UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2006

  • Menzies Campbell – 2006 Speech to Liberal Democrat Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Menzies Campbell, at the 2006 Liberal Democrat Spring Conference on 5th March 2006.

    Well I’m delighted to be here.

    For those of you don’t expect me to be here too long, I have a worrying statistic for you.

    The previous Ming dynasty lasted for 276 years.

    I want to begin by acknowledging Chris Huhne and Simon Hughes, and particularly their generosity since the announcement of the result last Thursday.

    Innovative thinkers, gifted communicators and tenacious campaigners – and that was just when they were having a go at me.

    God help the opposition.

    They are formidable opponents, tremendous allies and it’s great to have them on our team.

    To the members of the party, I want to say thank you for giving me this chance to serve.

    I want to celebrate the enormous contribution of my predecessor, Charles Kennedy.

    Under his leadership the Liberal Democrats have become a much more powerful political force.

    With more votes and more seats at Westminster.

    Ever-greater influence in Brussels.

    Running more major cities than ever before.

    Charles has been the most successful leader in the liberal tradition since Lloyd George.

    And why? Because this party is serious about politics and serious about government.

    We’ve shown how well we can perform in local government, from parish councils to great cities.

    We’ve shown how we influence legislation in Europe and in the House of Lords.

    We’ve shown we are the driving force in Scottish Government and in Welsh politics too.

    And now my task – our task – is clear.

    It is to lead this party from protest, into power.

    A few short weeks ago every London-based commentator wrote us off.

    But the political obituary writers were rudely interrupted.

    By the very people the political establishment often forgets – the voters.

    Willie Rennie’s spectacular triumph in Dunfermline and West Fife has shown us the way.

    All the big guns came to Dunfermline. Brown, Salmond, Cameron.

    “Dave” came up for a day trip.

    But in his first electoral test, he didn’t just lose his tie – he lost his shirt.

    Gordon Brown masterminded the whole Labour campaign.

    He smiled, and showed us his lighter side.

    But for all the smiles, the voters said thanks, but no thanks.

    It’s ironic.

    David Cameron and Gordon Brown.

    One desperate to be Tony Blair.

    The other desperate not to be Tony Blair.

    Me, I’m just happy to be myself.

    We’ve had enough of Blairism.

    The country is crying out for a principled liberal democratic alternative.

    A principled liberal alternative has never been more needed than when there are people being abused and held without trial at Guantanamo Bay.

    The Prime Minister calls it “an anomaly”.

    Let me address him directly; Prime Minister, this is not an anomaly…

    This is an outrage.

    But under this government, the “anomalies” are becoming the norm.

    Schemes to keep citizens under house arrest,

    Identity cards.

    A Labour party member – a Labour party member – Walter Wolfgang arrested as a terror suspect for daring to heckle at the Labour Party Conference, taken into custody for shouting ‘Rubbish’ at the Foreign Secretary.

    I hope they don’t introduce that in the House of Commons – otherwise I will be joining him.

    And members of the public like Maya Evans arrested outside Downing Street just for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq.

    Who knows what this government would have done with Siegfried Sassoon, or Wilfred Owen, if it had been in office during the First World War.

    Once Westminster was the cradle of democracy.

    Under this government it is becoming the graveyard of democracy.

    And I’m not just talking about terror.

    Look at every department of state and I will show you bureaucracy and regulation, an ever-greater threat to enterprise, diversity and freedom.

    Our alternative is clear:

    – a greener, fairer, decentralised and democratic Britain

    – a Britain at peace with itself at home and admired abroad.

    So what of David Cameron and his Conservative alternative?

    Well if you know your Scottish history, you’ll know that down the centuries the Campbells have always got the better of the Camerons.

    And now Mr Cameron tells us he’s a liberal.

    Some liberal.

    This is the David Cameron who has told his Euro MPs to abandon the mainstream and join the extremists.

    This is the David Cameron who was Michael Howard’s ideas man? The man in the shadows on Black Wednesday and the author of the Tory manifesto of 2005 – the most reactionary, unpleasant, right-wing manifesto of modern times.

    And this is the David Cameron who supported the Iraq war and has just sent William Hague off to Washington to restore links with the hard right of George W Bush’s Republican Party.

    Forget neo-cons. This is a real con.

    During the leadership election, there were fewer differences between the three of us than there are between David Cameron on Tuesdays and David Cameron on Wednesdays.

    But he’s right in one respect. He knows that this country is turning to liberalism. And that’s why he’s been trying to steal our clothes.

    But the voters know better. Why go for an imitation when you can vote Liberal Democrat and get the real thing?

    And what about the oldest double act in town? Tony and Gordon.

    Remember 1997? So much promise and so many promises. Things can only get better.

    Better? Who would have thought the heirs of John Smith’s devolution would have created the most over-centralised country in the Western world?

    Who would have thought the guardians of Robin Cook’s ethical foreign policy would have become the standard-bearers for an illegal war in Iraq?

    Who would have thought the opponents of apartheid would become the apologists for rendition?

    After that, things can only get better.

    As for Labour’s record on civil liberties, it’s quite simply a disgrace. This government never tires of invoking terrorism and security threats to justify illiberal laws. No-one denies the reality of the threats we face, at home or abroad.

    But the legislation proposed by the Government would not have prevented the tragic loss of life we saw in London last year.

    Identity cards would not have helped.

    Nor would locking up British citizens for 90 days without trial.

    The right to due process and freedom from summary arrest are part of this country’s  proud traditions.

    Indeed they are revered throughout the world.

    We support practical measures that can defeat the spectre of terrorism – not the erosion of this country’s values. We should be relentless in the pursuit of those who perpetrate terrorist acts and unswerving in our commitment to uphold justice. That’s why we’ve argued if this Government wants real justice it should allow telephone intercepts to be used as evidence in court, as in every other Western nation.

    In the leadership campaign I talked of the need to wage war on poverty. Labour’s record on social justice is a sorry one. Where you are from, what your parents did, the school you went to: these determine your success in life more than ever today.

    Shelter estimates that one in twelve children is likely to develop asthma, TB or bronchitis because of poor housing.

    Yes, you heard that right – one in twelve children.

    Over a million children live in slums in this country.

    A Britain which tolerates this is not a liberal Britain.

    One of the biggest scars on our society is child poverty. It is worse today than when I grew up in Glasgow.

    A Britain which tolerates this is not a liberal Britain.

    I want the Liberal Democrats to be the party of opportunity, aspiration and ambition.

    Labour has promised welfare reform, but failed to deliver.

    Our party has a proud record of reform – yes and delivery too.

    People saw the difference when Lloyd George ushered in the state pension 100 years ago, and when Beveridge built the welfare state forty years later. Today it again falls to the Liberal Democrats to reshape our welfare system, to build a society secure against poverty, and create a system founded on opportunity and responsibility with incentives to work and to save.

    Over last the eight weeks, people asked me what my leadership would mean.

    Those commentators who said I would simply tread water for a while are in for a rude shock.

    I joined the Liberals because I wanted to challenge the settled orthodoxies of British politics. I still do. I intend to lead a party willing to think anew. A party willing to develop fresh ideas. A party drawing on enduring Liberal Democrat principles but ready to apply them in a rapidly changing world.

    That need for fresh thinking is even more acute today.

    Look around you.

    The pace of social, economic and environmental change is without precedent. Consolidation and caution will not be an adequate response, either for our country or for our party. Liberal Democracy cannot be a struggle between those who wish to modernise and those who do not. To be a Liberal Democrat is to be a moderniser.

    You showed courage and willingness to think anew yesterday, when you backed Norman Lamb’s proposals to give our Post Offices a future. Take that policy and sell it on the doorstep to the British people in these critical May local government elections.

    I am determined that under my leadership the Liberal Democrats will be at the cutting edge of debate and new thinking. Our policies must address the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Over the next 6 months, and before we meet again in Brighton, I intend to set out in more detail key challenges and policy directions on the major issues of British politics: the economy, the environment, welfare reform, better government, education and skills, crime and social policy.

    Our policies need to be thoroughly tested. They will be subject to new levels of aggressive scrutiny.  Labour and the Conservatives realise we are their principal opponent in all parts of the country. They will turn their guns on us. And we must be ready.

    As Richard Kemp said yesterday, opposing is not enough; our policies have to be fit for government. And that means when we campaign for greater localism we must be clear what we mean.

    All three main parties now speak the language of localism. We have New Labour’s double speak about “double devolution”. And we have David Cameron’s miraculous conversion to decentralisation. But in my experience the voters have long memories.

    They remember the sustained attacks on local government by the Conservatives and Labour. They know that only Liberal Democrats are credible when we advocate the reduction of excessive Whitehall power. But there’s more work for us to do.

    Our public services today are not accountable to the local people they serve. And I agree with the conclusions of the Power Inquiry. Last week it said that we need a shift away from the executive back to Parliament, and from central to local government.

    It is absurd that if a hospital operation goes wrong the first democratically elected person in the chain of responsibility is the Secretary of State for Health. But we need to explain in clear terms how localised school and health systems would work. We need to explain how we would move from central targets to local accountability.

    We need to explain how we would maintain national standards, while creating a climate that would allow local diversity to flourish.

    Let us be clear – localism necessarily means that things will be done differently in different places. Policies that work for the people of Harrogate may not work for the people of Haringey. That is acceptable if in each area there is full democratic decision making, accountable to local people, and free from interference by Whitehall.

    On taxation, too, we need to think afresh. The Tax Commission was established by Charles Kennedy to do precisely that. Too much attention has focused on our manifesto policy for a new higher rate of income tax on earnings over £100,000 a year.

    We should avoid becoming fixated on one tax rate. You cannot create a valid tax policy based on a single tax rate any more than you can have a valid defence policy based on a single weapons system. Nor can you create a fairer society without a fairer tax system.

    Here are my three principles for a new, fairer tax regime.

    First, the tax burden must be lighter for those on lowest incomes.

    Second, the tax system must provide incentives to companies and individuals to behave in a way that sustains our environment.

    Third, the system must be simple – it must support enterprise and must not stifle it.

    Fairer taxation will build an economy that’s more efficient and a society that is more just. We’re not going to spend more, when we can spend more wisely.

    I see no case for an increase in the overall tax burden in the present economic cycle. And if we are looking for areas to save money let me suggest some – the Child Trust Fund, identity cards – even the Department of Trade and Industry.

    And there is another area where we must embrace reform – and that is Europe. I am a passionate European, and always have been; Europe as the guarantor of our peace and prosperity.

