UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2007

  • John Hutton – 2007 Speech on Ethnic Minority Employment

    johnhutton

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Hutton, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, to the Women’s Enterprise Project in Bethnal Green, London, on 28th February 2007.

    On a day when the final report of the Equalities Review has brought the challenges of achieving true equality in Britain into ever sharper focus – I am grateful for the opportunity to join you to discuss the barriers that still too often prevent women in Britain’s ethnic minority communities from finding employment.

    Ten years of progress in employment and welfare reform has made a real difference to Britain today. Record investment in Jobcentre Plus and the New Deal means there are now more people in work than ever before; over 2.5 million more than in 1997 and nearly a million fewer on benefits.

    Ethnic minority communities have benefited from the progress we have made. Jobcentre Plus, for example, has helped nearly a quarter of a million people from ethnic minorities move into work over the last few years.

    As today’s Equalities Review acknowledges, Britain now has more advanced and effective equality legislation than most other countries; our equality commissions and the forthcoming Commission for Equality and Human Rights represent a framework to tackle discrimination that is unrivalled in Europe. And in just the last three years, we have managed to cut the employment rate gap facing ethnic minorities by nearly 2 percentage points – including improvements for the vast majority of ethnic minority groups.

    Yet despite this progress, the employment rate gap between ethnic minorities and the UK as a whole, still stands at around 15% – and a young British Asian women starting out in work today, will have to wait until her retirement before she can expect to see the employment rate for ethnic minorities at the same level as the UK average.

    The employment rate for ethnic minorities in East London is less than 50%; and here in the borough of Tower Hamlets – where the percentage of ethnic minorities as a proportion of the working age population is the second highest of all local authority districts in Great Britain – the employment rate is less than a third.

    And the rates for women are significantly worse. The unemployment rate for Black Caribbean women in Tower Hamlets, at 11%, is almost double that for Bradford. And across the five Olympic boroughs the employment rate for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women is less than 1 in 5.

    We can not hope to have a socially cohesive society unless we are prepared to challenge these wide differentials in employment rates.

    But these statistics are not just a scar on Britain’s society today; they are the enemy of Britain’s prosperity and progress for the future.

    In London over the next 20 years, ethnic minorities are expected to account for around three-quarters of the growth in the potential workforce.

    I do not believe we can have an economically competitive and skilled labour force in the future, if the lower employment rate of ethnic minorities today consigns many children – tomorrow’s workforce – to growing up in poverty. Because poverty is the breading ground for low aspiration and low achievement.

    Today, that is the reality for over half of Black British children – and over two-thirds of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children. The question for all of us is whether we believe we can change the future for these communities and for the young people within them.

    In fact – such are the barriers to equality in our society – even being in work doesn’t always necessarily mean escaping from poverty. When ethnic minorities on average earn a third less than their white counterparts; when Pakistani and Bangladeshi children in households with at least one earner are still statistically more likely to be in poverty than not; And when working Pakistani and Bangladeshi households are more likely to be in poverty than workless white households.

    If we are going to succeed in changing the future, then we can start by challenging the myths and the misperceptions.

    What Account 3 and the Women’s Enterprise Project are showing is that the old sterotypes are simply not true.

    Many women from ethnic minorities want to work. Many husbands and fathers actually support them to do so.

    Often the support offered by local organisations working at the heart of the community doesn’t just help the individual; it transforms opportunities for the whole family. Take, for example, the lady whose family was on benefits. But after training with Account 3 was able to get enough money to support her husband to train to do the Knowledge; and when he qualified they were able to go on and get their own flat. Later they set up their own business; the opportunities they were able to offer their children transformed in only a few years.

    As is so often the case; success fuels further success. The achievements of one family inspire another – raising ambition across the community. And there is perhaps no greater example of this growing ambition than with those setting out in business on their own. Today the Women’s Enterprise Project is creating around 35 new businesses a year – working with more than a hundred women in the local community; enabling them to test out ideas in a safe environment and providing support well beyond the creation of the business itself.

    The next generation are looking to push the bar even higher. We should encourage them to do so. An Equal Opportunities Commission report found that 90% of Bangladeshi girls surveyed did not agree that their parents would expect them to get married and have children rather than follow a career.

    One respondent – a 16 year old Black Caribbean girl said:

    “I intend to work hard and get the job I want. I also intend to be successful and to make me and my parents proud.”

    The idea that success at work would make her parents proud says a lot about how wrong many people’s assumptions are about attitudes to work amongst minority communities.

    In fact, in the Equal Opportunities Commission report, one in five young Pakistani and Bangladeshi women employees are now aiming to be their own boss, compared with only one in ten young white British women employees.

    And of those in employment, Black Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women under 35 are now more likely to aspire to senior positions when they have dependent children than white British women.

    So it is about how best to support the fulfilment of this ambition – that I want to discuss with you today. And I’d like to offer a few thoughts about how we can start this discussion.

    Firstly, I believe we need to make significant changes to the nature of the support on offer to help people from ethnic minorities move into work.

    This is one of the principal reasons why I have asked David Freud to review our welfare system as part of the wider policy review process currently being led by the Prime Minister.

    The hallmark of this Government’s welfare reforms has been our movement away from the passive one-size-fits-all benefit dependency of the past towards the creation of a more active approach tailored to the specific needs of individuals.

    If we are to provide better help and support to those furthest from the labour market we have to build on this progress – moving further away from the traditional approach – based on what type of benefit someone is claiming – to one based on individual needs.

