shall not accept what is on offer.

    There can be no consensus on detaining people for three months without charge.

    That’s a prison sentence by any other name.

    This party will oppose any blanket extension of custody powers.

    This proposal undermines our most basic rights and eats into our most cherished freedoms.

    If we undermine the foundations of our legal system then we let the terrorists win.

    There is always a temptation for governments.

    See a problem and announce a quick fix.

    Labour’s gut reaction is to chase a headline.

    Where as I said earlier, leadership has to be about judgement.

    New law must be law which works – not a raft of unnecessary measures which simply sound tough.

    That is why we will oppose the unworkable offence of ‘glorifying terrorism’.

    It is a badly drafted proposal that frankly won’t stand up in court.

    The Government says ‘but we all know what we are talking about’.

    What complacency.

    That is no way to make laws.

    You can’t be vague when framing legislation.

    In fact the bill already contains a better solution that will serve the same purpose – that of the incitement to commit terrorist acts.

    It is my belief that how this administration deals with the ongoing threat of terrorism will be one of the defining aspects of this parliament.

    Ours will be a distinct voice in this debate.

    And just as we Liberal Democrats opposed the flawed logic of that war in Iraq – we will oppose the flawed Government claim that we have to surrender our fundamental rights in order to improve our security.

    And I will take no lessons from the Conservatives on these matters.

    They have only been consistent in their inconsistencies.

    There is just one party which has been tested again and again and stuck firmly to its principles on these touchstone issues.

    It’s our party, the Liberal Democrats.

    That is not to say we will oppose for opposition’s sake.

    Some aspects of the Government’s proposals are good.

    We agree it should be an offence to plan terrorist acts.

    We agree it should be an offence to provide training to terrorists.

    We agree it should be an offence to incite terrorism.

    But even if we can get our domestic response to terrorism right, we will not succeed unless, and until, we get our foreign policy right.

    Along with President Bush, Tony Blair’s so-called ‘war on terror’ has been so badly implemented that it has actually boosted the terror threat not diminished it.

    When they should have been concentrating on bringing a proper peace to Afghanistan – Bush and Blair waged war in Iraq.

    It is our stance on the war in Iraq which has defined the Liberal Democrats for so many people.

    And however hard this Government tries – it cannot ‘ move on’.

    It cannot move on, when the Prime Minister remains in denial.

    It can’t move on when people are dying every day.

    And it cannot move on when our British troops are still there in the firing line.

    It is absurd for this Government to pretend that what has happened in Iraq has no impact beyond its borders.

    The reality is that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake.

    And given all the warnings that I – and this party – made at the time – the failure to plan properly for the aftermath is unforgivable.

    The invasion of Iraq has created a volatile, fragmented country now facing the threat of civil war.

    The terrorists have been given a new lease of life.

    Thousands have been killed in Iraq since the elections there.

    The UN mandate is running out.

    So hard choices must now be made.

    Parliament must play a central part in those choices.

    The Government must confront the fact that the presence of British and American forces in Iraq is a part of the problem.

    After this week’s events in Basra we cannot sustain the myth that Iraqis see coalition troops as liberators.

    What they see is an occupation.

    The Government must wake up and admit its responsibility.

    The Prime Minster’s pride should not get in the way of finding a solution for the people of Iraq.

    His blind support for George Bush is continuing to cost lives –

    Iraqi citizens and coalition soldiers.

    It’s time he laid before parliament a proper, structured exit strategy for the phased withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.

    They have served there with distinction, courage and skill.

    But Prime Minister, what people are asking now is “when can our troops come home?”

    A LIBERAL BRITAIN

    Just as we showed over Iraq, we have achieved the most when we have stuck to our liberal values.

    Now, more than ever, we must avoid getting distracted by noises off about whether we are left or right.

    Viewing British politics through the prism of left vs. right is completely the wrong vantage point and it leads to quite a misleading view.

    Why?

    Because all experience shows that the vast majority of people no longer see their choices in old-fashioned left-right terms.

    It is no longer possible to categorise most issues like that.

    Just look at the things we have been discussing at conference this very week.

    Meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals and controlling the flow of small arms to regions of conflict.

    Maintaining both our security and our civil liberties.

    Getting rid of the obsession with central control and target setting.

    Race relations.

    School discipline.

    These don’t fall neatly into the old left/right axis.

    Our solutions are liberal solutions based on our liberal principles.

    Proposals to make the Post Office network viable and give Royal Mail the commercial freedom to compete.

    Not left – not right – but liberal.

    Proposals to reform the European Union budget.

    Not left – not right – but liberal.

    Proposals on tackling anti-social behaviour – solutions that Liberal Democrats in power up and down the country are already implementing.

    Not left – not right – but liberal solutions that actually work.

    Colleagues, we must not allow ourselves to be led by the media and define our debate in their terms.

    This left/right, either/or mindset is out of date and out of time.

    It is Liberal Democrat solutions that this country needs.

    Our take on things.

    Not the false interpretation of others, many of whom don’t wish us to succeed.

    And let me say this clearly and firmly.

    There is absolutely no contradiction between economic liberalism and financial discipline on the one hand, and fairness and social justice on the other.

    I find it deeply ironic that as we approach the centenary of the greatest reforming Liberal Government ever that some people still believe you cannot reconcile the two.

    Those who argue that somehow this party must choose one or the other would have received short shrift from Asquith and Lloyd George.

    They would have found that argument utterly ludicrous.

    We must display the liberal values that lie behind a particular stance on an issue, or a particular approach to a policy area.

    In doing so we achieve lasting political credibility.

    And it’s bringing results.

    We run cities – Liverpool, Newcastle, Durham, Cambridge, York.

    We run County Councils like Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.

    London boroughs like Islington and Southwark.

    Today we have MPs in almost every major city – Manchester, Leeds, London, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh.

    At the election we doubled our representation in Wales.

    And in Scotland the result gave us more seats and more votes than any party except Labour.

    The SNP down to third and the Tories a poor fourth.

    When you look at our record in Government in Scotland it demonstrates how successful we are at implementing our policies that spring from those liberal values.

    In Jenny Willott, Julia Goldsworthy and Jo Swinson we have the youngest MPs in Wales, England and Scotland – all women elected to parliament as Liberal Democrats.

    A LIBERAL IDENTITY

    So the political framework in Britain is changing.

    And we are an integral part of that process.

    But I believe the changes go deeper than that.

    A debate has now been joined about Britishness, about our sense of national identity.

    And what’s so telling are the morose tones of so many when they address the issue.

    They talk of a disconnected country; a society ill at ease with itself; a crisis in our national identity.

    Profound questions are being raised over race and faith as well; concerns which go to the heart of our multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-cultural society.

    Concerns which cannot adequately be addressed if politicians merely fall back on simplistic responses to complex questions, or speak in emotive or pejorative terms about what it should mean to be British today.

    I am far more an optimist.

    Perhaps it’s because I’ve been born, educated and brought up, and always considered home to be the Highlands.

    I think of myself as a highlander first.

    But with it a Scot – and with that I’m British.

    And through that a citizen of Europe.

    When England play Scotland at rugby, or much more rarely now, in football – I have not doubt who I want to win.

    But I cheered England through the Ashes.

    I got caught up in the national mood.

    I’m clear about my identity.

    And in that, I am no different to tens of millions of British citizens.

    We have recognise the complexity of our country – from city to city, community to community.

    We have to recognise that the best way to tackle the tensions in our society is community by community.

    We need stronger local politics.

    And that requires a changed mindset among politicians and civil servants alike.

    The truth is the gentleman in Whitehall does not know best.

    If he had then many of the present difficulties might have been addressed more successfully and much sooner.

    The same is true for our public services.

    Labour’s obsession with authoritarian central control – with this culture of target setting and micromanaging – distorts community priorities.

    It means that local people are making do with inadequate and badly structured services.

    Yet they feel they don’t have the power to make real change in their communities.

    That is why I am determined that in our policy review we will look at new and innovative ways of devolving power – of raising more money locally – to be spent locally – on what local people really want.

    Ours is the liberal conscience and the liberal voice.

    It’s vital and authentic.

    Because to a far greater extent than any of the others we are a political party that is instinctively decentralist.

    Community solutions are the first and best approach.

    And why?

    Because we trust people.

    THE HEALTH OF BRITISH DEMOCRACY

    But what trust can people have in our electoral system in return.

    Let’s be clear about one unarguable conclusion of this year’s general election.

    Ask yourself – how many votes did it take to elect a Liberal Democrat MP?

    Well it was 96,000.

    And to elect a Labour MP? The equivalent figure? Just 26,000.

    People have every right to feel cheated by a system in which 4 out of 5 eligible voters did not vote Labour, yet people woke up the next morning to find a majority Labour government.

    After all the other arguments collapsed over Iraq, Tony Blair fell back into saying that it was essential to help establish democracy.

    He might have had a bit more credibility if he set an example here at home.

    Because what kind of democracy was it that delivered back in May?

    A democracy which returns an outright majority on little more than a third of the popular vote.

    How can we any longer call something like that “the popular vote”?

    How “popular” was the Government – even among those who did vote Labour?

    That’s Blairite democracy for you.

    This Prime Minister has got to realise – he may have a working majority, but he cannot claim any moral mandate.

    This argument – about Westminster voting reform – just won’t go away.

    And we’re not going to let it go away.

    Even with the odds stacked against us, the truth is, at this election, Labour became just as worried about the Liberal Democrats as they ever were about the Tories.

    And in that they were undoubtedly correct.

    We represent a change to the status quo.

    An end to their comfortable two party system.

    We threaten directly their arrogance in power.

    And I say to all those who held their nose last May and voted Labour without conviction – don’t get fooled again.

    But you know what I reject most of all is the idea of British politics being a desultory contest between two essentially conservative parties.

    One calls itself Conservative.

    The other conducts itself as conservative.

    I don’t care if one is led by a Davis or a Clarke.

    I don’t care if the other is led by a Blair or a Brown.

    What people don’t want, don’t deserve and don’t demand is yet another conservative party in British politics.

    Small c or capital c.

    That part of the pitch is already overcrowded.

    And I can assure all of you – I did not enter public life with the ambition of leading yet another conservative party in British politics.

    I’m happy to leave it to others to compete over a law of diminishing returns.

    One where the level of Labour support is on the slide.

    And the Conservatives cannot break through a losing glass ceiling.

    At the next general election you could well be looking at a situation where it is understood that the Conservatives cannot win –

    But that Labour can certainly lose.