    But the old ways of the European Union are no longer working. The European Union is now become much larger and more diverse. It is intolerable that decisions that affect the lives of every one of us are taken by Ministers meeting in secret. The veil must be cast aside. True friends of the European Union are true friends of its reform.

    When we see the return of old-fashioned protectionism at the heart of Europe, we must be the liberal voice for free, fair and open trade without which the EU will not survive. I want to see the nations of Europe open to each other, yes…  and open to the products of the poorest countries in the world too.

    Our party has always fought economic nationalism – and must now do so again in Washington, Paris and Brussels.

    To maintain our credibility, as the only truly liberal force in British politics, will also require changes in the way we organise ourselves.

    We have just had the most successful general election for over eighty years. We must build on that success – as we become more successful, so too we must become more professional. We must now modernise our organisation to sustain our growing presence throughout the country.

    I’m going to ask a team of our leading campaigners to draw on the latest techniques to make sure we maintain our lead as the most innovative campaigning party in British politics. Raising money, selecting and training candidates and agents, building and maintaining local parties, involving and including our members, communicating through a 24-hour media are all areas where we need new ideas.

    I will reform the way we support women and ethnic minority candidates. I am going to set up a special trust fund to provide them with financial support. I am going to ask every single Parliamentarian to mentor a woman and ethnic minority candidates – to give them the support and skills they need to get and elected. How can we represent this country if we are not representative of this country?

    We now have a wealth of youthful talent in our party. For the brightest and best of this generation are Liberal Democrats. Our new frontbench team will be more than a match for the Conservatives and Labour Party.

    I will draw on the many strands of our liberal democracy – social, economic, personal and political – to mark out distinctive territory in British politics. There is no conflict between economic and social liberalism. You cannot deliver social justice without economic success – and discipline.

    We can build a fairer Britain, not the means-tested, target driven, over-centralised country run by Labour today.

    Our unity must not come at the price of clarity. We must be clear and consistent in all that we say and do. We are moving out of the comfort zone of opposition politics. We must make three-party politics a credible reality.

    Under New Labour, politics has become managerial, not inspirational. The Conservatives have taken the same course, shunning conviction and desperate only to emulate a value-free Downing Street.

    Britain does not need a third managerial party. It needs a distinctive liberal democratic party. I will lead this party with a clear vision of Liberal Democracy.

    To empower people, and not the state; to promote social mobility; to nurture the aspirations of all individuals; to shape events in the wider world; to cherish our shared environment; to defend the cause of liberty, and to promote the radical reform of Britain’s tired political system – and that means fair votes for Westminster.

    To be the leader of the Liberal Democrats is to be the trustee of a great party, with so much to be proud of – but with so many dazzling achievements still to come.

    Let us pledge today that where we see unfairness we will challenge it; where we see injustice we will attack it; and where we see prejudice we will confront it.

    Together we must campaign as never before. Together we must become the rallying point for a new liberal democratic Britain. Together we will win.

  • Lord Falconer – 2006 Speech on Legal Aid

    charliefalconer

    Below is the text of a speech made by Lord Falconer on 7th November 2006 at the Legal Aid Forum held at the Law Society, Chancery Lane, London.

    Introduction

    Thank you for asking me here today.

    It is the second time in almost as many weeks that I have addressed solicitors on the issue of legal aid.

    Rightly so. Dialogue’s very important. And we will listen

    Importance of Legal Aid

    Legal Aid is a vital issue; it is something we must get right.

    Society demands a legal aid system. It demands a system which aids the delivery for justice, which provides quality and which provides value for money. Since Attlee introduced legal aid nearly 60 years ago, it has provided millions of people with advice, support and representation. Many of whom would have been otherwise denied access to justice because they could not have afforded to pay.

    Free access to justice for those who need legal aid is as integral to the Welfare State as the NHS or state education.

    Without legal aid for anyone charged with a significant criminal offence, the criminal justice system could not function, and could not function fairly.

    Without legal aid for family law – critical decisions around whether or not, for example a child should be taken into care could not be properly made.

    Without legal aid the most socially excluded would not get advice and support for welfare, debt, relationship or housing 7problems.

    Legal aid provides equality in the justice system.

    Commitment to principles

    This is why, in the UK, we should be proud of our legal aid system – proud but determined to ensure it continues to reach the people who need it

    This is why the Government would never countenance the withdrawal of legal aid.

    We remain committed to the principles of social justice. They are as essential now as they were for Attlee. And we remain as committed to safeguarding access to justice.

    This is why I asked Lord Carter to look at how legal services were procured by Legal Aid authorities, particularly with regard to criminal defence, so that we have a sustainable future that can ensure continued, equitable, access to justice.

    That is why we must go forward. Forward to a sustainable future that not only hangs on price, but also – and more importantly – the quality of legal aid services that are delivered.

    I want to take the opportunity to reiterate some of the comments I made at the annual conference, and explain why there has been no backtracking, why I think it is important we implement the reforms and why I think it is vital that we work together

    Some of what I say may be familiar to you – I make no apology for that. I say it because I believe it to be right, because I believe that the direction set by Carter is the right one and because I believe the public need a legal aid system that delivers for those who need to advice and representation and that represents value for money for the tax-payer.

    This is a timely event. It is critical for the provision of legal aid services that we resolve the issues that we currently face and that we work effectively together. But also that we think about how it currently works in practice

    We expect to publish our formal response to the consultation in the coming weeks.

    And the government has already indicated we will accept Lord Carter’s plan as a blueprint for reform. The destination for legal aid will be best-value tendering, which has quality at its centre.

    Market-based reform is the way forward for legal aid.

    Because it seeks to ensure the money is targeted as much as possible on those who need it.

    However, I accept that some aspects of Lord Carter’s proposals may need refinement – for example, for the period before the price element of best value competition is introduced.

    There is no retreat in our position for reform – we stand by the principles of fixed and graduated fees, as a prelude to competition, in all areas of legal aid – civil, family, immigration, and criminal. What we do accept is that these need to be appropriate to the nature of the work. We want providers to be able to do the most effective job and to have incentives related to this.

    So we are looking afresh at the detail of our proposals on family legal aid. Many of the responses we received were specifically on this area. And I know it is something that Vera Baird was keen to address, after encountering significant concern over the family proposals during her summer tour to meet you and many others across the country.

    So we are acting responsibly and looking again at the family proposals. It is a sign that the consultation is working, that it is doing what it is meant to.

    We have listened and we are re-evaluating some of the key elements.

    But we are not retreating from implementing the principles of Carter.

    I am also acutely aware, following the Law Society Annual Conference of some other key issues which were raised by the delegates in the Q+A. This is how I understand them, and forgive me if this is not the case;

    Firstly, there is not enough money.

    Secondly, that the reforms will lead to over 800 firms going out of business;

    and thirdly, that as a result of the reform it will be increasingly hard to attract lawyers to do legal aid work.

    Serious and real concerns to many of you. But let me, if you’ll permit, address those concerns and suggest that all is not as bleak as it perhaps seems.

    Not enough money

    Firstly, not enough money. There is no extra money for legal aid. There is no bottomless pot. If I had the money I would give it to Legal Aid.

    This Government has increased spending on public services dramatically over the last 10 years. And yet increased expenditure has also gone hand in hand, rightly, with increased efficiencies. The amount of money spent on legal aid has risen to more than £2billion during this period – which represents around a 37% increase in spending, an increase which compares favourably with all other public services, possibly bar health.

    But there are finite resources for legal aid – just as for all public services -and those resources must be judged against other priority areas like health and education.

    And despite the substantial investment over the past 10 years, the procurement of publicly funded legal advice and representation has not kept up with the pace of change. The system has grown organically rather than in a systematic way. Reform is long overdue – legal aid has not always provided a fair deal.

    Above all it has not always been fair for vulnerable people. There has been a disproportionate growth in the criminal legal aid spend. And this is to the detriment of civil advice – advice which helps us tackle poverty and social exclusion. The balance must be redressed.

    The taxpayer needs a fairer deal. The overall cost of legal aid has grown considerably in recent years. If we are going to justify this pressure on the public purse, we have to ensure that all of the money is being spent on the right things and that it is spent well.

    But in all of this we want to ensure that legal aid rates continue to provide respectable remuneration for hard working practitioners. There needs to be a network of provision.

    Legal aid spending in context

    £2 billion is a considerable amount spent on legal aid – considerably more in fact than in any other comparable jurisdiction – it is simply not the case that under-funding is the problem. The problem is that this money could be more effectively utilised. What is required is for us to find efficiencies in the procurement system that can enable us to continue to deliver a world-class service. We also need to recognise that other parts of the system need to become more efficient as well.

    There is simply no extra money for legal aid. We must operate within these parameters.

    Like the provision of other mainstream public services, legal advice needs to deliver for the public. And this is more than delivering a high quality service to a client – this is delivering value-for-money for the taxpayer.

    And this must come, in part, from a move to a market based approach.

    A move I believe the Carter reforms will initiate.

    A move I am committed to making work.

    2. Profitability levels and firms being driven out of business

    A great deal of concern has also been raised regarding the financial viability of the proposals. Concern that the timing of the introduction of fixed prices- before the efficiencies of a new system are able to reap benefit will put considerable pressure on businesses. And concern that profitability will be low even when the efficiencies are in place.

    Dealing firstly with the timing of introducing fixed prices.

    We are well aware of the pressure this may bring. And I assure you we are taking a long hard look at the sequencing of the reforms.

    We remain eager to enter into a constructive discussion to find a workable arrangement – But finding more money is not a feasible nor constructive argument.

    The second and more serious concern is the long term impact the reform will have.

    I very much realise that to move from present arrangements to price competition, with interim fixed and graduated fees, will mean a great deal of change for suppliers in all areas of legal aid. But I accept Lord Carter’s view that such change is desirable, indeed it is essential, if we are to have a sustainable and increasingly effective supply base. Things simply cannot go on as they are.

    There must be a move to the market. A move to a market based approach which will lead to increased efficiencies.

    Fixed and graduated pricing rewards efficiency. Marketisation allows efficient suppliers to deliver and receive increased volumes of work.

    Lord Carter’s model for best value tendering will free suppliers who meet the quality threshold to develop their own means of delivering products or services in response to external incentives and pressures. This means that where good quality services are costly to provide, prices will be higher, and where services are relatively inexpensive to provide, prices will be lower. The price element of competition means that it is the practitioners, in effect, who will therefore set the prices. This will ultimately result in good quality efficient suppliers earning a reasonable level of profit.