    An approach that offers new and ever more tailored support in return for individuals taking up the responsibility to do all they can to help themselves.

    We are now beginning to devote more resources in this way. But this doesn’t necessarily mean expanding State provision. Rather it means drawing on the expertise and contribution of providers in all sectors – whether public, private or voluntary.

    It’s about providing greater flexibility for local community based organisations to work together to find local solutions. It means Government simplifying the existing myriad of short-term funding contracts, in favour of a clearer funding structure. It means moving towards providing more support for innovation with longer-term payments based on clear outcomes, and more flexibility for local organisations to determine the best approach to support for their people.

    What does this mean for the hardest to help? It means exploring outcome-based funding to reward successful welfare to work providers – that places a higher priority on these groups; that offers providers greater rewards for helping those who are furthest from the labour market – including specific individuals or ethnic minority groups. Not just overcoming the barriers to finding work and then pulling up the drawbridge of support; but rather overcoming the barriers to staying in work and progressing within the workplace too.

    It means recognising that the State is not always the best vehicle for providing support. That community organisations – like the Women’s Enterprise Project here in Bethnal Green – have a unique ability to build relationships and inspire trust – that goes far beyond what the State can sometimes do.

    And there should be more room in our welfare system for local flexibility and freedom.

    The City Strategy brings together a consortia of local stakeholders to improve the co-ordination and delivery of support for jobless people in key areas across the country – including in here in East London.

    We believe that by freeing resources from Whitehall and giving power and responsibility to local communities, we will achieve better outcomes for local people. But this has to translate into results. And in many City Consortia areas – including in East London – that has to mean better employment outcomes for ethnic minorities, and especially for women.

    Through this partnership-based approach, together with improvements in training and skills – such as the increased emphasis on English language training for benefit recipients we announced earlier this month – I believe that we can offer new and unparalleled support to help people from ethnic minorities acquire the skills and expertise to realise their ambitions in the workplace.

    But our success will depend equally on women who are out of the labour market actually taking up the opportunities available to them – with the same ambition and commitment that we see showcased by groups like the Women’s Enterprise Project on a daily basis.

    Of course, also fundamental to our success will be whether we can deliver a step change in tackling workplace discrimination.

    Analysis suggests that potentially up to half of the ethnic minority employment gap could be explained by employer behaviour.

    Currently, Black Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are more likely to be graduates than white British women and men. Yet Pakistani female graduates are over four times more likely to be unemployed than white female graduates. And those in work are less likely to reach senior positions than white British women – despite being more highly qualified.

    We need to understand more clearly the factors that are driving this discrimination.

    Alongside Trevor Phillips’ Equalities Review, my Department is today publishing a new research report which for the first time presents clear evidence of a Muslim employment gap. It analyses the probability of being in employment based on different combinations of ethnic and religious group. It finds that for women, Muslims of all ethnic backgrounds – whether Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian or even White – face a higher employment penalty than any other religious group. It’s even the case that a White Muslim, faces a higher employment penalty than a Pakistani of no religion. The analysis also suggests that Muslim men of all ethnic backgrounds face similar employment penalties.

    Of course, there will be those who suggest this is simply a cultural issue.  And this may play a part in the calculations of the employment penalty. There is some evidence in the Equalities Review today that some people don’t aspire to enter the labour market.

    But we also know that such generalisations are a poor excuse for avoiding the fundamental problems of inequality and discrimination. Or for ignoring the other constraints that ethnic minorities often face – such as lack of access to childcare.

    We simply can not afford to ignore the very real possibility that specific discrimination based on religious practice could be an important part of the challenge we face in breaking down barriers to work for Britain’s ethnic minorities.

    The Equal Opportunities Commission report, for example, found that compared with their white counterparts, working Black Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi women under 35 are three times more likely to be asked about plans for marriage and children at job interviews; much more likely to experience negative attitudes because of their religious dress and 50% more likely to have difficulty finding a job.

    It is vital that we work together to better understand and address this problem. Whatever the underlying causes, this employment gap is entrenching deprivation in Muslim communities and can only exacerbate the social tensions and alienation that we all want to tackle.

    There are many forms of ethnic, religious and cultural discrimination – some long entrenched, others are newer and worrying trends. We have to find a way to work with business to eliminate this discrimination – whatever religious or ethnic guise it takes.

    Since the 2001 amendment to the Race Relations Act, public authorities have a statutory duty to take proactive steps to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good race relations.

    As Trevor Phillips has argued today, we must now build on this to ensure that our partners do more to promote equality and to highlight the importance of tackling racial discrimination in the workplace.

    But we should be absolutely clear about one thing. This is not about positive discrimination or quotas. It can not be onerous on business; the argument is rather about the increasingly crucial value that promoting equality brings to business, not the costs it imposes. It’s about Government leading from the front and asking those supplying Government to adopt the same principles.

    We must also go further in changing the way we address equality issues across Government. Replacing the silos of individual departments with a new cross-Government commitment that better co-ordinates Government action on equality issues.

    As part of this we need to re-shape the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force to make it a more pro-active strategic body, focusing on specific measurable objectives. Earlier this month, the Employment Minister Jim Murphy wrote to all Task Force members to propose a more focused set of priorities around procurement and employer engagement – including tackling employer discrimination, not just in recruitment to the workplace but also in progression through it.