    That’s our opportunity.

    That’s our challenge.

    AMBITION FOR BRITAIN

    When this Labour Government falls – which one day it surely will – the party that is ready for the challenge of government will be ours.

    I will lead this party into the next election as the clear alternative to a discredited Labour Government.

    It’s my ambition to lead the first government in the liberal tradition in the 21st Century.

    Because, it is my ambition to restore to government in Britain the fairness, the decency and the tolerance that should be the hallmarks of our democracy and our society.

    I want a Britain that tackles poverty – and with it the poverty of ambition.

    I want a Britain in which every one of our children has the opportunities I had growing up – and more besides!

    A Britain in which ambition and opportunity is not diminished by the circumstances of birth.

    I want a Britain which pays its debt to our older generation.

    Which looks after them when they are ill and in need.

    Which provides our pensioners with dignity, security and peace of mind.

    I want a society that tackles crime – but really does tackle the causes of crime.

    I want a Britain where older people again feel safe to answer their doors.

    Where parents can let their children walk to school – or play in the park – without the incessant worry.

    Where our streets and town centres are free from fear at night.

    And I want a system of prison, punishment and rehabilitation that produces people fit for work not just fit for re-offending.

    I want a Britain with first class public services, so that people can be treated well in a local hospital, and they don’t have to shop around for a decent school – they are there on the doorstep.

    I want a Britain that has a vibrant growing economy – that rewards success, not penalises it.

    That encourages innovation and entrepreneurs, setting them free from over-regulation and the dead hand of government.

    Only in that way can we hope to generate the revenue to afford the world-class services we need as a country.

    I want my child to grow up in a Britain in which the environment is protected.

    I want him to enjoy our natural landscape every bit as much as I do.

    To breathe clean air.

    It will be our children and their children who will feel the full consequences of climate change.

    We have got to get serious about this.

    I’m sick and tired of hearing Tony Blair make excuse after excuse for George Bush.

    We need action and we need it now.

    I want a Britain that is pro-European and proud of it.

    That lives up to its responsibilities on the international stage – that values international law – that is genuinely outward looking and emphatically internationalist.

    Because, I want a Britain that is respected around the world.

    These are the ambitions that brought me into politics in the first place 25 years ago.

    These are the things that have driven me over those years – and still drive me.

    They are what I want the Liberal Democrats to achieve.

    Not for me, not for us, but for Britain.

    A Liberal Democrat Britain.

  • Derek Twigg – 2005 Speech on English

    derektwigg

    Below is the text of the speech made by Derek Twigg, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, on 23 February 2005.

    The world of the 21st century presents huge opportunities and enormous challenges. As the world becomes more complex, so education becomes more important for ensuring that our children are able to make the most of those opportunities and tackle those challenges. A strong education system plays a crucial role in individual fulfilment, economic prosperity and a healthy society.

    The RSA was founded 250 years ago to encourage the development of a principled and prosperous society, and I would like to thank the RSA for hosting us today. It’s an organisation that wants to see teaching and learning in schools that enables individuals to make the most of life in the 21st century.

    The focus today is English. So I’d like to thank the QCA for launching their “national conversation” on the future of English, and all of you for being here today. You’re here because you care passionately about the importance of English and are genuinely interested in the teaching and learning of English in our schools.

    Everyone has their own particular view on the importance of English. For me, I think that a sound grasp of the language gives you the ability and confidence to fulfil your potential, realise your goals and get more enjoyment out of life. Imagine the possibilities if everyone achieved their potential for reading, writing and communicating in English, whatever their purpose for doing so and whatever the context. Imagine a world where more and more people had the ability, opportunity and desire to read widely; write extensively; and communicate well.

    I’m optimistic about the future of English in the 21st century; not because there aren’t any challenges to face, but because the evidence suggests that we continue to make progress:

    • Every year more pupils are reaching the standard expected of them in English;
    • Every year more adults are learning basic literacy skills;
    • Every year more people are using English around the world. A recent study in the EU found that the most popular foreign language to learn in primary school was English.

     To justify that optimism, we have to acknowledge and address the challenges we face. We can’t be happy that one in four children starts secondary school below the level expected of them in English. We mustn’t forget the 5 million adults in this country with poor literacy skills. And we can’t just sit back in the glow of English as a global language. Our aim must be to ensure that every person in this country has the knowledge, skills and confidence in their English to:

    • One: deal with every aspect of an ever-changing world: at school, at work, at home, and beyond;
    • Two: achieve personal fulfilment, whatever that means for the individual;
    • And three: make the most of and contribute to wider society.

    Government has a moral responsibility to do everything in its power to guarantee that people can achieve that. So I want to mention 4 principles that I believe are key, not just for today’s learners, but for all tomorrow’s learners as well.

    First, we can never give up on our drive to develop basic language and literacy skills, the essential tools for lifelong learning. That means sharpening up the drive for high standards in English at every stage of a pupil’s school years.

    • We’ve incorporated the National Literacy Strategy into the Primary National Strategy, and since 1998, the number of eleven year olds reaching the expected level of English for their age has risen from 63% to 78%;
    • We have the Key Stage 3 Strategy that will transform into the Secondary Strategy to act as a lever for whole school improvement. Since 2001, the number of fourteen year olds reaching their expected level has risen from 65% to 71%;
    • And in 2004-05, further work is under way to look at how we can increase the number of pupils passing English and English Literature GCSE.

    The clear message is that we can’t leave anyone behind and we’re extending opportunities to help those who may be falling behind.

    And of course, it’s never too late to learn. We launched the Skills for Life strategy in 2001 to improve adult basic skills. I was reading a really uplifting story of a grandmother who had never read a book before. Trying to read a picture book to her grandson inspired her to join a literacy class at her local college. Two years on, she’s taking a GCSE in English and hopes to help others in a similar situation by becoming a basic skills classroom assistant.

    The second principle is that we have to get away from this false tension between the basic skills and creativity. The basic tools of any language are essential, but of course any language is so much more than just the basic skills. With the basic skills in place, then creativity, arts and culture can flourish. And combined together, they reinforce each other.

    It’s about giving learners all the opportunities, support and encouragement they need to spread their wings in whichever direction they wish: reading for pleasure, writing creatively, composing lyrics, acting things out, using the internet, and the list goes on and on.

    We’re committed to promoting such breadth.

    That’s why creative writing is a key part of the primary and secondary English curriculum.

    That’s why we’re encouraging writers who work with children.

    That’s why we’re working with organisations such as the National Literacy Trust and the Campaign for Reading.

    And that’s why we’re supporting librarians, who are often the key link between children and literature. I was delighted last year when we opened a refurbished and enlarged library in my constituency.

    The third principle is that appropriate assessment has a crucial role to play and will continue to do so. Parents and teachers need to be confident that each child is making progress; and that this progress is well-understood and reliably measured. Recognising progress and building on it lies at the heart of teaching.

    Parents look to both teacher and test assessments because they want a fair, round and honest view of how their children are progressing, measured against their own standards and against those of other pupils of the same age.

    Assessment for Learning, a key part of Personalised Learning, helps progress by highlighting the strengths that would benefit from further stretch and the weaknesses that need further support. Knowing where pupils are and where they can get to helps teachers to plan an effective curriculum and to determine the best way forward for each individual pupil.

    External assessments have played a vital role in driving up standards. The results help us to identify and act on the strengths and weaknesses in the system. And they give learners qualifications and credentials that are widely recognised and respected, and in greater demand in today’s society.

    In a society that’s rich with information, we shouldn’t be surprised that parents also look to performance tables, because they take an interest and want to make the best choice for their child.

    More information empowers parents. And of course it’s not just about the raw results. Value added tables show which schools are making the most difference to their pupils’ performance. The new school profile will tell parents what they want to know about the school’s approach to creativity, arts, and culture, all of which are essential parts of a good school. If every school becomes a good school, then parents would have even better choice.

    The fourth principle is that there’s a valuable two-way relationship between modern technology and English. ICT can be a powerful tool not just for raising standards in English, but equally for widening opportunities to explore all the possibilities of English. At the same time, better skills in English will mean that people are more comfortable with modern technology.

    The Austrian philosopher Wittgenstein said, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. In the 21st century we don’t want to limit anyone.

    There are materials to help teachers use ICT in literacy in all the primary years, and other materials to promote the use of ICT across all subjects at Key Stage 3.

    Earlier this week, I was in a primary literacy class in a school in East London, where a teacher was using an interactive whiteboard to lead a lesson on the topical issue of snow. At one point, pupils had just two minutes to articulate their thoughts on the dangers of snow. They were clearly engaged and worked impressively.

    ICT can be used in English to help pupils to draft, review and finalise their work; to work in alternative and challenging ways; and to benefit from collaborative work or individual sessions on areas in need of further stretch and support.

    Pupils can learn how to make the most of the powerful search engines now available, how to analyse and respond to a range of texts in a variety of media, and how to assess the validity and reliability of the information presented to them.

    I can’t see any reason why the best of the old and the best of the new can’t exist side by side, and there’s a presentation next on how technology can enhance the teaching of Shakespeare.

    It’s all about giving learners the provision and support to develop their language and literacy skills to their highest standard possible; and also giving them the opportunity and encouragement to explore the endless possibilities of English, however they may want to. That will empower learners to make the most of their lives and to take a bigger role in shaping them.

    The government’s commitment to getting the conditions right for English to flourish is just the starting point. We’re here today because the debate is just beginning. English 21 gives professionals and experts from a range of fields the chance to contribute to the debate. Your input is valued and vital for determining how we proceed in the 21st century. It’s not just central government setting out the way forward. We can set the best agenda by working together.

    I want to start drawing to a close by disagreeing with something George Bernard Shaw said in Pygmalion. We do respect our language. And all of us here want to teach our children to speak it, to write it, and to use it well.

    So the challenge for all of us now is to inspire in disengaged young people the desire to learn and to pick up a book and read it for pure enjoyment.

    My constituency is one of the most disadvantaged in the country. I’ve met too many people there who have said to me that they feel inferior because they can’t read and write, and that this has blighted their whole lives. In the 21st century, we don’t want anyone saying that in any constituency. Thank You.

  • Alan Johnson – 2005 Speech at IPPR Conference

    alanjohnson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, at the IPPR Conference on 7th February 2005.

    I’m very pleased to be here and grateful to the ippr for organising this afternoon’s event.

    The support that we give to help people into work and the security that we provide for those who can’t work is one of the most important responsibilities placed upon Government.