    The issue is how many solicitors there are undertaking legal aid work. The market will dictate the number of solicitors who can undertake legal aid and the market will reward those solicitors who deliver efficiently. It is through supply and demand that efficiencies will be found, as solicitors find new and efficient ways of working. It is these efficiencies that are found that will, I believe, safeguard the future of solicitors providing legal aid services.

    And this leads to the third area of concern; that these reforms will lead to a diminishing number of solicitors prepared to undertake legal aid work.

    Dearth of Solicitors

    I fully accept that we cannot provide those who need help with that help unless the profession can continue to attract people to do legally aided work.

    The move to the market will provide fresh incentives for solicitors. The market will reward the efficient solicitor of quality, not drive them away. And the reforms we are proposing will mean that solicitors can all compete on an equal footing, regardless of the size of their firm.

    I firmly believe that there will be opportunity for firms, even in large rural or black and ethnic minority areas to increase their profitability.

    I truly believe that the reforms are workable and achievable. Incentives are there. There are practitioners out there – indeed very likely some here today- who will be able to take advantage of the opportunities they give, in a way that is good for the client, good for the legal aid system, good for the taxpayer, and good for practitioners.

    But to achieve this we must work together to ensure that we continue to have a supplier base that can meet the needs of those who require advice and represent particularly those who are socially excluded.

    It is this desire to make sure that everyone, and in particular the most vulnerable of our society, has recourse to high quality legal aid that underpins the importance of a sustainable and effective legal aid system.

    Peer review

    You, the providers, will ensure that quality is at the heart of the legal aid framework. Lord Carter proposed that the responsibility of quality assurance – through a process of peer review – should be passed to the Law Society.

    Peer review by the Law Society will ensure that only quality-assured providers will be able to undertake legal aid work. This is one of the most important aspects of the proposals. Peer review has been almost universally welcomed and, I am confident that it will guard the public against any diminution in the quality of legal advice.

    However, we also recognise that such radical reform will ostensibly require a change in the way practitioners operate.

    That is why the LSC are currently working with the Law Society to sort out the details of the grant programmes with the Law Society. Grant programmes which will be used to help provide specialist assistance in restructuring your firms or to invest in modernising your IT. The Law Society has an important role to play in assisting firms throughout this transitional period.

    Consultation

    A large number of individual legal aid practitioners – as well as the Law Society itself – contributed formally by submitting written responses to the proposals. The consultation closed on 12 October and I would like to extend my thanks to the Law Society and its members for engaging fully in the process.

    We are considering the comments of everyone who has responded. We will not shy away from difficult decisions, nor will we be afraid to look again at proposals if we believe them to be wrong.

    Conclusion

    And it is now right that we go forward. That we go forward with the principles of Carter leading the way.

    A market based approach will ensure sustainability.

    It will ensure value for money for the taxpayer. It will ensure a fair deal for all.

    But it will not enforce a one size fits all solution. There will be differences between an urban and a rural practice, for example.

    We want to get these reforms right, for all our society, but particularly for those who most need it.

    We need to get these reforms right.

    And we need to get these reforms underway. We must take steps over the coming months to ensure the long term viability of the system – a system I know we all believe passionately should exist.

    But we need your involvement. If we are to achieve this we want to work with you, to ensure that we get this right.

    My vision is for a legal services market that is reflective and responsive to modern society. A legal system that is suitable for the modern democratic world we live in. A legal services market which has at its core a profession driven by the need of its clients and in so doing holding public confidence.

    The current legal aid system needs reform. It needs an overhaul. We are committed to moving forward. We are committed to moving to the market. My hope is for a legal aid system which is fair to the vulnerable, fair to taxpayers, fair to defendants, and fair to practitioners.

    A system we need your help to implement.

  • Mark Isherwood – 2006 Speech on Fuel Poverty

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mark Isherwood on 10th January 2006 on fuel poverty.

    The Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru states that it is reasonable to expect everyone to live in a safe, warm, affordable, and comfortable home. However, there are growing signs that current housing policy is failing to deliver that.

    Wales has the oldest housing stock of any western European nation, with 8.5 per cent of the Welsh housing stock in home ownership classified as unfit. The Council of Mortgage Lenders reports that one in two of the poorest households live in their own homes and 72 per cent of Welsh properties that are officially designated as unfit are owner-occupied. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation tells us that three in five pensioners on low incomes in Wales are homeowners.

    National Energy Action states that, across north Wales, 34,000 pensioners are on low incomes or claiming pension credit and 13.8 per cent of households in Wales live in fuel poverty. Each year, there are over 400 excess winter deaths in north Wales and, last winter, the number of excess winter deaths was the highest for five years, with 90 per cent of these occurring in the pensioner population.

    I was pleased to support the warm homes campaign and to visit a beneficiary of the home energy efficiency scheme in Kinmel Bay a few weeks ago. However, it is clear that much more needs to be done to target those most at risk from fuel poverty. Despite reports of a reduction in fuel poverty numbers since 1998, as we have heard, Energy Watch states that the true figure is likely to be significantly higher following the huge energy price hikes of the past two years.

    Recent research carried out by National Energy Action Wales and the National Right to Fuel Campaign suggest that fuel poverty may have increased by some 80 per cent between 2003 and 2005, affecting up to 304,000 people in Wales.

    Fuel poverty is a major cause of illness. Cold, damp housing causes a wide range of circulatory and respiratory conditions and is a key factor in social isolation. Children living in fuel poverty are more likely to miss school as a result of cold-related illness and to have difficulty finding places to study.

    There is no better example of that than the Finnegan family in Flintshire. All those responsible, and all those who have looked the other way, should hang their heads in shame. Help the Aged in Wales says that that 1,800 older people died of cold-related illnesses last winter. That was the third year in a row of increases in winter deaths among the over-65s.

    These are all reasons for tabling amendment 1. A national strategy will be meaningless without measures for assisting the people identified, and that situation is so often the case with this Welsh Assembly Government. Motions without measures are like hot air balloons without tethers—floating off into the ether, never to be seen again. This is the Government of policy-led evidence—the Government that puts policy before planning, preparation and pricing; trying to please everyone, but delivering for no-one.

    Such measures should, therefore, acknowledge the call by Help the Aged in Wales for research into all the circumstances that could be contributing to premature winter deaths, including behaviour on cultural issues, availability of and access to heating grants and schemes, health and nutrition.

    Only then can we deliver a focused strategy to tackle fuel poverty. As Citizens Advice Cymru states, geographical factors must also be taken into account so that fuel poverty can be tackled evenly across Wales, and to ensure that people outside easily identifiable groups and Communities First areas are not the last ones to be helped.

    The Welsh housing quality standard states that all dwellings must be capable of being adequately heated at an affordable cost. However, as National Energy Action states, this commitment requires more than rhetoric.

    It requires adequate resources and effective enforcement. For that reason, amendment 2 expresses concern at the slow progress towards achieving the Welsh housing quality standard by 2012. As the Council of Mortgage Lenders Cymru has stated, sadly, to date, the politics and the process have got firmly in the way of reality. The question is: for how much longer will the council tenants of Wales get less than they deserve and need?

    You will recall that I spoke on the budget and severely criticised this very factor decisively and categorically. There is a housing crisis in Wales, and it has been engineered by you during your period in Government.

    I will move on to amendments 3 and 4, which relate to progress on the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 target, introduced on a voluntary basis by the last Conservative Government. In the last Labour Government, a Labour Member of Parliament tabled a backbench motion to introduce statutory targets, with all-party backing, but pressure from 10 Downing Street forced him to withdraw the motion.

    However, in Scotland, statutory reporting has been introduced by threatening court action. I urge the Welsh Assembly Government to put its money where its mouth is and to use the powers that it has to implement similar measures here. Let us show that we really mean what we say.

     

    Mae Sefydliad Tai Siartredig Cymru’n datgan ei bod yn rhesymol disgwyl bod pawb yn gallu byw mewn cartref diogel, cynnes, fforddiadwy a chyfforddus. Fodd bynnag, gwelir arwyddion cynyddol nad yw’r polisi tai cyfredol yn llwyddo i gyflawni hynny. Mae stoc dai hynaf unrhyw genedl yng ngorllewin Ewrop i’w chael yng Nghymru, gydag 8.5 y cant o stoc dai Cymru sy’n gartrefi’n cael ei chyfrif yn anaddas i fyw ynddynt.

    Yn ôl Cyngor y Benthycwyr Morgais mae un o bob dau o’r teuluoedd tlotaf yn byw yn eu cartrefi eu hunain ac mae 72 y cant o eiddo Cymru sydd wedi eu dynodi’n anaddas i fyw ynddynt yn gartrefi i’w perchenogion. Dywed Sefydliad Joseph Rowntree wrthym fod tri o bob pum pensiynwr ar incwm isel yng Nghymru yn berchen ar eu cartref eu hunain.

    Yn ôl National Energy Action, ledled y Gogledd, mae 34,000 o bensiynwyr ar incwm isel neu’n hawlio credyd pensiwn ac mae 13.8 y cant o deuluoedd yng Nghymru’n byw mewn tlodi tanwydd. Bob blwyddyn, ceir dros 400 o farwolaethau gaeaf ychwanegol yn y Gogledd ac, yn ystod y gaeaf diwethaf, y ffigur ar gyfer marwolaethau gaeaf ychwanegol oedd yr uchaf a welwyd mewn pum mlynedd, gyda 90 y cant o’r rhain yn digwydd ymhlith pensiynwyr.

    Yr oeddwn yn falch o gael cefnogi’r ymgyrch cartrefi cynnes ac o ymweld ag un o fuddiolwyr y cynllun effeithlonrwydd ynni cartref ym Mae Cinmel ychydig wythnosau yn ôl. Fodd bynnag, mae’n amlwg bod llawer iawn o waith i’w wneud eto i dargedu’r rhai sydd yn y perygl mwyaf o dlodi tanwydd.

    Er gwaethaf adroddiadau ar ostyngiad yn y nifer sy’n byw mewn tlodi tanwydd ers 1998, fel y clywsom, yn ôl Golwg ar Ynni mae’r gwir ffigur yn debygol o fod yn sylweddol uwch yn dilyn y cynnydd enfawr mewn pris tanwydd yn ystod y ddwy flynedd diwethaf.