    I have today asked Jim and the Task Force to report back to me with a set of specific and practical proposals in these areas – ahead of a Ministerial summit in May. In doing so, I want them to consider the specific issues around discrimination based on religious practice. And to consider the issues of how best to promote and support aspiration – including addressing concerns such as affordable childcare.

    I want them to draw on the recommendations of the forthcoming reports from the Business Commission and from David Freud’s review of our welfare system. And to engage with both business and ethnic minority communities augmenting the membership of the group as necessary to achieve a much greater representation from ethnic minority communities – with leading ethnic minority men and women drawn from both the business and voluntary sector.

    I want to spend the rest of the time this morning listening to you – to hear your perspective on the challenges we face in breaking down barriers to work – and tackling inequality and discrimination in the workplace.

    So let me just conclude by saying that too often people have believed these problems are so engrained in our society that they can never be overcome.

    The French author and playwright Honore de Balzac, once wrote:

    “Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a fact.”

    Today we are entitled to be more optimistic. There is a power on earth that can turn equality into a fact. It is the strength of our collective ambition as a society. The progressive force for good that says someone’s origins – whether ethnic background or social class – need no longer determine their destiny. I have no doubt that the vast majority of people in Britain share this belief in fairness and equality. That is one more reason to believe that together, we can change the future.

  • Gerald Howarth – 2007 Speech on the Future of the British Army

    On the 30th January 2007 there was a Westminister Hall debate on The Future of the British Army. 

    The following is taken from the Hansard report for the 30th January:

    Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): I follow on from what the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) said and pay tribute to one of Britain’s greatest success stories, Her Majesty’s armed forces, and particularly, in the light of today’s debate, the British Army. I do not believe that there is an army in the world that can match ours.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate. I am sorry that more hon. Members are not present, but I pay tribute to her because she is a tribute to the armed forces parliamentary scheme. She has clearly benefited from it and proven to the House and, we hope, to a wider audience—she has certainly done so to the Minister, although he needs no confirmation of this—that the scheme is an extremely good organisation and helps to ensure that Members of Parliament who do not have experience of the armed forces are introduced to what is, as I said, one of Britain’s greatest success stories.

    I shall not go through all the points that the hon. Lady raised, but she made two fundamental ones. The first was that the Falklands campaign illustrated the importance of being prepared to fight for one’s country, territory and interests. We must never forget that that is what our armed forces are for. Having come straight from a meeting with Baroness Thatcher and just discussed these issues, I can reinforce that remark.

    The hon. Lady’s second point was about Sierra Leone. That is a very different operation, but it is one in which the British Army is conducting itself magnificently. It illustrates the extraordinary versatility of Britain’s Army and particularly those who come from less privileged backgrounds. Some people come from very difficult home backgrounds and poorer parts of society, and it is a tribute to the British Army that it manages to train them and turn them into such stalwart citizens who are both brave and versatile. In theatres such as Sierra Leone, they are winning hearts and minds, as they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is an enormous tribute to them. As Conservative Front-Bench spokesman on defence, but also as one who has the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, the home of the British Army, I have to say that this is a wonderful opportunity for me not only to extol the virtues of the British Army, but to highlight some of the difficulties. May I say to the Minister, who has been in post even longer than I have, that if I do highlight the difficulties, I do so because it is part of the constitutional duty of the Opposition to hold the Government to account? Much is being done that I am sure is good. New equipment is coming on board, and the Minister mentioned accommodation, but there are real problems. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife illustrated some of those. General Sir Richard Dannatt’s first intervention when he became Chief of the General Staff was to say:

    “We are running hot, certainly running hot. Can we cope? I pause. I say ‘just’.” Coming from the head of the British Army, that should send a shock through all Members of this House, not just Ministers, but it was a considered view and reflects what is happening on the ground. The trouble with the military is that when asked to do something by politicians, invariably their answer is, “Yes, sir. We can do it, sir.” We politicians then glibly say, “Okay, that’s fine. Let’s crack on with it.” The military are reluctant to say, “No, we can’t do it,” because they would feel that they were failures or that they had failed to deliver what was expected of them by the politicians. I think that what General Sir Richard Dannatt said is absolutely right. It is certainly borne out by my experience and by the figures.

    I remind the Minister that in 1997 the required strength of the British Army was 106,360. That had fallen by 2006 to 101,800. The trained strength of the Army in 1997 was 101,360. Last year, it was 99,570. We now have the smallest Army since 1930. The fundamental difference between 1997 and 2007 is that today we are fighting two wars. There is no point in pussy-footing around: when we say that people are going on operations, they are going into war zones. Iraq is effectively a war zone and Afghanistan is most certainly a war zone, as are the myriad other operations that the hon. Lady mentioned and to which we are committed.

    The fundamental basis of our criticism of the Government is that there are insufficient men to undertake those tasks. It is no good saying, as the former Secretary of State did, that platform numbers no longer count because we have such sophisticated equipment. Of course numbers count. One ship cannot be in two places, as Admiral Sir Alan West, First Sea Lord, said. Equally, soldiers are human beings. To take territory and hold it, one needs men, and that means numbers. It does not matter how sophisticated the weapons are, the physical presence of the soldiers is what counts. We cannot understand why the Government have cut four British Army battalions when General Richards in Afghanistan has called for precisely 2,500 men. What is that? It is four battalions. That is in addition to what they are doing to cap badges and to destroy much of the morale and ethos that is associated with the support for individual units. Men do not fight for their country; they fight for the man next to them. They fight for their unit, their regiment and that battle honour. Anyone who doubts that should watch the 3 Para video of Afghanistan, which is extremely well worth watching. It exemplifies the sense of camaraderie and ethos.