    It’s a responsibility that Government can only fulfil in partnership:

    – with employers – to fill their vacancies and ensure good occupational health in the workplace.

    – with the medical profession – to encourage patients to see work as a route back to good health; and

    – with the individuals concerned – and their representative organisations – to understand their problems and learn from their experiences.

    Change and reform is necessary for two main reasons.

    Firstly because of the position we found ourselves in when we came to office in 1997.

    Over the previous 18 years, boom and bust had seen unemployment twice hit 3 million, whilst the numbers on Incapacity Benefits trebled to 2.6 million.

    By 1997, one in five families had no-one in work and one in three children were growing up in poverty. Radical measures were necessary to tackle this inheritance.

    But more importantly, reform was necessary because the welfare state had to evolve to meet the needs of modern society.

    It’s a very different society with very different problems than those which Beveridge tackled so adroitly in 1945. The security provided by the old monolithic state institutions has vanished and the world of work has changed beyond recognition.

    That is why, since 1997, we have begun to transform the welfare state from the passive one-size-fits-all inheritance to an active service that tailors help to the individual and enables people to acquire the skills and confidence to move from welfare to work.

    There are now more people in jobs than ever before. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 30 years – with long-term youth unemployment 90% lower than in 1997. And with almost three-quarters of the working age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of any of the G8 countries.

    But there is more to do. Last week I launched our Five Year Strategy: “Opportunity and security throughout life.” Central to which is a reform of Incapacity Benefit that builds on our investment in the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus and focuses on what people can do rather than what they can’t.

    Our goal is genuine inclusion, stamping out the discrimination and disadvantage that prevents people from fulfilling their potential – and denies society the skills and contributions of those who want to work, but who remain outside the labour market.

    We know that perhaps a million Incapacity Benefit claimants would like to work if they were given the right help and support. Indeed, nine out of ten people coming onto IB expect to get back to work in due course.

    What’s more, there is growing medical evidence that for many conditions working is much healthier than being inactive.

    Take back pain for example. We used to think that rest was the best response. But now, as Gordon Waddell’s work has shown, rest might actually delay recovery. In contrast, by advising patients to stay active, they can expect a faster recovery and a speedier return to work.

    The same is also true for mental health, where periods of unemployment or inactivity can be even more damaging. Suicide rates are 35 times higher among the long-term unemployed than the employed.

    One piece of research from the mid-1990s – found that being unemployed has a higher mortality risk than any occupation – even the most dangerous ones. And it stated that – and I quote – “so heightened is the risk of death, that being unemployed is equivalent to smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day!”

    What is clear is that failing to help those on Incapacity Benefit who want and expect to get back to work is not just bad for the economy but bad for the people on IB themselves.

    We already know that early active intervention works. The ground-breaking Pathways to Work pilots have achieved extraordinary success and we are now rolling them out to a third of the country.

    Already in the pilot areas, we’ve seen six times as many people getting back to work help and twice as many people recorded as entering jobs, compared with the rest of the country.

    But the problems with the current Incapacity Benefit have been well documented – not least by our hosts today.

    It focuses on what people can’t do and incentivises them to stay on the benefit by increasing it with time. These mixed messages mean confusion, uncertainty and risk aversion for both individuals and potential employers.

    What’s more, Incapacity Benefit classifies those receiving it as incapable of working, even before they have had a formal medical examination.

    And when they’ve had this examination – the Personal Capability Assessment – those who are entitled get no appraisal of their likely future ability to return to work. It makes no distinction between whether the case is one of terminal cancer or back pain.

    It was to tackle these problems, that I announced last week that, when we have the extra support of Pathways in place, we will implement a radically reformed version of Incapacity Benefit.

    This will provide a basic benefit below which no-one should fall. A speedy medical assessment linked with an employment and support assessment. Increased financial security for the most chronically sick; and more money than now for those who take up the extra help on offer.

    For the first time ever we will differentiate between those with the most severe functional limitations – who will get more money without having to do anything extra – and those with potentially more manageable conditions.

    We’re not writing anyone off – we’d encourage those on the new Disability and Sickness Allowance to engage in some work-focussed interviews.

    But for those who can and want to work these reforms -with conditional payments for engagement in Work Focussed Interviews – and further conditional payments for fulfilling an action plan personally tailored to the circumstances and ambitions of the individual – offer clear support and rewards for seeking the path back to work.

    We will need to shape these reforms on the basis of the evidence of what works – with piloting playing an important role. And we will consult carefully and thoroughly with all of you.

    We need to work through the detail of linking rules so that people can try out a job safe in the knowledge that if it doesn’t work out they can rapidly go back to benefit on exactly the same terms as they were on before.

    We’ve introduced and strengthened Permitted Work Rules to make part-time work an option. For at least the first year individuals can now work up to 16 hours a week on the minimum wage and keep their benefit in full.

    And if beyond this year they work just 16 hours a week then the Working Tax Credit guarantees a take-home pay of at least £150 a week.

    For many part-time work can be a stepping-stone towards a full-time return to the labour market. And for those for whom full-time work will never be possible but for whom some work would still be good – our reforms to Permitted Work are going to expand the right to part-time working on an ongoing basis to those for whom a return to full time work is least feasible.

    Our full package of reforms will transform the experience of new claimants. But we are also determined to help those who have been on IB for some time.

    Already in Pathways areas where involvement has only been mandatory for new claimants, over 10% of those taking part and 18% of recorded job entries are for those on IB for longer than 12 months who volunteered to take part.

    Today we are extending Pathways to existing customers in seven of the pilot areas.

    This means the introduction of mandatory Work Focused Interviews with those existing customers who started their claim in the two years prior to the date the pilots commenced.

    As important as the role of Incapacity Benefit itself, is the backdrop against which it operates – the workplaces, the doctor’s surgeries and the society that disabled people have to live within.

    We need employers to create healthier workplaces and play a more active role in the rehabilitation of their employees. Early and on-going communication enables employers to support employees who are off sick and to agree a return-to-work plan.

    Take for example, the case of a street lighting co-ordinator who had to have his leg amputated because of a long-term medical condition. His employer was quick to consider how to assist him to return to work. They made adjustments to his working environment including altering the height of his desk, allocated him a company car with automatic transmission that enabled him to fulfil his driving duties; and modified his hours to allow a structured return to work 3 months after his operation.

    It’s not just a social issue – it’s an economic issue. The benefits to business are very clear: Retaining trained and experienced employees and avoiding unnecessary recruitment and training costs.

    So employer involvement in helping individuals to recover is not just socially responsible but actually makes business sense.

    With around 120,000 people on average moving from Statutory Sick Pay to Incapacity Benefit each year, I’m interested in whether we might be able to reform SSP to ensure that the information and incentives for employers, the NHS and individuals make this a step back to work, rather than a slide onto benefit.

    The role of medical professionals is also crucial. I look forward to hearing Gordon and Roy speak later.

    For now, let me say that the success of our whole approach hinges on GPs and other health professionals re-enforcing the message that work is a route back to health – and not something that people need to be protected from. And we see from the success of Tomorrow’s People, how effective the combination of workplace and health advice can be.

    We will continue to fight discrimination on all fronts; especially for disabled people. This is the last great emancipation issue of our time. In years to come, I believe that the mis-treatment of disabled people typical of the last century – and still too often the case today – will be seen as the affront to humanity that it is.

    Ultimately real social security means more than a benefits system. It comes from the relationships that we have with each other. Working in partnership with employers, the medical profession, and individuals themselves, we can deliver a welfare to work system that enables everyone to fulfil their true potential – with an Incapacity Benefit that is fit for purpose because it offers a tailored route to employment for all those that can work and financial security for those that can’t.

  • Alan Johnson – 2005 Speech at Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Conference

    alanjohnson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development conference on 9th February 2005.

    It’s a pleasure to be back here again at the CIPD for this Annual Reward Conference. Now in its sixteenth year, it’s a tremendous forum for all those involved in managing and developing people, and I’m delighted to have this opportunity to talk to you today.

    Over the past seven years welfare to work policies have driven a transformation in the UK’s employment market.

    In 1997, one in five families had no-one in work and one in three children were growing up in poverty. And over the previous 18 years, unemployment had twice hit 3 million, whilst the numbers on Incapacity Benefits trebled to 2.6 million.

    But since 1997, we have begun to transform the welfare state from a passive one-size-fits-all system to an active service that tailors help to the individual and enables people to acquire the skills and confidence to move from welfare to work.

    Thanks to a stable economy, and our investment in the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus, there are now more people in jobs than ever before. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 30 years – with long-term youth unemployment 90% lower than in 1997. And with almost 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. Today we face the welcome challenge of a healthier population that is living for longer.

    As the baby boomers of yesterday become the pensioner plethora of tomorrow, it will produce dramatic changes in the dependency ratio.

    In two years from now the number of people over State Pension Age will overtake the number of children. In just over 30 years, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over will have increased by 50% while the number of pensioners aged 80 and over will have doubled.

    Society’s ability to meet this ageing challenge will hinge crucially on our ability to develop and deliver an evolving welfare state that supports ever greater numbers of people into work for longer.

    Last week the DWP published its Five Year Strategy. At its heart is a new long-term aspiration of moving towards an employment rate equivalent to 80% of the working age population.

    This takes us beyond just helping the unemployed to helping those who are further away from the labour market – who have more complex and substantial barriers to overcome.

    Our goal is genuine inclusion – stamping out the discrimination and disadvantage that prevents people from fulfilling their true potential.

    To reach our 80% aspiration could mean helping as many as 1 million people on Incapacity Benefit into work, as well as an extra 300,000 lone parents – and having a million more older workers in the labour force, including many who will choose to work beyond the traditional retirement age.

    At the heart of our Five Year Plan is our proposed reform of Incapacity Benefit. These reforms will build on our investment in Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal.

    Already our Pathways to Work pilots – which combine financial incentives to seek work, compulsory interviews with skilled personal advisers, and access to groundbreaking NHS rehabilitation support – are achieving startling results.

    In the pilot areas we’re seeing six times as many people getting back to work help and twice as many people recorded as entering jobs, compared with the rest of the country.

    And our reforms of IB will build on this platform with a new basic benefit below which no-one should fall.

    There will also be a speedy medical assessment linked with an employment and support appraisal and increased financial security for the most chronically sick. Our reforms will mean more money than now for those who take up the extra help on offer; but less money for those who decline to co-operate.