    Mae ymchwil diweddar a gynhaliwyd gan National Energy Action Cymru a’r Ymgyrch Genedlaethol dros Hawl i Danwydd yn awgrymu y gall tlodi tanwydd fod wedi cynyddu oddeutu 80 y cant rhwng 2003 a 2005, gan effeithio ar hyd at 304,000 o bobl yng Nghymru.

    Tlodi tanwydd yw un o brif achosion salwch. Mae cartrefi oer a llaith yn achosi pob math o gyflyrau cylchredol a resbiradol ac mae’n un o ffactorau allweddol arwahanrwydd cymdeithasol. Mae plant sy’n byw mewn tlodi tanwydd yn fwy tebygol o golli ysgol o ganlyniad i salwch a achosir gan oerfel a’i chael yn anodd dod o hyd i rywle i astudio.

    Ni cheir enghraifft well o hyn na’r teulu Finnegan yn Sir y Fflint. Dylai pawb sy’n gyfrifol a phawb sydd wedi edrych i’r cyfeiriad arall, wrido gan gywilydd. Dywed Help the Aged yng Nghymru fod 1,800 o bobl hyn wedi marw o ganlyniad i salwch a achosir gan oerfel y gaeaf diwethaf. Dyna’r trydydd gaeaf yn olynol lle gwelwyd cynnydd mewn marwolaethau gaeaf ymhlith pobl dros 65 oed.

    Mae’r rhain i gyd yn rhesymau dros gynnig gwelliant 1. Bydd strategaeth genedlaethol yn ddiystyr heb fesurau i gynorthwyo’r bobl sydd mewn angen, a dyna’r sefyllfa’n aml yn achos Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru heddiw. Mae cynigion heb fesurau fel balwns awyr poeth heb dennyn—maent yn codi i’r entrychion, ac yn diflannu am byth.

    Dyma Lywodraeth y dystiolaeth a arweinir gan bolisi—y Llywodraeth sy’n rhoi polisi o flaen cynllunio, paratoi a phrisio; ceisio plesio pawb, ond yn cyflawni dim i neb.

    Dylai mesurau o’r fath, felly, gydnabod galwad Help the Aged yng Nghymru am ymchwil i’r holl amgylchiadau a all fod yn cyfrannu at farwolaethau gaeaf cynamserol, gan gynnwys ymddygiad yng nghyswllt materion diwylliannol, argaeledd a mynediad at grantiau a chynlluniau gwresogi, iechyd a maeth.

    Dim ond wedyn y gallwn ni gyflawni strategaeth sy’n canolbwyntio ar fynd i’r afael â thlodi tanwydd. Fel y dywed Cyngor ar Bopeth Cymru, rhaid hefyd ystyried ffactorau daearyddol i sicrhau bod modd mynd i’r afael â thlodi tanwydd yn yr un ffordd ledled Cymru, a sicrhau nad y bobl sydd y tu allan i grwpiau amlwg ac ardaloedd Cymunedau yn Gyntaf yw’r rhai olaf i dderbyn cymorth.

    Yn ôl safon ansawdd tai Cymru rhaid bod modd cynhesu pob annedd yn ddigonol a hynny am gost fforddiadwy. Fodd bynnag, dywed National Energy Action bod angen mwy na rhethreg i gyflawni’r ymrwymiad hwn.

    Mae’n gofyn am adnoddau digonol a gorfodi effeithiol. Oherwydd hynny, mae gwelliant 2 yn mynegi pryder ynghylch y cynnydd araf a wneir tuag at gyflawni safon ansawdd tai Cymru erbyn 2012. Fel y dywedodd Cyngor Benthycwyr Morgais Cymru, yn anffodus, hyd yma, mae gwleidyddiaeth a’r broses wedi sefyll yn ffordd realaeth. Y cwestiwn yw: am faint o amser eto y bydd tenantiaid cynghorau Cymru’n gorfod byw â llai na’u haeddiant a’u hangen?

    Byddwch yn cofio imi lefaru ar y gyllideb a beirniadu’n hallt yr union ffactor hwn yn bendant ac yn ddiamwys. Mae gennym argyfwng tai yng Nghymru, ac mae wedi’i achosi gennych chi yn ystod eich cyfnod mewn grym.

    Yr wyf am symud ymlaen at welliannau 3 a 4, sy’n cyfeirio at y cynnydd i gwrdd â tharged Deddf Cadwraeth Ynni Cartref 1995, a gyflwynwyd ar sail wirfoddol gan y Llywodraeth Geidwadol ddiwethaf. Yn ystod cyfnod y Llywodraeth Lafur ddiwethaf, cyflwynodd Aelod Seneddol Llafur fesur o’r meinciau cefn i gyflwyno targedau statudol, gyda chefnogaeth pob plaid, ond yn dilyn pwysau o gyfeiriad 10 Downing Street fe’i gorfodwyd i dynnu’r cynnig yn ôl. Fodd bynnag, yn yr Alban, bygythiwyd camau cyfreithiol er mwyn cyflwyno trefn adrodd statudol. Erfyniaf ar Lywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru i fod gystal â’i gair a defnyddio’r pwerau sydd ar gael iddi i gyflwyno mesurau tebyg yma. Gadewch inni ddangos ein bod o ddifrif ynglyn â’r hyn yr ydym yn ei ddweud.

  • David Cameron – 2006 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, to the 2006 Conservative Party Conference.

    It’s a huge honour to be standing before you as leader of the Conservative Party.

    And first of all I want to thank you for the support you’ve given me in the past ten months.

    It’s been a time of great change.

    I’m already on my second leader of the Liberal Democrats.

    Before long I’ll be on to my second Labour Prime Minister.

    Soon I’ll be the longest-serving leader of a major British political party.

    I wanted this job for a very simple reason.

    I love this country.

    I have great ambitions for our future.

    And I want the Party I love…

    …to serve the country I love…

    …in helping Britain be the best that it can.

    We need to change in order to have that chance.

    You cannot shape the future if you’re stuck in the past.

    You knew that.

    And that’s why you voted for change.

    I believe we can all be proud of what we’ve achieved these past ten months.

    People looking at us with new interest.

    25,000 new members.

    And in our first electoral test, in the local elections, we won forty per cent of the vote.

    Let’s hear it for our fantastic local councillors who worked so hard and won so well.

    Tony Blair says it’s all style and no substance.

    In fact he wrote me a letter about it.

    Dear Kettle…

    You’re black.

    Signed, Pot.

    What a nerve that man has got.

    In the whole of the last year, there is only one substantial thing that the Labour Party has achieved for our country.

    Their education reforms.

    Right now, across the country, trust schools are being prepared with greater freedoms to teach children the way teachers and parents want.

    The only reason – the only reason – that’s happening is because the Conservative Party did the right thing and took the legislation through the House of Commons.

    I’m proud of that – proud of us, for putting the future of our children before party politics.

    Another sign of our changing fortunes is the impressive array of speakers who have come to join us at our conference this year.

    SENATOR McCAIN

    And I’d like to pay a special tribute to one in particular.

    He’s a man who knows about leadership.

    He’s endured hardship that’s unimaginable to many of us here.

    And he’s fought battles for principles that we all admire.

    Who knows what the future may hold?

    But John, I for one would be proud to see you – a great American and a great friend to Britain – as leader of the free world.

    COLLEAGUES

    I’d also like to pay tribute to my colleagues who have spoken already today.

    A year ago, David Davis and I were rivals.

    Today we’re partners.

    He has given me the most fantastic support over these past ten months.

    Ideas, energy, advice.

    He has not only helped bring this Party together…

    …he has helped take our Party in the right direction, and I want to thank him for all he’s done.

    And I’m proud to work with another man who is a brave politician, a wise counsellor and a great Conservative.

    A man who would be a Foreign Secretary that this country could be truly proud of: William Hague.

    Then there’s Francis.

    I know Francis likes to pretend that everything is doom and gloom.

    He’s always talking about the mountain we have to climb.

    He’s so gloomy, he makes Gordon Brown look like a ray of sunshine.

    But Francis, you’re doing a great job.

    LABOUR SPLITS AND BACKSTABBING

    Of course Francis has long told us to avoid the point-scoring and name-calling that can give politics such a bad name.

    He’s right.

    But we didn’t bargain on the Labour Party.

    First Gordon said he could never trust Tony again, then Tony called Gordon a blackmailer.

    Charles said Gordon was stupid, then John popped up and said no, Tony was stupid.

    Charles called Gordon a deluded control freak.

    And a member of the Cabinet said “it would be an absolute effing disaster” if Gordon got to No.10.

    That was just the husbands.

    When I look at these Labour ministers I ask myself how much time they’re worrying about their own jobs…

    …and how much time they’re worrying about NHS, about crime, about our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    You only have to ask the question to know what the answer is.

    And there are months more of it still to come.

    Months of infighting, instability, indecision, jockeying for position…

    They said it would be a “stable and orderly transition.”

    Yeah, right.

    Like they said “24 hours to save the NHS”, “education education education.”

    These are the things they should be fighting for, but they’re too busy fighting each other.

    OUR RESPONSIBILITY

    So we have a great responsibility.

    To set out a clear, united and credible alternative.

    With some elections, you just know the result before a single vote has been cast.

    We were never going to win in 1997.

    People wanted change.

    I remember it well.

    I fought Stafford.

    And Stafford fought back.

    Labour were never going to win in 1983 when they offered Michael Foot as Prime Minister.

    Other elections are wide open.

    And the next election will be one of those.

    But we will not win, nor deserve to win, without a clear purpose and a proper plan.

    We must learn from Labour’s big mistake.

    When Tony Blair won his first election, he had only one clear purpose: to win a second term.

    Even now he says that the only legacy – the only legacy – that really matters to him is Labour winning a fourth term.

    Back in 1997, he had no proper plan.

    No real understanding of how to make change happen.

    He had good intentions.

    But he hadn’t worked out how to deliver them.

    So New Labour went round and round in circles.

    They abolished grant maintained schools – and now they’re trying to recreate them.

    They reversed our NHS reforms – and now they’re trying to bring them back.

    Road building – cancelled, then reinstated.

    They wasted time, wasted money, wasted the country’s goodwill.

    Only now, after nine years, does Tony Blair seem clear about his purpose.

    Well I’m sorry Mr Blair.

    That’s nine years too late.

    THIS WEEK

    We won’t make the same mistake.

    On Wednesday, the last day of our conference, I want to talk in detail about the important issues we face as a nation – and what our response will be.

    But today, on this first day of our conference, I’d like to set the scene for our discussions this week.