    In 2005, some 3,350 more people left the Army than joined up. Last year, the number was about 1,500. I agree that the problem is not so much with recruitment, although only two battalions are properly recruited—the Gurkha battalions—while the rest are under-recruited and under-strength. There is an attraction for young men and women in serving their country and taking part in the kind of operations that are under way. The problem is something else. When I go around and speak to people, many of them tell me, “I’ve done Iraq”—probably three times—and “I’ve done Afghanistan. It doesn’t get much better than that, so I’m quitting.” The people who are leaving are the backbone of the British Army: the captains, majors and senior warrant officers. They are the repository of the real experience in today’s Army. Their loss is potentially the most damaging, and something has to be done about it.

    I have two Guards battalions in Aldershot at present—the Irish Guards and the Grenadier Guards. Before Christmas, the commanding officer of the Irish Guards, Colonel O’Dwyer, told me, “Sir, we are not valued.” That is a serious wake-up call and we need to wake up. The colonel is a splendid chap, and he did not say that in any way politically, but it is an accusation against the political classes. It is our job to make sure that they are valued. I shall return to the military covenant later.

    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: In what context was that comment made?

    Mr. Howarth: I protested to the colonel that there is not a Member of Parliament who does not stand up in Westminster and proclaim the virtues of the British Army. He said, “We get less telephone time than prisoners, and when we go on a train we have to buy a travelcard. Police officers just flash their warrants and don’t have to pay anything.” I realise that those are small things.

    Mr. Ingram: I shall respond to that now because I might not have time to deal with all the points that have been raised in detail. It is not correct to say that forces members have less telephone time than prisoners. We recently increased it to 30 minutes a week. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can go back and correct the misunderstanding or misinformation that is being pedalled around.

    Mr. Howarth: I am happy to do that, but I want to make it clear that that is not the fundamental issue. It is more like the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If I am issuing a warning to the Minister, it is this: we are taking the British Army too much for granted. It is at a tipping point. Take the Grenadier Guards. In the 115 weeks between March 2006 and June 2008, they will be on operations for 48 weeks, doing field exercises for 20 weeks, and have 10 weeks of post-operational tour leave and pre-deployment leave. To anyone who thinks that that involves swanning around at home, I say that post-operational tour leave provides the process of decompression that is essential when men are taken out of a theatre such as Iraq or Afghanistan having seen what they have seen. It is not a holiday. We do them no service.

    Servicemen and women tell me that the negatives of service are the separation from their families and lack of adventure training—the kind of thing that used to make up part of the whole military package. It is now tilted in favour of duty, responsibility and work and less in favour of the benefits that made the whole package attractive. Yet these days, unlike in the cold war, those men and women are putting their lives on the line for us day in, day out. They are dying for their country. They are giving a real, not abstract, commitment.

    I pay tribute to those who have given their lives for our country and to their families, who deserve the biggest tribute because they supported them. They are the ones who have experiences like the lady who said,

    “When I put the children to bed, the house is silent.” She will live with that silence, and we need to bear that in mind.

    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that we should limit the exposure of the Army to a specific number of areas of engagement, or does he support the argument that while the Army’s diversified activity is positive, it is crucial that we have more people to deliver that diversity comfortably?

    Mr. Howarth: It is the latter. I simply do not think that there are enough people, and that is the generally held consensus. There are not enough people to do all the jobs that are being done. I have no desire for us to retreat into a United Kingdom shell and remove ourselves from the world stage. We are a power for good in the world and I want us to play that role. I am a Tory. I believe that strong defence is the first duty of any Government—certainly a Conservative Government. We are able to play a great role in the world. Anyone who compares British forces, and how we deal with people, with the American forces in Abu Ghraib can see that we are good. Personally, I have no wish to see our role diminished.

    I have written to Air Marshal Pocock about how the change in the allowances will affect the Grenadier Guards and they will lose £681,750. They are doing two operations—they just came back from Iraq in October and are going to Afghanistan in March—and they are uniquely disbenefited by the changes. I urge the Minister to look at that again.

    I want to address one or two issues about equipment, starting with armoured vehicles. We have been warning for years that the nature of the operations in Iraq, in particular, and now Afghanistan, puts our troops at grave risk from roadside bombs and sophisticated improvised explosive devices. I was told in Iraq, three years ago, that the insurgents there had achieved more sophistication in 30 months than the IRA did in 30 years.

    On my return from the armed forces parliamentary scheme visit to Iraq, on which there were no Labour Members, in 2005, I went straight to the Secretary of State and said, “You’ve got to do something about this.” I did not go to the press because my duty is not to spread fear and alarm among families. I have been criticised for not going public about it, but that was my view. The Government have made a mistake, although they are now bringing new kit on board.

    We have a duty to give the men the best possible protection, so I welcome the Cougars coming into operation, but we were told last July by the Secretary of State that they would be fully operational at the end of 2006. I do not regard having four Mastiffs, as I believe the British Army now calls them, in theatre in Iraq as being fully operational. Everybody knows the limitations of the Snatch Land Rover and it is time that the Government did more to recognise that they have a duty to protect our troops. Equipment exists that is able to do that—for example, the Pinzgauer, which I have been to see. Others dismiss it, and I do not think that it has the full armoured capability of the RG-31 or the Mastiff, but it will make a contribution.