    For the first time ever we will differentiate between those with the most severe conditions – who will get more money without having to do anything extra – and those with potentially more manageable conditions who will receive tailored support and clear rewards for seeking a path back to work.

    But this all needs to be accompanied by wider change – and employers have a key role to play in creating healthier workplaces and playing a more active role in the rehabilitation of their employees.

    The benefits to business are very clear: Retaining skilled and experienced employees and avoiding unnecessary recruitment and training costs. Employer involvement in helping individuals to recover is not just socially responsible but is also good business sense.

    As we move towards full employment, we can not afford to be denied the skills and contributions of those who can and want to work, but who remain outside the labour market.

    And this goes beyond simply breaking down the barriers to getting a job – it means equality of opportunity within the workplace.

    The role of HR professionals is crucial in helping employers to benefit fully from the skills of disadvantaged groups – but ultimately the progression of these workers can no longer be an issue solely for HR or any other individual part of a business. Instead, it must be mainstreamed into the heart of each organisation.

    Together we must build on our progress in fighting discrimination, moving to a world where opportunity and security are not dependent on disability, ethnic background or age.

    A key part of our framework for helping those on Incapacity Benefit is to stamp out discrimination against disabled people.

    These are exciting times for Disability Rights. Last October saw the extension of full discrimination protection to 600,000 existing disabled workers. And it brought an additional 7 million jobs and 1 million employers within the scope of the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. And our new Disability Discrimination Bill currently going through Parliament will take us even further.

    The New Deal for Disabled People has seen over 45,000 job entries since its launch in 2001. And our other New Deal initiatives – for lone parents and young people for instance – have also been effective.

    Altogether, nearly 195,000 disabled people have been helped into work through the totality of our New Deal programmes.

    All of this has contributed to the rise in the employment rate of disabled people – up 5 percentage points since 1998 and now crossing the rubicon of 50%. This really challenges the old preconceptions because now the majority of disabled people work.

    Ethnic Minorities are another key group. We’ve already seen the Ethnic Minority employment gap fall from just under 17% to 15.4% – that’s around 50,000 more individuals of ethnic minority origin in employment.

    But despite this progress, ethnic minorities are still twice as likely to be unemployed and one and a half times as likely to be economically inactive as the overall working age population.

    And it’s not just in securing employment, that this differential exists. Ethnic minority staff earn an average of 7% less than other staff. And this in itself masks wide variations within ethnic minorities: For some groups – such as Bangladeshis – the average salary is as much as £7000 a year lower than the average for white employees.

    So there is much further to go in this area and our Fair Cities initiative – working with employers in London, Bradford and Birmingham – will help us to understand what more we need to do.

    A crucial part of the response to longer lives must be enabling people to choose to work for longer.

    Some have suggested that we should raise the State Pension Age but part of the challenge that we face in the UK, is to help people to work up to the current State Pension Age rather than setting a higher one. For example, over 1/3 of men have left the labour market by the age of 60; 2/3 before age 65.

    Our State Pension Deferral policy increases the rewards for choosing to work for longer – introducing an enhanced pension or a lump sum of up to £30,000 for people who decide to take their State Pension at 70 rather than 65.

    And our tax simplification measures also mean that, for the first time, it’s possible to carry on working for the same employer whilst drawing an occupational pension.

    The announcement we made on age equality at the end of last year also moved us further towards a culture where a single retirement age is no longer relevant.

    We’re sweeping them away entirely for people under 65, and we’re giving those above that age a Right to Request which their employers will have to engage with seriously.

    And the review in 2011 – which will look at whether to end the default retirement age – is to be tied to evidence on specific social trends all of which are showing a retirement age is increasingly outmoded.

    Of course, the option of longer working is one part of the pensions equation. The other is saving more.

    Here the role of the employer is even more crucial and we are very grateful to the CIPD for their work with our Employer Task Force.

    In particular for publishing a “Good Practice Guide” focused on communications – alongside the Employer Task Force Report last December.

    Next month, we will build on this guide by launching a single Government-sponsored website on Good Practice – which will draw together the CIPD’s work with similar material from other organisations.

    Employer contributions will be crucial. ABI research shows what a difference this can make – where there is no employer contribution, pension take up stands at just 13%, but with a contribution of at least 5% it rockets to 69%.

    But communicating the benefits of this pension provision is equally crucial – particularly against the backdrop of the increased security afforded by the Pension Protection Fund and other measures in our Pensions Act.

    Last October’s Interim report by the Pensions Commission, shows that for the earnings bracket with the most people in it – namely those on £10,000 – £20,000 – there are more people with no pension working for employers that have a contributory scheme that they haven’t joined than there are workers who have no pension and no access to a scheme. Indeed there are some 4.6 million workers who are not taking advantage of contributory schemes that their employer provides.

    If we could tackle this, we would go a long way towards meeting the pensions challenge. Effectively these workers are turning down the equivalent of a pay rise – and the evidence suggests that this isn’t an informed decision. Which is why an idea like auto-enrolement is so important. So instead of having to opt-in – people are automatically enrolled into the scheme but have the information they need to take an informed decision to opt-out.

    I pay tribute to the CIPD’s commitment to creating a modern working environment. This no longer means simply equality of opportunity in the workplace – though this is crucial – now it also means meeting the challenge of an ageing society.

    Neither individual employers nor society as a whole can afford to be without the skills and contributions of all those who are willing and able to work.

    The failure to meet this challenge could threaten the future sustainability of our welfare system as well as the economic prosperity of British business.

    But the success which is within our grasp will ensure that Britain remains a world leader – not just economically – but as a truly integrated and socially cohesive society, which is all the richer for its diversity.

  • Alan Johnson – 2005 Speech at CBI Pensions Breakfast

    alanjohnson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to the CBI Pensions Breakfast on 25th February 2005.

    It’s a great pleasure to have this opportunity to talk to you this morning – and to be giving my second speech in under 12 hours here at the Birmingham International Convention Centre.

    Last night I was presenting the awards for the Birmingham Employer Coalition, celebrating the achievements of jobseekers who had overcome barriers to work and employers who had recruited and developed Jobcentre Plus employees.

    I talked about our aspiration to move towards an employment rate equivalent to 80% of the working age population – the progress we’ve made –- and the work that is still needed to break down the barriers that prevent disabled people, lone parents, ethnic minorities and older workers from fulfilling their aspirations in the workplace.

    This isn’t just about the individuals themselves. Neither employers, nor society as a whole, can afford to be denied the skills and contributions of all those who are willing and able to work. It makes good business sense and of course, it’s crucial to our ability to meet the challenges of our ageing society.

    These challenges are very real. In the UK today, centenarians are the fastest growing demographic group.

    Two years from now the number of people over State Pension Age will overtake the number of children. In just over 30 years, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over will increase by 50% while the number of pensioners aged 80 and over will double.

    Given this expanding longevity and a lower birth rate, we set up the independent Pensions Commission to identify the extent of the challenge we face.

    Whilst making clear that there is no crisis today, they emphasised that we had been living in a fools’ paradise as far as pensions are concerned since the late 1970s – and that this would develop into a crisis in 20 to 25 years time, if we didn’t begin to plan for that future soon.

    Yesterday, we published a document which sets out our principles for pension reform and which seeks to establish a national debate as a first step towards building a new consensus on the way forward.

    I’d like to focus my remarks this morning on these principles for reform and to say a bit about how employers can work with us – by engaging in this national debate and joining us in forging this new consensus.

    Reforming the system to meet the challenges of tomorrow does not mean discarding the strengths of a system that is today delivering better average retirement incomes than any previous generation has ever enjoyed.

    Pensioners today are sharing in the growing prosperity of the nation. Between 1996/97 and 2002/03, average pensioner incomes grew by 19%, while average earnings grew by 12%.

    Since 1997 we’ve taken radical action to tackle pensioner poverty – lifting 1.8 million pensioners out of abject poverty – and tackling the real pensions crisis that we faced when we came into office.

    Over 3.2 million pensioners are now in receipt of Pension Credit – with take-up strongest amongst the very poorest. For those who would otherwise be below the Guarantee element, our best estimate is that take-up rates are running at over 80%. And for single women in this group, take-up could be as high as 90%.

    We are starting to change what it means to be old in our society.

    Since time immemorial, old age has been associated with poverty – from the workhouse, through the studies of William Booth, to the 1980s when many pensioners had to choose between heating and eating.

    But figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that we are now in an unprecedented position where pensioners are no more likely to be poor than any other group in society.

    We believe that the prevention of poverty must be a fundamental role for the State – so tackling poverty is our first principle and we will not risk condemning pensioners to the poverty of the past.

    The other great strength of today’s system is its sustainability. Sustainable public finances are a pre-requisite to achieving high and stable rates of long-term economic growth and to ensuring that spending and taxation impact fairly between generations.

    Our current policies and projections see state pension expenditure remaining broadly stable as a percentage of GDP through to 2050.

    This compares very favourably with a number of European countries – who face steep increases in public expenditure over the coming years.

    So whilst engaging with ideas for reform, we must ensure that this principle of fiscal sustainability is maintained.

    The third principle for pensions reform is coherence. The Pensions Commission observed that the UK has one of the most complex pensions systems in the world, reflecting the cumulative impact of many changes and decisions over the last few decades.

    We’ve already made some progress in addressing this problem through the radical simplification of the tax system contained in the Finance Act.

    In April 2006 we’ll sweep away today’s 8 separate tax systems for pensions, and replace them with a single regime based on a lifetime limit which will start at £1.5 million, and will rise in stages, faster than the rate of inflation over the next few years.

    The layer-cake of regulation – baked in a very slow oven – creates real disincentives. Rights built up over the years need to be recorded and processed separately to reflect the regime in place at the time they were accrued.

    This can be a nightmare for employers.

    So we must go further with our simplification agenda – especially to make our pensions system easier for people to understand.

    Our fourth principle is to seek a broad consensus.

    The NAPF claimed a consensus for the idea of a Citizens’ Pension set at £105 a week, replacing the Basic State Pension and the Second State Pension.

    But the CBI and many others oppose this – favouring less costly approaches and the maintenance of an earnings-related tier.

    So we haven’t ever really had a lasting political consensus that gives people the ability to plan ahead with confidence.

    The Pensions Commission provides an opportunity to start to build such a consensus – which we intend to grasp.

    Politicians are squaring up for an election so consensus is perhaps a tad unlikely right now – but we can and should steer clear of unaffordable and ill-thought-out promises if we are to avoid a return to the fools’ paradise that the Pensions Commission so graphically described.