    I want to explain how we will arrive at the next election knowing exactly what we want to do, and how we’re going to do it.

    My argument is based on a simple analogy.

    Getting ready for the responsibility of government is like building a house together.

    Think of it in three stages.

    First you prepare the ground.

    Then you lay the foundations.

    And then, finally, brick by brick, you build your house.

    PREPARING THE GROUND

    These last ten months, we have been preparing the ground.

    Our Party’s history tells us the ground on which political success is built.

    It is the centre ground.

    Not the bog of political compromise.

    Not the ideological wilderness, out on the fringes of debate.

    But the solid ground where people are.

    The centre ground is where you find the concerns, the hopes and the dreams of most people and families in this country.

    In 1979, they wanted a government to tame the unions, rescue our economy and restore Britain’s pride.

    Margaret Thatcher offered precisely that alternative.

    And this Party can forever take pride in her magnificent achievements.

    Today, people want different things.

    The priorities are different.

    Safer streets.

    Schools that teach.

    A better quality of life.

    Better treatment for carers.

    That’s what people are talking about today.

    But for too long, we were having a different conversation.

    Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most.

    While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life – we were banging on about Europe.

    As they worried about standards in thousands of secondary schools, we obsessed about a handful more grammar schools.

    As rising expectations demanded a better NHS for everyone, we put our faith in opt-outs for a few.

    While people wanted, more than anything, stability and low mortgage rates, the first thing we talked about was tax cuts.

    For years, this country wanted – desperately needed – a sensible centre-right party to sort things out in a sensible way.

    Well, that’s what we are today.

    In these past ten months we have moved back to the ground on which this Party’s success has always been built.

    The centre ground of British politics.

    And that is where we will stay.

    LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS – SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

    But preparing the ground is just the first stage.

    Now we must show what we will build there.

    A strong government needs strong foundations.

    And I want us to lay those foundations this week.

    That’s not about individual policies.

    It is about a vision of the Britain we want to see.

    A Britain where we do not just ask what government can do.

    We ask what people can do, what society can do.

    A Britain where we stop thinking you can pass laws to make people good.

    And start realising that we are all in this together.

    Social responsibility – that is the essence of liberal Conservatism.

    That is the idea I want us to explain this week.

    That is what we stand for.

    That is what we’re fighting for.

    That is the Britain we want to build.

    Take fighting crime.

    It is not just a state responsibility.

    It is a social responsibility.

    Let’s not pretend that all we need is tough talk and tough laws to bring safety to our streets.

    Of course the state must play its part.

    That’s why we’re developing a programme of radical police reform.

    That’s why we want to build more prisons and reform the ones we’ve got, so they help reduce re-offending instead of encouraging it.

    And that’s why we’ll invest in drug rehabilitation, so we help addicts get clean and stay clean, instead of living a life of crime to feed their habit.

    But that is not the end of the story.

    It is just the start.

    We need parents to bring up their children with the right values.

    We need schools to be places of discipline and order.

    We need to stand up for civilised values in public places.

    We need to design crime out of the housing estates of the future.

    We’ve got to stop selling alcohol to children.

    We need the music industry to understand that profiting from violent and homophobic words and images is morally wrong and socially unacceptable.

    But more than this, we need people, families, communities, businesses to step up to the plate and understand that it’s not just about stopping the bad things…

    …it’s about actively doing the good things.

    Not waiting for the state to do it all, but taking responsibility, making a difference, saying loudly and proudly: this is my country, this is my community: I will play my part.

    That is social responsibility.

    That is our idea.

    So I want us to be the champions of a new spirit of social responsibility in this land.

    A new spirit of social responsibility that will succeed for Britain where Labour’s outdated state responsibility has failed.

    LABOUR’S APPROACH

    Think of any issue – not just crime – and then think of Labour’s response.

    This Government’s way of doing things – the old way of doing things – is so familiar, and so depressing.

    Ministers hold a summit.

    They announce an eye-catching initiative.

    A five-year plan.

    Gordon Brown generously finds the money for it.

    The money gets a headline, but no-one knows what to do with it.

    So they create a unit in the Cabinet Office.

    A task force is set up.

    Regional co-ordinators are appointed.

    Gordon Brown sets them targets – after all, it is his money.

    Pilot schemes are launched.

    The pilot schemes are rolled out across the country.

    They are evaluated.

    Then revised, re-organised and re-launched.

    And then finally, once the reality dawns that the only people to benefit are the lawyers, accountants and consultants of Labour’s quango army…

    …with a pathetic whimper – but no hint of an apology – the whole thing is just abandoned.

    We’ve seen too much of this in the past nine years.

    Headline after headline but absolutely no follow-through.

    It is a story of ignorance, incompetence, arrogance.

    A story of wasted billions – and disappointed millions.

    Somewhere out there, there is a place where Blair and Brown will never go.

    It’s dark.

    It’s depressing.

    It’s haunted by the failures of nine years of centralisation, gimmick and spin.

    It is the graveyard of initiatives, where you’ll find the e-University that died a death,

    the drugs czar that came and went…

    …the Individual Learning Accounts that collapsed in fraud and waste, the tax credits that were paid and reclaimed…

    …the Connexions service that flopped, the Strategic Health Authorities that were dropped…

    …the marching of yobs to the hole in the wall; the night courts that never happened at all.

    And still they keep coming, those hubristic monuments to big government, the living dead that walk the well-trodden path from Downing Street and the Treasury to New Labour’s graveyard of initiatives.

    The NHS computer: delayed, disorganised, a £20 billion shambles.

    Forced police mergers: the direct opposite of the community policing we need.

    And then the perfect example.

    ID cards.

    When a half-way competent government would be protecting our security by controlling our borders…

    …these Labour ministers are pressing ahead with their vast white elephant, their plastic poll tax, twenty Millennium Domes rolled into one giant catastrophe in the making.

    They’ve given up trying to find a good reason for it.

    Last week Tony Blair said that ID cards would help control immigration, when new immigrants won’t even have them.

    Does he even know what’s going on in his Government?

    ID cards are wrong, they’re a waste of money, and we will abolish them.

    These last nine years have been the story of a Government which instinctively believes, whatever it says, that everything is the state’s responsibility.

    We believe in social responsibility.

    Because there is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same thing as the state.

    THE BRITAIN WE WANT TO SEE

    So let us define this week the kind of Britain we want to see.

    And let us show how our idea – social responsibility…

    …not Labour’s idea – state responsibility…

    …is the right response to the challenges Britain faces.

    GLOBALISATION, WELL-BEING, THE ENVIRONMENT

    We know that in the age of globalisation, in the face of fast-moving economic change, people want their government to provide security.

    We know that the end of the traditional 9 to 5 job can make life tough for families, and people look to their government for answers.

    And we know that in the race against time to tackle climate change and protect the environment, people expect their government to show leadership.

    On all these challenges, Labour’s first response is to regulate business, hoping to offer protection.

    It may sound attractive.

    But there are unintended consequences.

    Well-intentioned regulation can make us less secure in the age of globalisation.

    Less able to provide the jobs, wealth and opportunity on which well-being depends.

    It can undermine the competitiveness of our companies, so it’s harder for them to invest in the new, green technologies of the future.

    So our response, based on our philosophy of social responsibility, is to say to business:

    Yes you should look after your workers, yes you should look after your community, yes you should look after our environment.

    And we must stand up to big business when it’s in the interests of Britain and the wider world.

    So next week our MEPs will vote to strengthen proposals to make companies replace dangerous chemicals with safe ones.

    But where Labour are casual about increasing regulation, we will be careful.

    We will ask:

    Are we making it easier to start a business?

    Easier to employ someone?

    Is the overall burden of regulation going down?

    Will the regulation that’s being put forward lead to real changes in behaviour, or just time-wasting and box-ticking?

    If only we had a government that was asking these questions today.

    We want companies to create their own solutions to social and environmental challenges, because those are the solutions most likely to last.

    So in a Conservative Britain, corporate responsibility will provide the best long-term answer to economic insecurity, well-being in the workplace, and environmental care.

    It is the same approach when you look at the other great challenges we face.

    PUBLIC SERVICES

    We know that in an age of amazing technological advance, instant information exchange, and empowered consumers who don’t have the deference of previous generations…

    …people expect more from our health service and our schools.

    And government has to respond to that.

    Labour’s response is the culture of targets, directives and central control, aimed at raising standards in our public services.

    They mean well.

    But the unintended consequence is to make these services less responsive to the people who use them, dashing expectations not meeting them.

    So our response, based on our philosophy of social responsibility, is to say to our nurses, doctors, teachers:

    Yes you should meet higher standards, yes you should give your patients and your pupils more.

    But we’re not going to tell you how to do it.

    You are professionals.

    We trust in your vocation

    So in a Conservative Britain, professional responsibility will provide the answer to rising expectations in the NHS and schools.

    POVERTY AND REGENERATION

    And just as people will no longer accept second best in public services, we know that in their communities they are fed up with squalor and poverty and crime…

    …and they look to their leaders to sort things out.

    Labour’s response has been a massive expansion of central government into local communities.

    The centralised Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, the insensitive Pathfinder programme, prescriptive top-down schemes for regeneration.

    You can see why Labour have done it.

    But the unintended consequence is to stifle the very spirit of community self-improvement that they are responding to.

    Our response, based on our philosophy of social responsibility, is to trust local leaders, not undermine them.

    So we will hand power and control to local councils and local people who have the solutions to poverty, to crime, to urban decay in their hands.

    We trust in your knowledge and commitment.

    So in a Conservative Britain, civic responsibility will provide the answer to improving the quality of life in the communities left behind.

    CHILDREN

    And then perhaps the greatest challenge of all.

    The challenge of bringing up children in a world that often seems fraught with risk and danger.

    There is nothing that matters more to me than the safety and happiness of my family.

    Of course it’s right that government should be on parents’ side.

    But Labour take it way too far.

    A national database of every child.

    Making childcare a state monopoly.

    Slapping ASBOs on children who haven’t even been born.

    Labour’s intentions may be good.

    But the unintended consequence is to create a culture of irresponsibility.

    They may have abandoned Clause 4 and the nationalisation of industry.

    But they are replacing it with the nationalisation of everyday life.

    The state can never be everywhere, policing the interactions of our daily lives – and it shouldn’t try.

    Real change will take years of patient hard work, and we will test every policy by asking: does it enhance parental responsibility?

    We need to understand that cultural change is worth any number of government initiatives.

    Who has done more to improve school food, Jamie Oliver, or the Department of Education?