    The second issue on equipment concerns helicopters. I understand that the Government have decided that the Danish EH101s are not available or that they will not go ahead with acquiring them. It is clear that we particularly need lift in Afghanistan, as it is insufficient. That which there is in theatre is being used at a far higher rate than had originally been envisaged, which is imposing a far greater toll on the maintainability of the helicopters. I gather that Eurocopter has put a bid before the Government concerning six Pumas; there is a possibility that three will be made fully theatre-prepared and available by July, with the rest available by the end of the year. The Government have a duty to do something about lift, because it is available, and I cannot understand why they are taking such a long time to deal with it. I know that there is a bit more time available so would it be in order for me to have another five minutes, if the Minister agrees, as he would still have time to reply, Mr. Gale?

    Mr. Ingram indicated assent.

    Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): The Minister is happy, so I am too.

    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful, because there are many other issues that I could raise about the British Army. Although I do not have time to raise them all, I want to mention the important matter of medical care. We have an inadequate system of dealing with the aftermath of military operations and the Government need to do much more. The issue of mental health problems arising out of operations is also of paramount importance. If the Minister could do anything to increase the support that he makes available to Combat Stress, he would be doing a great service and would be widely thanked. We know that there are insufficient numbers of nurses and doctors. They are about 43 per cent. under-recruited, and that will also have to be addressed.

    Mention has been made of the military covenant. There is not a person in this land who believes that Britain’s armed forces have not fulfilled their part of the bargain. They have done so in shed loads. They have met their duty under the military covenant, but the nation has failed them in return. We have not given them the kit, the sufficient manpower, the family support or the accommodation. Whatever the Minister is now doing, we have not done enough for our armed forces to enable us to look them in the eye and say, “We have fulfilled our part of the military covenant.” I want to make a point to the Minister by taking as my text the remarks made by the former Secretary of State, now the Minister for Europe, in supporting essay 2 to the Defence White Paper of 2003, “Delivering Security in a Changing World”.

    He stated: “Since SDR our Armed Forces have conducted operations that have been more complex and greater in number than we had envisaged. We have effectively been conducting continual concurrent operations, deploying further afield, to more places, more frequently and with a greater variety of missions than set out in the SDR planning assumptions. We expect to see a similar pattern of operations in the future”.

    In other words, we are imposing on our armed forces a commitment that is greater than was proposed in the strategic defence review. The SDR was never properly funded and this is not properly funded. The situation is, “Commitments of SDR, plus; funding of SDR, double minus.” That sums up the dilemma that the Government face.

    It is no good the Prime Minister saying, as he did against a military backdrop—on HMS Albion—in a wonderfully orchestrated and typically Labour spin thing, that we are going to spend more on defence. When the matter was raised in the other place—I raised this with the Prime Minister at Question Time last week—Lord Davies of Oldham said of the comprehensive spending review that “there will be a number of contributions to that debate. The Prime Minister’s contribution will, of course, be regarded very seriously and very importantly indeed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 2007; Vol. 688, c. 647.]

    What have we come to when the Prime Minister of the land deliberately gives a stage-managed appearance on HMS Albion telling the armed forces, “Don’t worry boys, I am going to look after you. I give you a commitment” and that is a “contribution to that debate.”? That debate is presided over by, undoubtedly, the next Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has betrayed the armed forces. He has failed to fund them to the level required to meet the commitments that the Prime Minister has imposed on them. He is as much a part of this Government as the Prime Minister, and he has failed abysmally in doing the job that he ought to do of supporting our armed forces.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and I offered a little challenge before the previous election. We offered a magnum, no less, of Pol Roger champagne—the favourite champagne of his grandfather, Sir Winston Churchill—to the first person to spot the Chancellor of the Exchequer arriving at, or leaving, a military establishment. The magnum of Pol Roger is still on my sideboard awaiting collection. I believe that the Chancellor has now been to Iraq and is trying to ingratiate himself with the armed forces, but he is a man who has never done anything to help them. He may say that the Tories cut defence spending, but we did so because the circumstances after the ending of the cold war, which was achieved by my noble Friend, Baroness Thatcher, meant that we had to have a rethink. To this Government’s credit, they had a review. We should have had a review, but we did not. We cut defence expenditure but the trouble is that the Labour party wanted to cut it even further. The Government should not tell us that we did not do the right thing by the armed forces because Labour wanted further cuts.

    There is an issue about the funding of our armed forces, and the hon. Member for Crosby raised it. On 30 October, The Daily Telegraph gave figures from an opinion poll that asked people whether they thought more or less should be spent on defence. Some 46 per cent. of people said that we should spend more on it, of whom 18 per cent. said that significantly more should be spent. Only 22 per cent. said that less should be spent on it. Interestingly, there was an opinion poll about Iraq in another column showing that 57 per cent. of people said that we should be out of Iraq either now or within 12 months. That illustrates the complete disconnect between the public’s opposition to the Iraq war and their support for the armed forces.

    We have a duty to support the greatest army in the world. It has served us well and I, like everyone else, is proud of it. We are not doing our stuff by the Army and, if we do not do so, the haemorrhaging of people leaving the armed forces will get even worse and experienced people will go. Such people cannot be replaced. The military covenant requires us to do our duty by our magnificent armed forces.

    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) for securing the debate. I will come to some of the points that she made, but I want to start by paying tribute to the members of our armed forces for their dedication and the invaluable contribution that they make on a daily basis to our efforts for global peace. She put that into context well.