    There are six principles which we believe should be at the heart of any future reform. I’ve covered four of them so far – tackling poverty, maintaining fiscal sustainability, achieving greater simplicity and building consensus.

    The final two are perhaps the most challenging and definitely the most urgent.

    Inclusiveness – the opportunity for all to build an adequate retirement income; and

    Equitability – producing fair outcomes, in particular, for women.

    We have already taken important steps forwards here. The State Second Pension means that nearly 6 million low earners – two-thirds of whom are women – as well as 2 million carers and over 2 million disabled people all have the chance to build up a decent second pension for the first time.

    Through the Pension Protection Fund – and other measures in the Pensions Act last year – we have taken radical steps to bolster security and confidence in occupational pensions. This includes offering some financial assistance to those who have lost the most in the past.

    Stakeholder pensions and the Sandler products mean more flexibility – for example, people are now free to change provider and to stop and start payments without suffering penalties – particularly important for women and carers.

    And our Age Discrimination Legislation and improved terms for State Pension Deferral mean that people have greater opportunity and rewards for working longer.

    But we need to do more to make it easier for people to save. We need to work with you, as employers, to explore ways to encourage greater employer pension contributions and sharing of good practice.

    Next week I am launching a single Government-sponsored website on Good Practice – resulting from the work of our Employer Task Force.

    There is much good practice and much that employers can be proud of in the way they have continued to provide decent occupational schemes in difficult times.

    I’m also keen for us to develop auto-enrolment so that 4.6 million workers no longer miss out on the contributions of their employers, unless they actively decide to do so.

    And that we should look at whether there is scope for developing more collective products using local or central collection mechanisms – for instance, using the machinery of the National Insurance system, possibly on an auto-enrolment basis, to help people save and to secure lower charges for savers.

    Finally, we need to end the current bias against women in the Basic State Pension.

    The National Insurance system has delivered poor pension outcomes for women – especially for those who have taken time off paid work to raise a family.

    It is a national scandal that on average today’s single women pensioners have an income £24 a week lower than single male pensioners – with only 16% of newly retiring women today qualifying for a full Basic State Pension on the basis of their own contributions.

    This can not be right. Beveridge’s vision was for a very different world where men had 50 year jobs and a 40 year marriage to a woman who they expected to provide for.

    We need a radical improvement in womens’ entitlement to the Basic State Pension, particularly as pension ages for women are raised to age 65.

    One of the key questions that we are asking in launching this national debate is whether the gains from a residency-based eligibility for the Basic State Pension would provide a cost-effective and practical alternative way of improving equity of entitlements.

    There are a number of ways we can solve this problem, but solve it we must.

    Tackling poverty, maintaining fiscal sustainability, greater simplicity, a new consensus, inclusiveness and equitability – these are the six principles that will be at the heart of any reform.

    The Pensions Commission process represents a unique opportunity to establish a consensus behind pension reforms that will last for the long term. It’s an opportunity that we must seize.

    The Commission will provide recommendations on private sector pensions in the Autumn.

    All the Commission’s recommendations, will be best received in an environment of informed and considered debate.

    Ahead of these recommendations, the Government will seek to engage with the public – and all our key stakeholders – over the principles we’ve set out. In this way we hope to achieve a shared framework of criteria within which the recommendations of the Commission and others can be assessed.

    I know the CBI will be a major voice in this debate – and I thank you for your time this morning.

  • Alan Johnson – 2005 Speech at Age Concern Conference

    alanjohnson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to the Age Concern Conference on 1st March 2005.

    I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to talk to you this afternoon – at a conference that really captures the full dimensions of the challenge of our ageing society.

    We are all seeking to find a way through the welcome problems posed by this challenge. There’s no pre-existing road map for a world where pensioners outnumber children and where the dependency ratio will be 2 to 1.

    It’s a world that can often seem strange to people today – because it challenges their assumptions and expectations.

    Preparing to meet the new demands of healthier and longer lives is a challenge that has perhaps never been higher in the public consciousness.

    Tomorrow’s pensioners will be very different from today’s. They will have lived through technological revolutions rather than World Wars. They will have had to cope with the Smart Card rather than the ration book. They’ll be independent, healthier and have very different political demands.

    That we need to act today to build solutions for tomorrow has never been clearer. But the debate about demographic change too often focuses on purely financial issues. How to fund pensions for the longer term – how to enable people to save more for their retirement.

    These are crucial questions and it’s absolutely right that pension reform should be key to this debate. But ultimately – as this conference and Age Concern’s report published today make clear – the Age Agenda must be wider than these financial issues. It’s about creating a comprehensive, strategic framework that captures employment and discrimination; healthcare and access to services.

    It requires Government to think much more widely adopting a joined-up approach to help older people meet their needs: From Sports Centres – to care homes: From transport –- to the workplace.

    And it requires all of us to work together to break down out-dated stereotypes and to explode the myth that ageing is a barrier to a positive contribution to the economy and society – by promoting and supporting work and active engagement in the community.

    Much of the Government’s effort in the past seven years has been about protecting the most vulnerable.

    Through Pension Credit we have revolutionised the targeting of state support to poorer pensioners. Over 3.2 million pensioners are now in receipt of Pension Credit – with take-up strongest amongst the very poorest.

    For those who would otherwise be below the Guarantee element, our best estimate is that take-up rates are running at over 80%. And for single women in this group, take-up could be as high as 90%.

    Delivering this change has only been possible because of the hard work on the ground by the Local Service working in partnership with those in the local community.

    Effective partnerships need support and a unifying goal. After listening to our customers we launched Link-Age last summer – to build partnerships with local authorities and voluntary bodies around the deceptively simple objective that our customers should have to provide information only once to get their entitlement.

    The Pension Service Partnership Fund provides £13 million to finance local initiatives to improve take-up of older people’s benefits – particularly those in hard to reach groups.

    The support of Age Concern and other partners has been crucial with for example, Partnerships Against Poverty – in helping to improve the take up of benefits entitlements.

    In some cases, improving take-up can make a huge difference. For example, a member of the Local Service in Norwich visited an 85-year-old lady who lived alone in her home to help her complete a Pension Credit application.

    Because of a visual impairment she was in receipt of Attendance Allowance and had wrongly believed that this would count as income and prevent her being entitled to any Pension Credit.

    Following the Local Service visit she was awarded over £64 a week Pension Credit and a backdated payment of over £3,300.

    Many of you in this audience have helped to transform people’s lives through such experiences on a regular basis.

    I believe that we are starting to change what it means to be old in our society.

    Since time immemorial, old age has been associated with poverty – from the workhouse, through the studies of William Booth, to the 1980s when many pensioners had to choose between heating and eating.

    But figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that we are now in an unprecedented position where pensioners are no more likely to be poor than any other group in society.

    The prevention of poverty will always be a fundamental role for the State and it’s one of the principles underpinning any future reform of pensions which I set out last week.

    But we must go further and wider in our approach – moving beyond the old debates about how to manage dependence and looking to a new world of enabling independence. A world where we have the infrastructure to make ageing an opportunity rather than a threat – encouraging and supporting older people to play an ever greater role in our society.

    This means:

    – tackling discrimination;

    – enabling older people to fulfil their aspirations in the workplace;

    – helping them to save for retirement with confidence and in a pensions system that is fair, inclusive and more comprehensible;

    – as well as promoting and supporting healthier and more active lives in old age

    I’d like just to say a few more words about each.

    Firstly, the Government is committed to stamping out discrimination. We will legislate on age discrimination to support our goal of higher employment for all ages.

    And our recent announcement of the Equalities Review, examining Discrimination legislation demonstrates our commitment to breaking down the barriers to equality of opportunity in society.

    But as with all forms of discrimination – legislation only takes us so far. We all need to work together to achieve a wider cultural change that banishes outmoded attitudes.

    For example, generalised stereotypes of people past state pension age as dependent, incapable and vulnerable are a particularly pernicious form of age discrimination. They undervalue the capacities and potential contribution of millions of fit and able people. And by the same token they can inhibit service-providers from focussing properly on those who really need support.

    The announcement we made on age equality at the end of last year also took us a long way forward in terms of moving us towards a culture where Retirement Ages are increasingly consigned to the past.

    We’re abolishing them for people under 65, and we’re giving those above that age a Right to Request to work past 65 which their employers will have to engage with seriously.

    And the review in 2011 – which will look at whether it is time to sweep retirement ages away entirely – is to be tied to evidence on specific social trends all of which are showing that retirement ages are increasingly outmoded.

    Empowering older people in the workplace, enabling them to choose to work for longer must be a key part of any response to the ageing challenge. As a society, we can not afford to squander the skills and contributions of anyone who can and wants to work, but who remains outside the labour market.

    This was a central theme of the DWP’s Five Year Strategy which was published at the beginning of last month, at the heart of which was a new long-term aspiration of moving towards an employment rate equivalent to 80% of the working age population.

    It takes us beyond just helping the unemployed to help those who are even further away from the labour market – who have more complex and substantial barriers to overcome.

    It could involve supporting as many as 1 million people on Incapacity Benefit into work, an extra 300,000 lone parents; and 1 million more older workers in the labour force, including many who will choose to work beyond the traditional retirement age.

    Some have suggested that we should raise the State Pension Age but part of the challenge that we face in the UK, is to help people to work up to the current State Pension Age rather than setting a new one. For example, statistics show that over 1/3 of men are outside the labour market by the age of 60; 2/3 before age 65.

    Our approach is to give people the flexibility and choice to work longer if they want to. State Pension Deferral increases the rewards for choosing to work for longer – introducing an enhanced pension 50% higher for life or a lump sum of up to £30,000 for people who decide to take their State Pension at 70 rather than 65.

    And our tax simplification measures also mean that, for the first time, it’s possible to carry on working for the same employer whilst drawing an occupational pension.

    Another key dimension, is giving individuals the information they need to enable them to save for their retirement. And we are delighted to be working with Age Concern and Citizens Advice on developing a partnership programme on Informed Choice and Financial Capability.

    Through the Pension Protection Fund – and other measures in the Pensions Act last year – we have taken radical steps to bolster security and confidence in occupational pensions. This includes offering some financial assistance to those who have lost the most in the past.

    Last week, we set out our principles for wider pensions reform, seeking to establish a national debate as a first step towards building a lasting consensus on the way forward.

    It’s good to see this was welcomed by Age Concern, the CBI, TUC and many of our other partners.