    Put another way, we need more of Supernanny, less of the nanny state.

    So in a Conservative Britain, personal responsibility will provide the best answer to the risks and dangers of the modern world.

    Personal responsibility.

    Professional responsibility.

    Corporate responsibility.

    Civic responsibility.

    These are the four pillars of our social responsibility.

    That is the Britain we want to build.

    A Britain that is more green.

    More family-friendly.

    More local control over the things that matter.

    Less arrogant about politicians’ ability to do it all on their own.

    But more optimistic about what we can achieve if we all work together.

    We want an opportunity society, not an overpowering state.

    BUILDING OUR HOUSE

    This week, in our debates, we will lay the foundations of the house we are building together.

    The foundations must come first.

    How superficial, how insubstantial it would be, for us to make up policies to meet the pressures of the moment.

    Policy without principle is like a house without foundations.

    It will not stand the test of time.

    That is what our Policy Review is all about: getting it right for the long term.

    OPTIMISM ABOUT BRITAIN’S FUTURE

    If we do this, we can help achieve so much for this country.

    In a few years’ time, Britain could wake up to a bright new morning.

    We have everything to be optimistic about.

    You could not design a country with better natural advantages than we have.

    We speak the language of the world.

    We have links of history and culture with every continent on earth.

    We have institutions – our legal system, our armed forces, the BBC, our great universities – which set the standard that all other countries measure themselves by.

    Our artists, writers and musicians inspire people the world over.

    We are inventive, creative, irreverent and daring.

    In this young century, these old advantages give us the edge we need.

    CONCLUSION

    What a prospect for a great Party – to guide our nation at this time of opportunity.

    So let us stick to the plan.

    Let us build – carefully, thoughtfully and patiently, a new house together.

    Preparing the ground as we move to the centre, meeting the priorities of the modern world.

    Laying the foundations with our idea – social responsibility.

    And building on those foundations with the right policies for our long-term future.

    The nation’s hopes are in our hands.

    People’s hopes.

    Your hopes.

    My hopes.

    In eight days’ time I will be forty years old.

    I have so much to look forward to.

    My young family.

    They have so much to look forward to.

    The world I want for them is the world I want for every family and every community.

    If you want to know what I’m all about, I can explain it one word.

    That word is optimism.

    I am optimistic about human nature.

    That’s why I will trust people to do the right thing.

    Labour are pessimists.

    They think that without their guidance, people will do the wrong thing.

    That’s why they want to regulate and control.

    So let us show clearly which side we are on.

    Let optimism beat pessimism.

    Let sunshine win the day.

    And let everyone know that the Conservative Party is ready.

    Ready to serve.

    Ready to fight.

    Ready to win.

  • David Cameron – 2006 Speech to the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, to the Institute of Directors in Northern Ireland on 26th October 2006.

    It’s a great pleasure for me to return to Belfast as the guest speaker at your annual lunch.

    As I said in Scotland recently, every part of the United Kingdom is precious to me and the party I lead.

    That applies equally, of course, to Northern Ireland.

    I’ll deal with the prospects for political progress briefly.

    But today I want to talk mainly about the importance of economic progress.

    Part of that involves economic liberalisation and achieving competitiveness in the global marketplace.

    And I’ll explain how I believe we can do that.

    By promoting deregulation.

    By introducing tax reform.

    And, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland, by increasing the size of the private sector as a percentage of the economy as a whole.

    But I’m going to argue that if economic progress is to bring social stability, economic liberalism – low taxes, deregulation, stable monetary policy – is not enough on its own. We need to add to it, with ideas for economic empowerment.

    We must recognise that the rising tide of the open economy does not always lift all boats and that, for some people, the bottom rungs of the ladder to prosperity are broken and need to be fixed.

    That means investment in training, skills, education and recognising the human and personal development that people need to help them out of poverty.

    This, in turn, needs a new approach to politics. Government alone cannot empower people or give them the tools for success.

    We need social responsibility. A new role for the voluntary sector, for social enterprise and, yes, for business.

    Political progress

    But first, the political situation.

    Following St Andrews and as we approach the first deadline in the Governments’ timetable, it’s worth telling you my position.

    My party supports devolution.

    We believe that government is better when it is closer to people and when decisions are taken locally.

    I’m in no doubt that a fully functioning Assembly will provide much greater degree of accountability for local decisions than can ever be the case under direct rule.

    Decisions about domestic rates or academic selection should be made here, not in Whitehall or a Westminster Committee Room.

    St Andrews was clearly a significant step forward towards the restoration of devolution.

    I wish Tony Blair well and hope that this initiative succeeds.

    But power-sharing will only work if every political party and every Minister in the Executive sticks to the same, basic democratic rules and gives full support to the police, the courts and the rule of law.

    So the reality is that Sinn Fein must deliver on policing.

    No more is being asked of them than that they play by the same democratic rules that are accepted by every other political party in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

    Backing the police means more than just joining the Policing Board.

    It means reporting crime and co-operating with the police at all levels.

    It means encouraging people from your community to join the police.

    And it means passing on evidence of crime to the police – such as in the case of Robert McCartney.

    Sinn Fein must be clear about these things. But I hope Unionists will be equally clear – about their response.

    If Sinn Fein makes these moves – as St Andrews requires them to do – then, difficult as it undoubtedly will be for some, I believe that unionists would be absolutely right in re-establishing a power-sharing, devolved government.

    That means locally elected and accountable ministers from both main traditions working together for the good of Northern Ireland.

    It is a big step for Dr Paisley to sit down with Mr Adams. But in time it has to happen if devolution and power-sharing are to take place and work.

    And success also means a commitment to co-operation on matters of shared interest with the Republic of Ireland and throughout these islands as a whole.

    And it means presenting to the world a new, outward looking and optimistic face of Northern Ireland.

    Such a political settlement would set the seal on the transformation that’s taken place in Northern Ireland over the past fifteen years.

    My Party wants to make it happen – and while we are the Opposition, we are the loyal Opposition – and we will never play politics with the future of Northern Ireland.

    Economic progress

    Let me turn to the economy.

    Enormous progress has already been made – a great deal of it down to you in the business community.

    Everyone knows that, for Northern Ireland, economic success has been one of the dividends of political change.

    What is less clearly understood is that economic success has, in turn, driven forward that political change.

    Unemployment is lower than in most other regions of the country.

    One only has to look at the city centre here in Belfast to see the amount of new investment that’s coming in – here, and also in towns and cities across Northern Ireland.

    House prices are rising faster than virtually anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

    And of course without the threat from terrorism people are able to go about their daily business in a way that was unthinkable just over a decade ago.

    I accept that there are big problems that need tackling.

    The transport infrastructure needs modernising. Investment is required to upgrade water and sewage services.

    But on the whole there is reason for optimism about the progress that Northern Ireland has made.

    ECONOMIC LIBERALISATION

    Competitiveness in the global marketplace

    In order to sustain progress, we need to recognise the harsh realities of the competitive global economy. Business can locate anywhere. So government needs to get real about competitiveness.

    We need a Government that asks some straight forward questions.

    Are we making it easier, or harder, to set up a business?

    Are we making it easier, or harder, to employ people? Is the overall burden of tax, public spending and borrowing going up or down?

    Politicians need to understand the realities of life for the entrepreneur and wealth creator.

    Does it take an employer more time, or less time, to fill in their tax return?

    Is an employer spending more time, or less time, dealing with red tape?

    Are the costs of complying with legislation and regulation going up, or down?

    These are the real tests of an open economy. Those are the questions my government would ask. At the moment Labour cannot give positive answers to those questions.

    Unfortunately, under the current Government the United Kingdom has slipped from fourth to tenth in the world economic competitiveness league.

    With regulation up, tax up, interference up, the foot of government is pressing down on the windpipe of British business. We’ve got to take that foot off.

    Deregulation

    One way to do that is to make the economy competitive is to reduce the burdens that business faces.

    The CBI estimates that £50 billion of new regulations have been introduced since 1997.

    We need to tackle regulation at source. We need to look at the vast expansion of litigation under no win / no fee. We need to stop the gold plating of directives. And we need to go further, not having dozens of goals from an EU negotiation – but just one: to get out of the Social Chapter.

    Tax reform

    Let me say something about tax.

    Under the current Chancellor, business has been, quite simply, over-taxed. We used to have some of the lowest rates of business tax; now we have some of the highest.

    In the modern world, firms are competing not just within Northern Ireland…

    Or in an island of Ireland or UK context…

    But in a global market where the challenge from countries like China and India grows more formidable by the day.

    And in the modern world, it’s the lower-tax economies that will be the most competitive.

    You know better than me that we only have to look south, to the Republic of Ireland, to see the truth of that.

    Northern Ireland shares a land border with a country that currently enjoys a much lower rate of corporation tax than we do in the United Kingdom.

    People here are aware of this – and are calling for taxation measures to help.

    There’s widespread support for the idea that Northern Ireland should have a separate rate of corporation tax to the rest of the UK.

    And there’s the Northern Ireland Manufacturing Group’s campaign on industrial de-rating.

    Across the country, there are lots of calls for tax cuts.

    I hear them. I understand them.

    Last week, the Conservative Party’s Tax Commission published its report.

    The members of that Commission, led by Michael Forsyth, are men and women with a wealth of experience of industry, trade, finance and social policy.

    They are also independent minded.

    They have done what I asked and presented my Party with a menu of options for tax reform that deserve serious consideration.

    Tax breaks specific to Northern Ireland would have to be thought through in the context of overall Exchequer support for this part of the UK and the precedent that might be set for other parts of the United Kingdom.

    I will look seriously and with an open mind at any well-argued, carefully modelled case that business here puts forward.

    But we are clear about the framework of our tax policy.

    Sound money means that we shall always put stability ahead of tax cuts.

    So we will not be promising up-front, unfunded tax reductions at the next election.

    But we will share the proceeds of growth, so over time we will be able to reduce taxes.

    We will also rebalance our tax system.

    Green taxes on pollution will rise to pay for reductions in family taxes.

    The Tax Reform Commission’s report sets out some options for doing that.

    But tax reform isn’t just about reducing or rebalancing taxes.

    It’s also about making tax much more simple and transparent.

    Tax law in the UK has developed in a piecemeal fashion over a long period of time without any systematic or overall review.

    Tolley’s Tax Handbook of the British Tax Code was 4,555 pages in 1997.

    Nine years later it has doubled to over 9,800 pages.