    I also pay tribute to the families, particularly those who have lost loved ones. I was up in Kinloss yesterday for a most moving memorial service in recognition of the 14 brave men who lost their lives in the aircraft crash. It was a powerful event that brought home to me people’s resilience, dedication and commitment. I spoke only to RAF personnel and to some of the families, but all three services were represented.

    As an aside, I should say that I appreciate the comments made by my hon. Friend about the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was one of the early participants in it, which is possibly why I have ended up in this job for six years. I wanted to spend my time with the RAF because my father had been in it, but as two places had been filled, I ended up with the Army. I am glad that I did, because it gave me an insight into things that I did not have much knowledge of, other than through family contacts of a vintage period from the second world war. However, the Army’s future is not dependent on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. If it were, more participants of that scheme would be taking part in the debate. It is to be noted that so few of them are.

    I appreciate my hon. Friend’s recognition of what is being done in the incredible training programmes in the armed forces and, considering who we recruit and where, particularly in the Army. People are lifted and become exemplars for others in their communities, and we give welfare to tens of thousands of younger troops. That is an example of what we are trying to do as part of the covenant. We want to create an ongoing ethos. What we have done is not new, but training is getting better, sharper and better funded.

    One of the baselines is how we bring on young people who come into the armed forces. In my six years as armed forces Minister, I have been dealing with the Deepcut issue—the four tragic deaths that occurred there. We have analysed it and now transformed the whole training regime, which has been independently audited and examined. Those in the armed forces who have had to deal with it must be given credit for transforming their approach, which will give the forces strength. The regime is not perfect, and there is still a lot to be done. There are accommodation issues to consider, but we have invested heavily in both financial and people terms to turn that around. If we do not get it right, we will not get right other aspects of what we are doing. I shall come to equipment, which is a key matter.

    Hon. Members have mentioned the Prime Minister’s speech on 12 January. It is wrong to diminish its importance, but I understand the political knockabout that takes place. It is worth while to read the speech: it was successful and examined where we stand. The Prime Minister talked about the transformation of the context within which the military, politics and public opinion interact. We are in a new climate and environment, and some changes are driven by events and some would have had to be made anyway because of circumstances evolving beyond our shores.

    Mr. Howarth: What the Prime Minister said on HMS Albion was:

    “For our part, in Government, it will mean increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our Armed Forces; not in the short run but for the long term.”

    It was a Minister in the other place, Lord Davies of Oldham, who said that that was merely a contribution to the debate. I say to the Minister that this is not knockabout stuff. If the Prime Minister’s words did not mean that the armed forces were sent the message, “We are going to increase expenditure,” what did they mean?

    Mr. Ingram: I have read the comments made by my colleague in another place, and knockabout is a word that I could use to good effect in describing them. The Prime Minister’s speech was more than a contribution; it was a substantial analysis of where we stand. We are not here to consider that speech, which covered matters beyond the future of the British Army, but it put the armed forces into context. The Prime Minister talked about public opinion, politics and where Her Majesty’s armed forces sit. He also mentioned the need to invest in our nation’s warfighting capabilities to pursue our foreign policy. The sharp end of that is the British Army.

    There are people who do not believe that we should be a warfighting nation, including some in the House and perhaps in the other place. I think that they are wrong, because that represents where we best position ourselves and where we have historically and traditionally given great effect at momentous times in world history. We are doing that in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and who knows where we will do it tomorrow? The Prime Minister set out a variety of security threats and challenges that we face and where the armed forces sit in relation to them. Much of what he said is what we have been addressing in the Ministry of Defence since the strategic defence review.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for admitting that the Conservatives failed in government to address what was coming after the end of the cold war. The downsizing and the changes that took place were not well structured. The Conservatives did not analyse what the needs of the future would be. They immediately reduced defence expenditure dramatically so that they could invest it in trying to win the forthcoming elections.

    Mr. Howarth rose—

    Mr. Ingram: I shall give way in a moment on that point, but I do not agree with the analysis with which the hon. Gentleman closed his speech.

    The incoming Labour Government considered where the armed forces should be positioned and how best they should be structured. That was an intensive programme, driven directly by the armed forces themselves. They knew that they had to get themselves better structured and positioned. On the back on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was clear that more needed to be done. There was not a full review, but more consideration needed to be given to how to structure the armed forces, particularly the Army.

    We considered the new technology that was coming in, which changed the relationship between the various services and how they could fight interdependently and flexibly, meeting new challenges and a different type of threat and enemy. All that had to be included in the examination process. Such a process will always be complicated while we are engaged in heavy commitments such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Other countries where we are engaged have been mentioned, and it is interesting that people forget about Northern Ireland. Only a few years ago we had more troops committed there than to Iraq and Afghanistan put together. We have transformed Northern Ireland: when I was the Northern Ireland Office Minister with responsibility for security, we had about 15,000 troops committed. Some were on rear bases, but that was the total commitment, the vast bulk of which came from the Army.

    The peace process was required for a lot of reasons, one of which was the heavy resource commitment. We had been there for far too long and there was another, better way of doing it. We could never have solved the problem militarily, yet we had a large commitment. As of next year, we will have a commitment of 5,000 troops—not for the peace process, although a measure of support will be given to the civilian authorities, but overall. That is a major transformation and it has reduced pressure.