    As well as building this consensus and continuing to tackle pensioner poverty, we’re determined to ensure fiscal sustainability, while seeking greater coherence, inclusiveness and equitability.

    Sustainable public finances are a pre-requisite to achieving high and stable rates of long-term economic growth and to ensure that spending and taxation impact fairly between generations.

    In building a long-term solution, we must not be drawn into policies – however appealing today – which will ultimately place an unsustainable burden on future generations.

    In respect of greater coherence, we’re seeking to make the system simpler to understand and to make it easier for employers to get on with running good schemes.

    With inclusiveness and equitability, we’re seeking to provide the opportunity for everyone to build an adequate retirement income – whether they are low to medium earners; employed or self-employed; and to ensure fair outcomes for all, particularly women.

    One of the key questions that we are asking in launching this national debate is whether the gains from a residency-based eligibility for the Basic State Pension would provide a cost-effective and practical alternative way of improving equity of entitlements.

    Meeting the ageing challenge is also wider than saving more and working longer – it includes healthcare and access to services.

    Good health is the key to a good quality of life and to fully-independent living. This also means continuing to invest in community services, particularly to support family members and other informal carers.

    But it’s about more than just health and helping people secure the care they need. We need to tackle the fear of isolation and exclusion that comes from increasing numbers of older people living on their own and feeling unable to influence local decisions.

    So achieving real engagement of older people in community decisions, will require enabling them to build alternative networks of support and interest and to contribute their wisdom and skills through voluntary activity.

    All these themes will be drawn together in our national Strategy for an Ageing Society and I have been grateful to Age Concern and our other partners for their support with our work on this.

    The Strategy will be the first of its kind pursuing the ambitious aim of transforming the challenges of demography into opportunities for our society.

    It will look and plan ahead – seeking employment opportunities that are not dependent on age; longer life expectancy with better health; a practical vision of active ageing to support personal responsibility and engagement with the community; and independence and choice in older age with support for those who need it.

    It will bring together plans for development and reform into a programme built around achievable outcomes.

    It’s a truly cross-Government operation – but it’s far from restricted to Government alone.

    Ultimately, delivering the cultural change that is needed to break down old stereotypes means working with Age Concern and all our partners to deliver real opportunity and security for all in later life.

    Together we can empower older people and allow society to benefit from what is ultimately one of the greatest advances of our time – longer and healthier lives.

  • Alan Johnson – 2005 Speech to ABI Conference

    alanjohnson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to the ABI Conference on 9th March 2005.

    It’s a great pleasure to have this opportunity to speak at the ABI Conference.

    The UK insurance industry is a world leader –- the largest in Europe, the third-largest in the world. It has a crucial role to play in the UK economy not least as a major employer, with a third of all financial services jobs – nearly 350,000 people – and as a source of overseas earnings.

    And it has a crucial role to play in our society. You only have to look at recent natural disasters such as the Tsunami (where the first life insurance payments were made last month) or the floods in Boscastle last Summer.

    In today’s world, we are all more aware of the risks that we face and of the challenges of managing them. I’m grateful to the ABI not just for representing their members so well but for working in partnership with Government to help address so many of these challenges.

    One of which is the reform of liability insurance where the ABI’s “Making the Market Work” initiative has helped trade associations and others to access the insurance market more easily. Earlier this week, an ABI survey revealed a dramatic slowdown in the rising cost to employers of liability insurance. And through the new Health and Safety Performance Indicator – which the ABI helped to develop – we’re making it easier for small businesses to improve their management of risks.

    And, of course, the ABI’s support has been crucial in addressing the pensions and savings challenge that is now higher in the public consciousness than ever before.

    The demographics are stark – two years from now, the number of people over State Pension Age will overtake the number of children. In just over 30 years, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over will increase by 50% while the number of pensioners aged 80 and over will double.

    Given this expanding longevity and a lower birth rate, we set up the independent Pensions Commission to guage the extent of the problem we face.

    In their first report the Commission said that we had all been living in a fools’ paradise as far as pensions are concerned since the late 1970s – and that whilst there is no crisis now this would develop into a crisis in 20 to 25 years time, if we didn’t begin to plan for that future soon.

    The past few years have been a difficult time for all those involved in pensions:

    – for the insurance industry re-building trust after pensions mis-selling;

    – for companies facing rising costs and soaring pension scheme deficits as the stock market plummeted;

    – for the thousands of employees who lost their pensions when their employer went bust, leaving the pension scheme underfunded;

    – for Government trying to balance regulation to protect pensions with the need to make it easier for people to save.

    The Pensions Commission’s second report will deal with the question of compulsion in occupational pensions. But while there’s still a long way to go to make a success of re-vitalised voluntarism, we’re beginning to see signs that, together, we are turning the corner.

    Mis-selling is now increasingly a distant memory. Government and the industry has worked to create a new independent Financial Services Authority, restoring confidence and improving regulation.

    Stakeholder pensions and the Sandler suite of products mean a choice of new, low charge products and more flexible and tailored ways in which people can save. Between April and October 2004, contributions to Stakeholder pensions went through the £1bn barrier for the second half-yearly period running.

    We’ve lifted 1.8 million pensioners out of abject poverty since 1997.

    Through the Pension Credit, we have revolutionised the targeting of state support to poorer pensioners. Over 3.2 million pensioners are now in receipt of Pension Credit – with take-up strongest amongst the very poorest.

    For those who would otherwise be below the Guarantee element, our best estimate is that take-up rates are running at over 80%. And for single women in this group, take-up could be as high as 90%.

    With an extra £10 billion a year spent on pensioners, we are starting to change what it means to be old in our society.

    Since time immemorial, old age has been associated with poverty – from the workhouse, through the studies of William Booth, to the 1980s when many pensioners had to choose between heating and eating.

    But figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that we are now in an unprecedented position where pensioners are no more likely to be poor than any other group in society. And we’re beginning to see signs that we are turning the corner with occupational pensions. Company pension schemes are benefiting from a resurgent stock market and an increase in employer contributions.

    The FTSE 100 is now back over 5000 points; one survey showed that employer contributions to defined benefit schemes in 2004 were up almost 50%; and other studies show that the value of pension funds last year grew on average by around 10%.

    As one recent survey suggests, with over two years of steady growth now behind them, pension funds have recovered most of the losses they sustained during the savage bear market of 2000-02.

    And over the longer-term, that stock market risk is actually producing positive real returns – over and above inflation – some 4% over the past 10 years.

    But this doesn’t mean we can slip back into our fools’ paradise.

    Last week I launched the new occupational pensions regime handing over the Pension Protection Fund and the new Pensions Regulator to the respective Chairs of the new bodies.

    In April they will be up and running – moving from vision to reality.

    The new flexible and pro-active Pensions Regulator will further bolster security by tackling the risks to members’ benefits while enabling well-administered and secure schemes to continue without unnecessary regulatory burden.

    The Pension Protection Fund will mean bringing real security and peace of mind to over 10 million members of defined benefit schemes. For an average cost of £20 per head per year – roughly what one might pay for a fortnight’s holiday insurance – scheme members will get meaningful protection for life.

    And through the Financial Assistance Scheme, we are offering some financial assistance to those who have lost the most in the past.

    We’ve been able to make some progress in simplifying the system for employers with last year’s Finance Act untangling eight separate tax regimes which have been thrown on top of each other over the years and replacing them with one coherent system.

    And the Pensions Act is freeing up the old Section 67, making it possible for businesses to rationalise pension rights into a single system retrospectively; As well as removing the requirement to index Defined Contribution Schemes, and reducing indexation for Defined Benefit Schemes.

    There is much further to go – but gradually our joint working in informed choice and financial education is making a difference.

    Today’s ABI research shows that people are starting to understand the need to work for longer in order to ensure an adequate income in retirement. And it suggests strong consumer support for our measures which increase choice and flexibility over longer working – whether through the new rule that will allow people to claim their occupational pension while continuing to work for the same employer; Or through improved terms for State Pension Deferral where people can for the first time choose between an enhanced pension 50% higher for life or a lump sum of up to £30,000 for taking their State Pension at 70 rather than 65.

    These are small but important steps on the road to a long-term solution which avoids that much heralded crisis in 20 to 25 years time.

    At the end of last month we set out our principles for wider pensions reform, seeking to establish a national debate as a first step towards building a lasting consensus on the way forward.

    This was welcomed by the ABI, CBI, TUC and many of our other partners.

    We’ve never really had a lasting political consensus that gives our citizens the ability to plan ahead with confidence.

    The NAPF claimed a consensus for the idea of a Citizens’ Pension set at £105 a week, replacing the Basic State Pension and the Second State Pension.

    But the ABI, CBI and many others say that this is too costly and far from the panacea that it is claimed to be.

    The Pensions Commission report provides an opportunity to start to build a true consensus – and this is an opportunity we intend to grasp.

    I disagree with the doomsayers and scaremongers who proclaim the end of the final salary scheme and claim to hear the death-knell for company pensions.

    Last week I was with employers large and small as well as the CBI, TUC, ABI, CIPD and others, at the Employer Task Force launch of the new Good Practice Website –- showing how employers are adapting to the changing economic climate and maintaining their pension commitments. Many of them through innovative hybrid schemes.

    We need to spread this best practice and to innovate further – which is why it was important that the ABI led the consortium on the Workplace Information Pilots and why I believe that auto-enrolement could be a powerful tool to be utilised much more widely.

    Why is it that 4.6 million people aren’t taking advantage of contributory schemes that their employer provides?

    Effectively these workers are turning down the equivalent of a pay rise – and the evidence suggests that this isn’t an informed decision.

    Seeking to provide security in a risky world – is about being honest and open about those risks and doing all we can to control them. But the risks are linked to opportunities – whether in investment growth or, the greatest opportunity of them all – longer, healthier lives.

    Government has to be prepared to take unpopular decisions and ask difficult questions in order to build the right long-term solutions.

    Increasing the retirement age for public sector workers, set for civil servants at 60 around two hundred years ago is one necessary change.

    And I believe we need radical reform in order to tackle the scandal of women’s pensions – where on average, today’s single women pensioners have an income £24 a week lower than single male pensioners – with only 16% of newly retiring women qualifying for a full Basic State Pension on the basis of their own contributions.

    One of the key questions we are asking in launching the national debate is whether the gains from a residency-based eligibility for the Basic State Pension would provide a cost-effective and practical alternative way of improving equity of entitlement.