    That’s 10 times longer than Tolstoy’s War and Peace. And I’ll tell you something else…it’s much less of a good read.

    A survey of British businesses carried out for the Tax Reform Commission found that more than three quarters of businesses thought the tax system had become more complex in the last five years.

    And the number saying the tax system had become less complex?

    Two per cent. They must be either incredibly clever or incredibly stupid.

    Rising complexity is at the root of the increasingly antagonistic relationship between government and business over tax avoidance.

    A simpler tax system would stop the endless game of cat and mouse.

    Complex taxes are harming our competitiveness and driving away investment.

    We believe that when it comes to business tax, by removing exemptions and broadening the base on which tax is charged, we could simplify the system and reduce headline rates.

    That will be our goal.

    Growing the private sector

    Within Northern Ireland, the private sector is performing well.

    Northern Irish companies are doing fantastic business the world over – Mivan, Lagan, Norbrook and FG Wilson to name a few.

    But I agree with those who say that the Northern Ireland economy needs re-balancing.

    Currently around two-thirds of it is dependent, directly or indirectly, on the public sector.

    That compares with about one third in the south-east of England.

    It makes the local economy particularly susceptible to a slowdown in the current growth in public expenditure.

    Only last month the First Trust Bank’s quarterly survey of the Northern Ireland economy concluded that ‘overall economic growth is likely to slacken in 2007’ and warned:

    ‘Businesses that are dependent upon the state sector should recognise that public expenditure growth in the years ahead will be slower than in the past’.

    That is not healthy.

    So there is a widespread consensus – that includes the Government – on the need to reduce the role of the state and the public sector, and to boost the private sector in delivering growth and prosperity.

    My aim is clear – to make the United Kingdom the best place to set up and do business.

    And, within the UK, to ensure that Northern Ireland is a full participant in this dynamic enterprise culture.

    ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

    Of course, economic prosperity benefits everyone but we should be honest in acknowledging that some people are not in a position to take advantage of it.

    That is why any policy of economic liberalisation must be accompanied by economic empowerment for those left behind.

    There is growing prosperity here, but also some of the most disadvantaged parts of the United Kingdom, suffering all the problems associated with social exclusion.

    I saw some of these at first hand when I visited the Shankill area last December.

    A place where very few people have even a single GCSE… where the opportunities for getting on and getting up are incredibly limited.

    While grammar schools in Northern Ireland produce the best exam results in the United Kingdom, there are still far too many children leaving school with few, or no, qualifications.

    Of course I oppose the Government’s attempts to change the status of schools without the approval of people locally. But we must also do more to encourage those in the most disadvantaged areas to see education as an opportunity, not an irrelevance.

    Reading is crucial, too.

    If you can’t read, it’s hard to play anything more than a walk on part in the economy.

    In Northern Ireland, just under a quarter of 11 year olds failed to achieve level 4 or better at Key Stage 2 English.

    Put simply, that means they don’t have command of the basics.

    Getting children to read competently when they leave primary school is the greatest single contribution we could make to transforming their opportunities in later life.

    Today, there are almost 20,000 young people in Northern Ireland who are not in work or in full time education.

    We can’t afford to write them off or leave it to the paramilitaries to give them some sense of purpose in their lives.

    So economic empowerment means fixing the broken rungs at the bottom of the ladder from poverty to wealth.

    There are 113,000 people in Northern Ireland on incapacity benefits, many of whom have the ability and the will to work – at least part-time – if the system only supported and encouraged them to do so.

    Human capital is the most important resource of the open economy.

    I see it as a key task of modern government to find ways of helping excluded groups back into the mainstream of our society.

    And more often than not it will not be the Government that has the answers – it will be social enterprises, voluntary groups, community organisations and, yes, business that has the answers.

    So yes we need to roll back the state in terms of rebalancing the economy, between the state sector and the private sector.

    But we also need to roll forward society in terms of all recognising our responsibility to help the disadvantaged and build a strong society.

    That is what I mean by social responsibility – recognising that government alone cannot tackle these problems.

    We should be looking at a new deal with the voluntary sector – longer term contracts and funding to deal with the toughest challenges.

    We should look at new ways to help those stuck in deprivation – perhaps easing the rules that say you lose benefit if you do more than 16 hours voluntary work. For many that is the path back to work – so why block it?

    And just as Enterprise Zones helped in the 1980s with a broken economy, why not create Social Action Zones, cutting burdens from business and charities that help crack deprivation in some of our poorest neighbourhoods.

    When I was growing up, when I first began working in politics, Northern Ireland only ever seemed to be associated with bad news.

    Today, Northern Ireland is changing – and for the better.

    There’s still some distance to travel and some issues to be resolved.

    But hopefully we’re getting there.

    I want to see Northern Ireland as a peaceful, stable and prosperous part of the country.

    I want to see a shared future for people of all traditions, based on reconciliation, democracy and the rule of law.

    And I look forward to working with you over the coming years to help make that a reality.

    I want politics in Northern Ireland to be about the real things – schools, hospitals, tax, not about timetables, deadlines and institutional arrangements.

    And I want the Conservative Party to be a part of that new politics.

    We’re moving in a new direction.

    Leading the debate. Pulling ahead of a tired Government. Developing policies for the future.

    In doing so, one thing is certain.

    My Party’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and to all its people, will be whole hearted and unshakeable.

  • David Cameron – 2006 Speech to King’s Fund

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, to the King’s Fund on 9th November 2006.

    I’m hugely grateful to the King’s Fund for hosting this event today.

    It was here, in January, that I first explained the change in this Party’s attitude to the NHS.

    We are committed to improving the NHS for everyone, rather than helping a few to opt out.

    And we are committed to the NHS ideal, ruling out any move towards an insurance-based system.

    I’d also like to thank Niall Dickson for hosting this event today.

    Niall, and the King’s Fund, are fantastic champions of the NHS.

    You make a vital contribution to the debate – in all political parties and none – on how the NHS can be improved, and we are delighted to have the benefit of your expert advice.

    Today, I’d like to set out our vision for the NHS and for healthcare in this country.

    To spell out our commitment to the NHS, and to explain the five key components of our approach.

    Stephen Dorrell, who is leading the work of our Policy Group, will then set out the background to the interim report which his Group is publishing today.

    Stephen and his team have consulted widely with healthcare professionals and are contributing to the serious long-term thinking that we need if we are to deliver lasting improvements in the NHS in government.

    Our Policy Groups are dealing with many complex issues, and they are not in the business of offering up easy answers or rushed conclusions.

    After that, Andrew Lansley – our indefatigable Shadow Secretary of State for Health – will discuss the current state of the NHS, why we need more independence for the NHS, and how we might go about achieving it through an NHS Independence Bill.

    Our Commitment to the NHS

    So first, let me restate our commitment to the NHS.

    I believe that the creation of the NHS is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century.

    It is founded on the noble but simple ideal that no person should ever have to worry about their healthcare.

    On that, there is a consensus across the parties.

    All parties support increased funding for the NHS.

    We do not differ with the Government over funding for the NHS – only about using those funds to provide the health service we need and deserve.

    The NHS must change for the better, and we must be prepared to argue for the changes that the NHS needs.

    I believe that we need a new direction for the NHS, and that new direction should be based on our idea of social responsibility.

    That means moving away from the idea that Government’s role is to micromanage the delivery of healthcare in Britain, and moving towards greater professional responsibility for those who work in the NHS.

    Five Key Components of Our Approach

    There are five key components of our approach to the NHS.

    First, to guarantee that the NHS has the money it needs.

    With a Conservative Government, real terms spending on public services will rise.

    And as our economy grows, one of the most important calls on the proceeds of growth will be the NHS.

    That is what we mean by sharing the proceeds of growth.

    The second key component of our approach will be to end the damage caused by pointless and disruptive reorganisations of the NHS.

    We will not mess around with existing local and regional structures: we will allow the current structures to settle down and bed in.

    The third element of our approach will be to work with the grain of the Government’s reforms where they are doing the right thing.

    So we will go further in increasing the power and independence of GPs and PCTs, putting them in the driving seat.

    We support foundation hospitals. We want to see all hospitals have greater freedom.

    Fourth, we will take the politics out of the management of the NHS, getting rid of centrally-imposed and politically motivated targets.

    Under Labour, politicians have interfered in professional judgments and diminished professional responsibility by second-guessing the experts.

    It has been described as the “death of discretion.”

    So we will allow professionals to make the important judgements about the best interests of their patients

    And the fifth key component of our approach will be to bring fair funding to the NHS.

    We will end political meddling over money – removing the scope for fiddling by distributing resources for reasons of political expediency rather than clinical need.

    That is why I am announcing today our intention to introduce an NHS Independence Bill.

    It will offer a statutory framework that will take politicians out of the day to day running of the NHS.

    Our plan is to publish a Bill in the New Year, and we hope that the Government will work with us on the details and help produce a Bill that commands support on all sides of the House of Commons.

    If implemented by Spring 2008, it would give the NHS the best possible 60th birthday present.

    So my message to the Government is clear: the NHS matters too much to be treated like a political football.

    Let’s work together to improve the NHS for everyone.

    Let’s give the NHS fair funding, and let’s give taxpayers better value for money by getting rid of the targets and bureaucracy and pen-pushing that’s all about politicians’ priorities, not the needs of patients.

    Accountability

    As we take the politics out of the NHS, we need to make sure that it becomes more accountable to patients: greater independence for NHS professionals will not mean a blank cheque.

    It will strengthen accountability, because professionals in the NHS will be more clearly accountable for the things they’re responsible for, and for raising standards.

    That’s how any professional organisation works, and with greater professional responsibility in the NHS will come greater professional accountability.

    Our plans will mean a change in the role of central government.

    It will remain accountable to the electorate for the total amount of money spent on the NHS, for setting the statutory framework for improving public health, and for decisions about the scope of what is offered by the NHS.

    Public Health

    But healthcare isn’t just about hospitals and GPs.

    There is an enormous job to be done in public health.

    In this area, we are committed to a strong role for the Department of Health.

    We want it to be much more active outside the NHS in promoting public health, as Andrew will describe.

    Conclusion

    We are committed to improving the NHS for everyone.

    We recognise the need for change in order to deliver those improvements.

    But instead of imposing change insensitively from above, we want to work with doctors, nurses, ancillary staff and administrators so we achieve sustainable, bottom-up improvement.

    That is the way to give taxpayers value for money, and the British people the world-class, publicly funded healthcare they want.