    Two parts of our re-examination were called future Army structure and future infantry structure. The future Army structure represents a complete overhaul of how we brigade the British Army. Virtually every Army unit establishment was subject to examination, and will be in the months and years ahead. Some 10,000 posts will be redistributed, which will reshape and restructure the Army and is intended to get a better balance between heavy, medium and light capabilities. We inherited an imbalance: the enemy and threat had changed, so we had to change accordingly. That required re-roling and people doing tasks other than those that they thought they would do when they entered the armed forces. We were committed to one objective: maintaining the high quality and standard of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

    A previous Secretary of State, now the Minister for Europe, commented on the matter on 16 December 2004, saying:

    “However, enhancements that we have already decided on include the creation of a new commando engineer regiment, a new port and maritime unit, an additional strategic communications unit and a new logistics support regiment for each deployable brigade. We are also creating a number of new sub-units for surveillance and target acquisition, bomb disposal and vehicle maintenance capabilities.”—(Official Report, 16 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1796.)

    In April last year, a new special forces support group was also formed to work alongside special forces tackling the terrorism that we face globally. I have visited a support group and spoken to those deployed in Afghanistan. I cite those examples because they are never recognised as part of the process of substantial change that we have seen. That process has been driven by a military imperative to get things right, and there has been political and financial support for it.

    Mr. Howarth: I entirely endorse that point, and the Minister is absolutely right, but we need to introduce changes to meet the circumstances of today, not the limbo in which we found ourselves in 1989, following the fall of the Berlin wall. It is absolutely right to do that, but the Minister’s problem is that he is still operating with an Army of less than 100,000. As far as I can work out, we would have to go back pretty well to the time of Wellington to find an Army as small as that. That is where the problem lies—not with the new units that the Minister is creating, which I applaud, but with the reduction in the Army below the critical 100,000 level.

    Mr. Ingram: Let us look at the figures. The hon. Gentleman said that trained strength was 101,300 in 1997. It dropped to 100,900 the following year and to below 100,000 the year after that. In terms of the figure being below 100,000 and the reference to 1935, therefore, he is wrong. The current figures are marginally below the 1999 level. Interestingly, however, recruitment grew at the height of the Iraq controversy, when there were massive demonstrations in this country.

    In 2004 and 2005, the figure went up to 102,400. That tells us something that is probably hard to analyse—recruitment went up against the trend, but we are now having recruiting difficulties. Tempo is unquestionably part of the issue, but people tend to forget the strength of the economy. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) mentioned the strength of the Scottish economy and his own region. It is difficult to recruit from a particular cohort when the economy is strong, and especially when the demographics and all the higher and further education opportunities open to young people, which were not there before, are working against us.

    That is what this debate is about, and if people can find a solution to that problem, they should tell us. A lot of effort is being put into working towards the best conclusion. We offer young people immense opportunities not only in the Army, but in the armed forces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) mentioned the educational opportunities. We market and advertise the opportunities that the armed forces provide so that people are aware of them. Sometimes those recruiting campaigns work, but sometimes they do not. We are no different from any other major organisation that is trying to reach a market and attract people in.

    What militates against our efforts is people arguing that the British armed forces are underfunded, ill equipped, badly treated and badly looked after. There may be some underlying truth in terms of issues needing to be addressed, but no wonder we find it difficult to recruit when debates such as this present a picture of complete negativity, rather than highlighting the positive attractions for young people. That is why we are putting so much effort into our recruiting strategy and trying to lift the quality of the debate as best we can.

    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: That is an interesting point. We have certainly seen that situation in the north-west, and particularly in Liverpool, which is a big recruiting area for young soldiers, although the economy and job opportunities have gone through the ceiling, which means that the Army is not as attractive as it was. However, I take my right hon. Friend back to my earlier point that the Army has made strong attempts to ensure that any qualification it gives has equivalent civilian accreditation. Many individuals were locked into the Army because their experience could not be marketed outside it, but that barrier has now gone. That means that they can gain fantastic opportunities and then say, “Where can I best use them?” That is quite an important factor, and I applaud the fact that we have taken those steps, but it does create retention problems.

    Mr. Ingram: It is probably a no-win situation. Not every young person who comes into the armed forces because of the opportunities that they offer—they are not all 16 or 17-year-olds, and some are a bit more mature—is focused on training and education, and some come in to do what they want to do with the Royal Marines or the Army, but they are all given every opportunity. I agree that that raises an issue, in that we are making people employable who were not employable before.

    I talked to RAF personnel at Kinloss yesterday, and several of them were looking at openings in the outside world. As a nation, we have give them that opportunity. Some would have taken it as a result of their own choice, but many will now be able to do so because we have provided the resources—the hundreds of millions that we pour into the education of our personnel.

    I want now to touch on equipment because we hear so much about equipment problems—indeed, that is all we are ever told about. When the issue arises, Defence Ministers try to take those who make such comments through the argument. Let me give a good example of what applies to the Army today and what will apply into the future. Four years ago, an eight-man fire team would have had roughly three SA80s; one light support weapon; an individual Mk 6 helmet, webbing and Bergen; enhanced combat body armour; the old Clansman; a light anti-tank weapon; an individual weapon sight; and a 51 mm mortar. Now, such a team has a light support weapon; a light machine gun; an underslung grenade launcher; thermal imaging sights; the Mk 6A helmet, which is an improved defensive aid; all-round Osprey body armour, which has saved lives; the interim light anti-tank weapon; the Bowman personal role radio; head-mounted night-vision sights; a long-range image intensifier; and an automatic lightweight grenade launcher and a 60 mm mortar in support.