    I know that an outbreak of political consensus is unlikely in the next few weeks, but we do need a national debate to try to build such a consensus rather than knee-jerk reactions; we do need radical long-term reform not one party solutions that will be altered by future Governments of other political colours; and we do need a mature debate that requires us all to work together to explore affordable, sustainable and innovative approaches that build on the progress we have made in tackling pensioner poverty.

    The ABI have already played a crucial role – and I know that I can count on your support in shaping this debate; building this consensus and ensuring that today’s workers, tomorrow’s pensioners, can look forward to a secure, active, independent and less risky old age.

  • Alan Johnson – 2005 Speech at New Beginnings Symposium

    alanjohnson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Johnson, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to the New Beginnings Symposium on 15th March 2005.

    It’s a great pleasure to be here at the New Beginnings Symposium and to have this opportunity to talk to you on one of the most important political issues of our time.

    Making the UK a World Leader in Disability means achieving three things:

    – Building legislation that gives disabled people comprehensive and enforceable civil rights

    – Creating employment opportunity with personal tailored support for those who want it; and

    – Achieving a step-change in public attitudes that empowers disabled people to live independently and to be recognised and indeed respected as equal members of society.

    I’d like to say a few words about each.

    When we came into office in 1997 – despite 14 previous attempts to bring forward effective legislation – only the most outrageous forms of direct discrimination against disabled people had been outlawed and there was no protection at all for the disabled employees of small firms.

    The 1995 Act lounged on the statute book doing very little and with no champion to help people to enforce their rights, or to provide advice and guidance to employers about how to meet their duties.

    We’ve created that champion – The hugely successful Disability Rights Commission – and we are now working to ensure that the DRC’s championing of disability remains at the core of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

    We’ve also set about implementing the most profound extension of disability civil rights this country has ever seen.

    Last October saw protection against discrimination given to an additional 600,000 disabled workers. And it saw a further 7 million jobs and 1 million employers brought within the scope of the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.

    Our current Disability Discrimination Bill – which has its Second Reading in the Commons a week tomorrow – takes us even further. When enacted, the new Bill will extend the coverage of the DDA to at least another 175,000 people – and extend the definition of disabled people to a number of new groups by, for example, removing the requirement that mental illnesses must be “clinically well recognised.”

    The Bill will end the anomaly of transport not counting as a service under the DDA and will allow us to set an end-date of 2020 for all rail vehicles to be made accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users.

    It will also place a duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. This will be vital in helping to eliminate the institutional disadvantage that many disabled people still face.

    For the first time, disabled people can have confidence that their needs will be at the forefront rather than being considered as an afterthought.

    For example, local authorities won’t be able to consider closing facilities like libraries or leisure services without thinking first about how disabled people in the area would be affected.

    This promotion of equality is central to our vision of a truly fair society offering opportunities for all. And it underlies much of our efforts to empower disabled people to realise their ambitions in the workplace as well as in society as a whole.

    Exclusion from the workplace has a damaging impact on individuals depreciating their skills and their self-esteem. It places a financial cost on society and a taxation burden on business – hitting both profitability and competitiveness.

    New Beginnings has played an important role in joining together employers and disability organisations.

    The business case is now so compelling that employing disabled people can no longer be seen as purely an ethical responsibility – but as a business imperative.

    But disabled people need personal tailored support to fulfil their employment aspirations.

    Since 1997, through our investment in Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal, we have begun to transform the welfare state from the passive one-size-fits-all inheritance to an active service that tailors help to the individual and enables people to acquire the skills and confidence to move from welfare to work.

    The New Deal for Disabled People has seen nearly 55,000 job entries since its launch in 2001. But our other New Deal initiatives – for lone parents and young people for instance – have also been effective.

    Altogether, nearly 200,000 disabled people have been helped into work through our total package of New Deal programmes.

    And we are seeing very encouraging early results from our Pathways to Work Pilots – cutting edge proposals bringing together Jobcentre Plus, the Health service, GPs and employers to improve the package of support we offer to people on Incapacity Benefit.

    The latest Pathways statistics show that the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability has almost doubled compared with the same period last year; and there are up to six times as many people taking steps to get back into work in Pathways areas compared with the rest of the country. On a national basis this early success would be equivalent to over 100,000 IB claimants being helped into work each year.

    All of this has contributed to the rise in the employment rate of disabled people – up 5 percentage points since 1998 to 50.3%. This really challenges the old pre-conceptions because now more than half of disabled people work and therefore a disabled person is, for the first time, more likely to be in work than out of work.

    But none of us can rest on our laurels. We believe that any individual who wants to work should have the personal tailored support to fulfil this aspiration.

    As a society, if we are to meet the challenge of an ageing population with a falling birthrate, we can not afford to be denied the skills and contributions of those who want to work but who remain outside the labour market.

    That’s why my Department’s recent Five-Year Strategy sought to build on the highest employment rate of any G8 country by establishing the aspiration of moving to a new employment rate equivalent to 80% of the working age population.

    Central to this strategy, is a fundamental reform of Incapacity Benefit that builds on our investment in Pathways to Work, the New Deal and Jobcentre Plus and focuses on what people can do rather than what they can’t.

    Let me make this clear – It’s not about cutting – or time-limiting – benefits. Neither is it about forcing anyone to apply for jobs they aren’t able to do.

    It is about enabling people to fulfil their aspirations. We know that up to 1 million disabled people on benefits want to work – our reforms are about giving people a framework of health and employment support and a benefit structure that supports and incentivises them to return to work. It means radically changing the benefit to enable it to reflect all that we have learnt about work aspirations and supporting the needs of those on IB.

    The new system will provide a basic benefit below which no-one should fall. A speedy medical assessment linked with an employment and support assessment. Back to work help available to all – with increased financial security for the most chronically sick; and more money than now for everyone else who takes up the extra help on offer.

    Such change can only work against the backdrop of a nationally-rolled-out Pathways to Work programme and a ground-breaking partnership with employers and the medical profession:

    With the medical profession increasingly seeing work as a route back to good health and encouraging their patients to do likewise; and with employers ensuring good occupational health in the workplace and thinking about the rehabilitation support they make available. We will need to shape these reforms on the basis of the evidence of what works – with piloting playing an important role. And we will consult carefully and thoroughly with all of you.

    We intend to publish a Green Paper in July which will allow us to consult formally on our more detailed thoughts in areas such as:

    How the new benefit system and the distinction between its different elements will operate

    How we can best ensure the individual and their Personal Advisers can frame an action plan which is realistic for the individual and how the Employment and Support Assessment can facilitate this

    What people will be required to do in the future to access the higher rates of benefit

    What safeguards and appeals processes should be in the system to make sure that the new requirements operate fairly

    But right from the start – i.e. today; I am keen to involve you in the shaping of these reforms. And I am particularly interested in starting to develop a consensus around 4 issues.

    Firstly – what should be the content of the “return to work activities” that we recognise as beneficial in helping people to get back to work?

    Secondly – how can we minimise the risks people face when they want to move into work and ensure people have every incentive possible to take the traumatic first step?

    Thirdly, what can we do to signal that being on the Disability Sickness Allowance for the most chronically sick doesn’t mean someone is written off or has no interest in working – but does recognise the severity of their sickness or disability?

    Fourthly – what key features does the system need to ensure that it works effectively for people with mental health conditions?

    Although the formal consultation won’t begin until the Green Paper in July, I would appreciate people writing to me on these four issues – return to work activities; minimising the risk of moving into work; shaping the signals given by the Disability Sickness Allowance; and enabling the system to work effectively for people with mental health conditions.

    Your views will be very helpful and will inform the writing of the Green Paper.

    Improving the support and incentives for getting and staying in employment was a cornerstone of the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit report earlier this year.

    This set out an ambitious 20-year strategy to improve the life chances of disabled people by promoting independent living supported by individualised service delivery.

    It recommended new ways of ensuring more co-ordinated policy making across Government, specifically through a new Office for Disability Issues, and it sought to enable disabled people to participate in policy design and service delivery.

    Our commitment to advance the civil rights of disabled people is not confined to these shores but has an important EU and international dimension.

    DWP will be making disabled people’s rights one of the key themes of our presidency of the EU later this year. We’ll be holding a conference here in London dedicated to making a reality of disability rights in all member states and we hope this can be a further stimulus to co-operation between disabled people’s organisations across the 25 countries of the EU.

    But ultimately, no Government action, legislative or employment support programme will be sufficient unless it is accompanied by a step-change in public attitudes.

    Empowering disabled people is about more than legislation. It’s about people’s equal worth as individuals so that they are not disabled by the preconceptions of others.

    This is the great emancipation issue of our time. In years to come, I believe that the mis-treatment of disabled people typical of the last century – and still too often the case today – will be seen as the affront to humanity that it is.

    We must all work to raise awareness of rights for disabled people; to promote equality and challenge individual and institutional attitudes that threaten our vision of a society of equal rights and opportunities for all.

    This is a vision worth fighting for. It’s a vision that I believe we are making significant progress towards. And it’s a vision that together we can deliver. Making this vision a reality will truly make the UK a world leader in disability issues.

  • Mark Oaten – 2005 Speech to Liberal Democrat Conference

    Below is the text of the then Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman, Mark Oaten, at the 2005 Liberal Democrat Conference in Blackpool on 21st September 2005.

    On the 8th of July, a journalist came up to me and asked if it was difficult time to be a liberal.

    I had no hesitation in saying no. Why? Because it’s never been more important to be a liberal than today.

    Never more important to speak up for freedom.

    Never more important to speak up for justice.

    Never more important to make sure the terrorists don’t change our way of life.

    I am proud to be a liberal in these difficult times because I know our values are the values that can defeat terrorists.

    But conference as a party we must recognise the ways in which these events in July have changed our country.

    We face an evil enemy.

    An enemy where 4 young men are so dedicated to their appalling cause that they are prepared to kill themselves and others.

    So we must take steps to stop these terrorists and in doing so protect our freedom – the freedom to live our lives without fear of bombs and attacks.

    That is why I want to speak to you today about the new anti-terror laws and  about our vision for stronger communities

    Charles Kennedy and I, in the weeks after July, felt that if possible the political parties should seek consensus.  We agreed to support three measures that have been put forward by the Home Secretary:

    Making it an offence to train terrorists; to prepare for a terrorist attack; and to incite terrorist activity.

    Now we know the measures on indirect incitement will be hard to draft – they must be robust enough to work in court, but not so wide that they are open to abuse.

    But – last week the Home Secretary went further and in doing so has tested the growing consensus and created two new measures we can’t support.