  • David Cameron – 2006 Speech to Ethnic Media Conference

    davidcameron

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, to the Ethnic Media Conference on 29th November 2006.

    Thank you for inviting me here today.

    I believe that this is an important event because the representation of black and minority ethnic communities in the media isn’t just an issue for people here.

    It’s relevant to everyone because it’s part of building a more cohesive country.

    We need fresh perspectives on our dynamic and changing society and that can only happen if the media…

    …which provides the means whereby we see and understand ourselves…

    …reflects change as well as reporting it.

    Conservative perspectives

    Encouraging change is actually a part of what I call social responsibility.

    Government on its own cannot solve the problems of and under-representation.

    We all have a role to play.

    Individuals.

    Families.

    Businesses.

    Local government.

    And the media.

    Expecting the Government to legislate problems away isn’t just problematic – it’s also a cop out.

    Every organisation should encourage ethnic minority participation, not because the state is breathing down its neck but because it’s the right thing to do.

    In that context, I’m acutely aware of my own responsibilities as leader of the Conservative Party.

    Like the media, politics is a vital part of our national life.

    That’s why we need to address the current under-representation of minorities and lack of diversity that exists in all parties, including my own.

    We should start by being honest.

    In the past, political parties did not always make people from black and minority ethnic communities feel particularly welcome in their ranks.

    Was there racism?

    Of course, it was an element.

    To a lesser extent, there still is – in all parties.

    The difference is that now we regard it as entirely unacceptable.

    Speaking personally, I’m intolerant of racism and am determined to root it out.

    But the biggest obstacle in the part to ethnic minority participation in the Conservative Party was something else.

    An assumption of virtue.

    We had a straightforward approach to these matters.

    In the past, the Conservative Party thought it was enough to remove formal barriers to entry and to provide equality of opportunity.

    We believed that we were operating a meritocracy.

    But we weren’t.

    The fact is that it’s not enough just to open the door to ethnic minorities.

    If people look in and a see an all-white room they are less likely to hang around.

    An unlocked door is not the same as a genuine invitation to come in.

    That’s why the Conservative Party needs positive action if we are to represent Britain as it is.

    This isn’t just morally right – it’s enlightened self-interest.

    If we don’t change we will be at a huge disadvantage.

    A mono-ethnic party cannot represent a multi-ethnic country.

    How can we understand the country we aspire to govern if the conversation inside the Conservative Party doesn’t reflect the conversation in the broader community?

    How will we will improve the representation of mixed communities if we ourselves do not have a broad range of candidates.

    Of course, MPs and councillors and others in elected office do their best to represent everyone but, inevitably, they will miss things.

    Better representation of black and minority communities is vital for all of us.

    We are all part of the same country, the same political system.

    In order to feel that, we need to show it.

    A system that locks out all the talent in ethnic minority communities is failing them – and failing everyone else as well.

    Conservative progress

    To be fair, we’ve already made quite a lot of progress.

    My generation of Conservatives has grown up in a multi-ethnic society and are comfortable with diversity in a way that older people, perhaps, were not.

    Inclusion is second nature to people my age.

    There’s no sense of ‘them’ and ‘us’.

    We care about ability not ethnicity.

    That’s why, before the last election, Adam Afriyie was selected as the Conservative candidate for Windsor..

    …and Shailesh Vara was selected as the Conservative candidate for North West Cambridgeshire.

    Two black and minority ethnic Tories chosen for two virtually all-white constituencies.

    Both Adam and Shailesh are now MPs and I know they will be joined on the Conservative benches by many more people from ethnic minority backgrounds.

    For example, Priti Patel and Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones have recently beaten stiff competition to be selected as Parliamentary candidates in Conservative-held seats.

    At a local level too, we’ve made strides.

    One of the most encouraging aspects of May’s council results was the election of a whole new generation of ethnic minority Tory councillors.

    In London boroughs like Hackney, Sutton, Ealing, Harrow, Croydon and Redbridge.

    And across the Country in Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Walsall, Hyndburn, Worcester, Southend, Portsmouth, Northampton, Bradford, Wakefield, Coventry and Kirklees.

    They are helping us get into communities where Conservatives have been absent for too long

    Often, these are towns and areas where the BNP is active.

    I want our new councillors and council candidates to lead the fightback against racism and division.

    Conservative action

    We’ve taken big steps forward.

    But we’re not resting on our laurels.

    Instead we’re raising our game with a set of specific initiatives.

    That’s why today I can announce a new drive to broaden the base of the Conservative Party…

    …encouraging people from black and minority ethnic communities to get involved at all levels…

    …as members, activists, council candidates and parliamentary candidates.

    There will be three key components:

    1) Monitoring

    First, monitoring.

    I know that monitoring makes some uneasy.

    They say, “Look, my identity is British, not black or Asian or anything else so why should I be treated differently?”

    But if we fail to find how well we as a body are doing in terms of increasing representation of black and minority ethnic communities we have no way of remedying the situation.

    We need the facts.

    I’m launching a three pronged project to monitor the progress of people from ethnic minority background within the Conservative Party.

    There’ll be new programme of ethnic monitoring of council candidates to assess the Party’s ongoing success in attracting BME candidates for local council elections.

    All council groups will report to CCHQ on how many ethnic minority councillors and council candidates they have.

    Next, we’ll also monitor the progress of all Parliamentary candidates, from initial application to ultimate success.

    Last, Party headquarters itself will now record the numbers of people from ethnic minorities the Conservative Party employs to ensure fairness and transparency.

    2) Roadshow

    Second, Conservatives will hold a series of events in Britain’s major cities, run in partnership with Operation Black Vote, to encourage greater political participation amongst BME communities and, unashamedly, to recruit fresh talent to our ranks.

    It will feature high profile members of the Shadow Cabinet and other leading Conservatives.

    3) Internships

    Third, we are initiating a new bursary to fund an intern programme enabling 20 young people a year from BME communities across Britain to work for the Conservative Party either at Party headquarters or in Parliament.

    Moving beyond multiculturalism

    Taken together, these measures are a necessary part of equipping the Conservative Party to govern modern Britain.

    That’s especially important because I sense a change in the climate when it comes to race and ethnicity.

    A positive change.

    I think that Britain is ready for a grown up conversation on this subject.

    Inevitably, it’s a conversation that will be led by a younger generation of Britons that simply doesn’t have the hang ups and preoccupations of the past.

    For people growing up today, skin colour and racial origin are, in themselves, increasingly irrelevant to the way that people see themselves and each other.

    As a country, we’re comfortable with multiple identities.

    What is a problem, however, is the weakening of our common culture.

    That’s why the key issues of tomorrow will be cohesion, inclusion and identity.

    Racism, as traditionally understood, may be in decline but it’s now appearing in new and unexpected forms.

    For example, as Britain becomes more diverse there is a growing potential for inter-ethnic tensions, such as we witnessed in Handsworth.

    Until quite recently, it was seen as somehow impolite to point out that non-white people are capable of holding racist views too.

    Any serious conversation about tackling racism must move beyond old Marxist cliches about power relationships and focus on the fear and ignorance that is the real cause of racism.

    And, talking of old Marxist cliches, let me say a word about Ken Livingstone.

    I see that the Mayor of London has launched another attack on Trevor Phillips for daring to point out the possible downsides of the ideology of multiculturalism.

    Insulting Trevor by saying he should join the BNP isn’t a serious contribution to debate.

    It’s a discreditable attempt by an ageing far left politician to hang on to a narrative about race that is completely out of date…

    …rather than seeing people from ethnic minorities as full and equal citizens who would rather build a better life for themselves and their families than man the barricades at the behest of middle class white fantasists.

    Ken’s problem is that the critique of multiculturalism is coming from a growing number of intelligent and thoughtful young people – who are themselves from ethnic minority backgrounds.

    When I say ‘multiculturalism’ let’s be absolutely clear what I’m talking about.

    I’m not referring to the reality of our ethnically diverse society that we all celebrate and only embittered reactionaries like the BNP object to.

    I mean the doctrine that seeks to Balkanise people and communities according to race and background.

    A way of seeing the world that encourages us to concentrate on what divides us, what makes us different.

    Following the riots in a number of northern towns in 2001, the Cantle Report pointed out that some parts of Britain have become divided along ethnic grounds.

    Today we have communities where people from different racial backgrounds rarely meet, talk or go into each others’ homes.

    What’s worse is that official agencies and branches of government have sometimes colluded in, and even facilitated, this de facto apartheid.

    It’s been done in the name of multiculturalism.

    Grants have been doled out not on the basis of need but on the basis of race and religion.

    Schools and community centres – paid for by the taxpayer – have been allowed to become mono-ethnic strongholds.

    This has led to a strange paradox.

    People from ethnic minorities are today less likely than ever before to encounter old-fashioned racism but, instead, they’ve become emeshed in multicultural policies that racialise them anew.

    The principle of equality – that all people should be treated the same regardless of background, colour or creed – has become replaced with the principle of diversity, where all cultural identities must be given separate public recognition.

    However well intentioned, the effect is that people end up being treated differently which merely fuels discontent.

    It also promotes tribalism between different religious and ethnic groups.

    Ethnic and faith communities compete for public resources and recognition instead of uniting on the basis of shared interests.

    Multicultural policies provide a powerful incentive to proclaim one’s victim status.

    This leads to a grievance culture – a zero sum game that views every concession to one group as a slight to others.

    We saw this recently with the rows over the veil in schools and the cross at British Airways.

    It is a climate that promotes racism rather than defeats it.

    Building a united society

    I believe that it’s time to discard the failed policies of the past.

    We need to bring people together – and bring our society together.

    All of us – rich and poor, black and white, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jew and Christian – have got far more that unites us than divides us.

    I’m not pretending we can simply wave a magic wand.

    Issues of social cohesion are incredibly complicated.

    They need sensitive handling.

    But with good will and common sense we can build a fair society.

    For my part, I intend to focus on the concrete things that can bring people together.

    Citizenship ceremonies.

    Teaching English to new arrivals.

    School exchanges.

    A national school leaver programme that brings young people together from all parts of the country.

    These are the things that can, over time, can make a difference.

    But before I get the chance to do these things in government, I will do what I can in terms of our party.

    Conclusion

    Much has been done.

    Much more will achieved in the future.

    There is no room for complacency.

    But I know one thing.

    When it comes to the full and equal participation of people from ethnic minorities in British society, the Conservative Party is no longer part of the problem.

    Quite the opposite.

    We are determined to be part of the solution – and we’d like your help.