    We can’t support a wide and vague offence that allows glorification of terror to become a crime. What on earth does that mean. One person’s terrorist is another freedom fighter. This is a dangerous proposal, hard to define in theory, unworkable in practice, and putting freedom of speech at risk.

    And we can’t support plans to hold people for three months without charge. The case is simply not made.

    Let me be clear Liberal Democrats will not support what amounts to a new policy of internment.

    Labour tells us we must give up our hard-fought civil liberties in exchange for more security.

    But, conference, if we abandon traditions and values like the right to a fair trial, we are abandoning our identity.

    If we give up the fundamental principles of justice, we are giving in to the terrorists.

    And if we sacrifice our liberal society we will be weaker, not stronger.

    So conference,  measures on terrorism will have our support.

    But here are our conditions.

    First, measures must be effective and necessary and not just showpiece.

    Second, they should not encroach on our values and principles of justice.

    Third, they should be subject to full Parliamentary scrutiny – because we know that rushed laws are bad laws.

    So conference, today we send a message to the Home Secretary:

    Yes, we will work with you.

    But we will also defend the rights and liberties of the country.

    There will be no blank cheque from the Liberal Democrats.

    I also want to say a word about the victims of that outrage in July.

    Hardly talked about these days.

    Victims who may have to wait 15 months for compensation.

    Many face expensive bills as they can no longer work.  Many require specialist treatment for the loss of limbs and need money to adapt their homes to cope with their new disability.

    This literally adds insult to inquiry.

    So today I call on the government to speed this up and may quick and fair payments.

    It is the very least we can do.

    But we don’t solve terrorism with new laws alone.

    You bury your head in the sand if you do not ask uncomfortable questions.

    So much of Labour’s response to the events of 7th July has focused on deportation that you would be forgiven for thinking the bombers were foreign.

    They weren’t.  They were British – born and bred.  Britain created them.  And they turned on us.

    But why?

    Britain is home to and enriched by the contributions of a hundred different cultures. In the aftermath of the bombings the vast majority of Britons refused to be divided.

    And that is a great tribute to the British tradition of tolerance.

    But we cannot ignore the upsurge in racially and religiously motivated violence that British Muslims have suffered in recent weeks.

    These communities are our communities.  We must stand united against those who seek to attack them.

    Neither can we ignore the deep anger that is felt across the Muslim community about the war in Iraq.

    Let me be clear. We should not be ashamed to point to that link. By doing so we  begin to understand the causes.  And if Mr Blair wants to understand terrorism and work with the Muslim community, he needs to acknowledge that link too.

    But there are other ways in which we can combat the long-term causes of division in our country.

    It often seems that, in this country, rather than creating a melting pot, we have created a mosaic society.  From a distance, it looks healthy enough.  Get up close, and you start to see the gaps.

    A society in which communities co-exist, yet lead parallel lives – a community of communities, too often unaware to the concerns and realities of their fellow Britons.

    Just because several communities live within one of our cities, it doesn’t mean that the city is multicultural.  Not if they live separate lives, in separate parts of the city, never meeting or mixing.

    Terrorism plays on these gaps in our society.

    On our ignorance of each other’s way of life.

    On our lack of confidence as a society about who we are and what we stand for.

    If we want to create a safer society then it is our job to address these problems.

    We must work to address the genuine concerns, which exist throughout our country, about the state of multiculturalism.

    We must make New Britons feel that this is their society. That it is a society in which they and their families will be able to fulfil their potential.  And we must in particular address the appalling deprivation experienced by second, third and fourth generation Muslims.

    We must, as a political party, do more to encourage greater participation in the political process.

    Following the July bombings I remember waking up and watching Breakfast TV. Three young Muslim men were being interviewed – they were passionate, articulate and enthusiastic. These people would make great champions of their communities.  As a party we must do more to get them involved – standing for councils, standing for Parliament and representing our country.

    So whilst we seek to try and unite our parties on terrorism, there is much that separates us from New Labour, and in particular Charles Clarke.

    In a recent interview, he said: “I don’t like liberals. I am not soft. I am neither woolly or liberal or a woolly liberal. I have never been liberal in my life. I don’t like liberal with a capital L or a small l” !!!

    Well Mr Clarke, I’ve got a message for you from conference. Here, we’ve always been liberals, we are liberals, and we always will be liberals. Big L, small, L medium sized L?

    And we’re proud to be liberal.

    But you know, I think perhaps he protests just a little too much. There’s a liberal in him somewhere, just fighting to get out.

    After all, he’s the one with the beard, not me.

    And as far as “soft liberal” goes. No way. I’m not having that.

    There is nothing soft about our liberalism, last year I argued that our liberalism was tough, tough Liberalism. Tough because our solutions are not quick fix solutions. Tough because are solutions can take longer, tough because they are harder on the individual it is aimed at but, and here’s the point – its more effective in the long run.

    And I get annoyed when the media ask if this left or right- when they ask about our future direction.  Our new policies for the future should come from one set of values alone- liberal values.

    We are 21st century liberals with ideas for the future and today I want to set out some new ideas on tackling crime in this country.  Ideas on Prison, Police and Respect.

    I believe now is the time for the most radical reform of prisons this country has ever seen. Prisons in this country are an national disgrace.

    Crumbling Victorian buildings.

    Cramped over crowded prison cells.

    The highest prison population in Europe.

    Already in this year alone 60 prisoners have committed suicide.

    Drugs are freely available.

    8,000 prisoners have serious mental health problems.

    And within 2 years of release, 59% of prisoners are back in court with another addition to their criminal record.

    The consequences of which mean more crimes and victims and more people whose lives should have been turned round by prison end up turning straight back into prison.

    So here’s a different way forward, a tough way forward and a liberal way forward. Getting prisoners out of the cells and into the classroom. Teaching them skills to read and write. Investing in training and proper backup and support on release.

    But I’d like to go further than just reforming the prisons themselves. A negative culture is built into the very bricks of our older jails.  Charles Clarke wants to re name them as community prisons- but you don’t get change with just a new name.

    Now is the time for these crumbling prisons to be knocked down and for new modern secure units to be built. So the next generation of young criminals experience a tough regime in these centres which will prevent them from committing crimes in the future and end the revolving door of re-offending.

    Education – rehabiliation- a liberal solution

    I believe these reforms could drastically cut crime in this country. But we also need a strong, well-resourced police force to tackle that as well. I believe we have one of the best police forces in the world. But lets as a party have an ambition to make it the very best in the world. Properly resourced, properly accountable and with the tools to tackle the problems from international terrorism and street vandalism at the same time.

    At the last election we talked about a technological revolution. Techno cop not paperclip cop – was all about giving police 21st century equipment to tackle 21st century crime.

    But I want to go further today and suggest that police become more accountable to local communities and become more open to the outside in meeting their difficult challenges.

    Two weeks ago I visited the NYPD – I’ll admit not natural ground for liberal thinking, but I was taken with the way the police in NY had been revitalised by bringing in officers with non-police backgrounds. Why is it that people that have run large hospitals, companies and charities, people who are experts in intelligence and investigation, are excluded from senior positions in the force?

    We need to move away from the position where all our senior police officers started as bobbies on the beat.

    We must encourage fresh ideas but let’s not restructure just for the sake of it. On Monday the Home Secretary announced plans to merge and abolish some of our police forces.

    We should be making them more local, not more distant. People want to have the confidence that police know the area, that Chief Constables will visit and know every town and village in their area.

    So we say keep the forces as they are but provide a national resources unit with senior officers and experts to provide back up in complex cases.

    So Home Office – hands of our local forces- lets keep them as they are.  We don’t want Clarke police, we want community police.  And that’s a liberal solution.

    Let’s go out and campaign to keep our local forces.

    But prison and police are about when its gone wrong.

    What about stopping crime in the first place?

    Labour’s solution is always the nanny solution. A new law here, a regulation there. A ban today and a dispersal order tomorrow. It’s an alphabet of mismanagement.

    A is for ASBO

    B is for banning

    C is for curfew

    D is for dispersal order

    But it’s all about E

    E for elections.

    The problems of anti social behaviour-  the respect agenda – are not going to be solved by focusing simply on the symptoms and not the causes.

    That’s why our support for ASBOS is limited as they are quick fix solutions.  Our policy of ASBOS plus- which links punishment with measures to tackle the problems is more effective

    And as for respect- well you don’t create respect by banning hoodies in town centres.

    That is Labour’s answer, not ours.

    Conference, we must do better.  We know that society has changed.  Longer working hours, more time spent commuting and sitting in front of the TV, less time with the kids, more families splitting up.

    We’re less likely to chat to the neighbours over the garden fence.  We’re more likely to put up a taller fence so we don’t have to talk to them in the first place.

    Conference, we didn’t come into politics to watch British society become a society of strangers.

    We need new ways of knitting communities together.  New ways of building bridges between individuals and between the generations.  And new ways of inspiring our young people and showing them that there is so much more to life.

    As Liberal Democrats have been good at talking about freedom from oppression, regulation and conformity.

    But we have not been good at articulating a vision of our ambitions for individuals and communities.

    Liberal Democrats have always understood that strong families and strong communities matter. This is our natural terroritory.  We should reclaim it.

    Charles Kennedy has asked Ed Davey, our education spokesman, to join with me in putting forward measures to link education and community to help tackle this. We will be reporting to the spring conference.

    But it strikes me there is a golden opportunity to re think the end of the academic year. At 16 all the focus and money we spend is aimed at passing exams.

    Imagine this. A scheme which allowed all 16 year olds the opportunity to spend a month away from home, in different communities, volunteering for one of hundreds of different projects. To take a 16 year old, perhaps for the first time, away from his estate or troublesome peer group could create enormous opportunities.

    Because we should remember that not every child has the opportunity of  a gap year

    And we should use sport to achieve much more. Our Olympic bid success can be used to help a generation. Imagine every child with access to a sports academy place learning team spirit and healthy activity.

    So conference, in the months ahead we have much to do. As the Conservatives tie themselves up in yet another attempt to find a new leader, it will be left to us to make the case for police reform to keep local forces working with the community at the heart of tackling crime.

    It will be us who will continue to demand a prison service fit for the 21st century, that goes beyond punishment and actually rehabilitates offenders.

    It will be us who will develop the long term solutions for tackling today’s problems with anti social behaviour – giving as well as expecting respect from the younger generation.

    And above all, as terrorism legislation begins its passage through parliament, it will be left to us to defend the values of justice and freedom – the values of our party – the values that make us proud to be Liberal Democrats.