    All those developments have taken place because of the theatre in which we find ourselves. That is what is happening on the procurement of equipment, and it is the same with armoured vehicles. I am really surprised that the hon. Member for Aldershot criticises what we are doing and says that we should do more. What more can we do, other than procure the numbers that we need and ask industry to supply us, which it is doing to a considerable extent? All that will place the Army in a better position in the years ahead.

    Let us just consider one fact: equipment valued at more than £10 billion has been delivered to the armed forces in the past three years. When people say that equipment is not being supplied to provide for force protection and wider capabilities, they are simply wrong. If they want more defence expenditure, let me hear where they want less expenditure. I shall advocate more expenditure as part of a spending Department’s approach with the Treasury—it is our job to do that—but let those who want more for defence say where they want a reduction. In health? In education?

    The issue is part of our covenant with the British people, and the Prime Minister set it out in his argument. Have we got the balance right? The argument is now out there, and the Prime Minister certainly made more than a contribution—his was a powerful examination of where we stand as a nation and what we need to do against unknown threats and enemies. However, we must get ourselves in the best position. I welcome this debate, and we should have more such debates, but I just wish that more hon. Members would participate in them.

  • Michael Heseltine – 2007 Speech on the Cities

    The below speech was made by Michael Heseltine on 30th September 2007.

    When parts of our cities erupted in riots a quarter of a century ago, I asked the Prime Minister to release me to walk the streets of Liverpool.

    After three weeks of listening, questioning, it became clear how politically impoverished our great cities had become.

    There was no shortage of opportunities or ideas. What was missing were people willing and able to take responsibility.

    For decades after the Second World War power had shifted remorselessly to London.

    Nationalisation had turned powerful provincial industries into London bureaucracies.

    Inflation and confiscatory taxation had wiped out much of our independent enterprise.

    That same punitive tax regime effectively choked off the ability of the enterprise system to renew and revitalise.

    Takeovers had undermined the independence of large and resourceful companies loyal to our cities. The dependency of the branch office was no substitute for local owners.

    Local government underwent a similar centralising process. As Governments did more, spent more so more control followed the expenditure.

    Those of us who served our party through this period, remember all too well the influence of the Labour Party in this process of centralisation.

    The reversal of this process culminated in the great battles of the 1980’s and 1990’s.

    The return of British industry to the competitive market place.

    Tax levels that enabled enterprise to flourish.

    Council house sales that enfranchised a million families.

    The Trade Unions brought within the rule of law.

    In the longest apology note in political history the Labour Party tore up its historic manifesto, accepted our agenda and pursued our reforms as though they had thought of them in the first place.

    I have perhaps become too tolerant as the years went by.

    But my tolerance is stretched to breaking point as I listen to the announcement of one more Labour initiative, another name change, as yet another Tory idea is relabelled and recycled.

    Today they have learnt a new language.

    But language is no substitute for action.

    When it comes to action they are unable to distinguish between public expenditure and quality of service.

    Every crisis has its new grant, every newspaper headline its ministerial initiative, every cock up its spin.

    Not only do few of these things work, even more insidious is the consequential public disbelief. It is a question of trust. Time and again on my TV screen I hear members of the public say “you can’t believe a word they say”.

    Take education.

    Ten years of Labour Government.

    Ten years at the end of which over one in four of all children in primary schools are unable to read, write, and add up properly.

    And those are the Governments own figures. God knows what the truth is!!

    Ten years of Labour Government and our examination system is so discredited that an increasing number of schools – independent schools which have the freedom to choose – are opting out and moving to internationally respected standards.

    Tony Blair said it in these words Education, Education, Education.

    Gordon Brown is now repeating it.

    Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Tomorrow.

    Translated into Spanish I think that reads Manana, Manana, Manana.

    It is no surprise that Gordon Brown managed to speak for over an hour without once mentioning our inner cities.

    There lies opportunity for our party.

    The renaissance of the enterprise culture in the 80’s and 90’s flowed because we restored freedom to the enterprise society.

    But millions of our fellow citizens work for Government, local authorities, ‘not for profit’ organisations.

    They also long for responsibility and the chance to use their initiative in solving local problems.

    Reforming the public sector remains a huge challenge.

    David Cameron asked my task group for a report on reviving the cities.

    About empowerment of local communities.

    About rebuilding the great powerhouses of provincial England.

    Cities are the centres of human enterprise and endeavour.

    They are the great engines of our economy.

    They can sustain the infinite variety of human talent upon which a sophisticated society depends.

    They provide choice and diversity in academia, the arts, culture, sport, entertainment and the quality of life.

    I have proposed to David a vision for a new partnership.

    Central Government cannot abandon its responsibilities for the proper use of taxpayers money.

    But taxpayers money does not have to be channelled through the quangos of central Government.

    Ten thousand million pounds a year goes through the Housing Corporation, the Regional Development Agencies, English Partnerships and the Learning and skills councils.

    To achieve value tax payers money should recognise local priorities, local initiatives, local ambitions.

    I say this not in any way to criticise the motives, integrity or ability of Whitehall and its civil servants.

    I say it because I don’t believe that there are simple, national solutions to complex and infinitely varied local challenges and opportunities.

    But that is what centralisation does. It creates an intellectual straight jacket.

    Solutions are devised.

    Rules drawn up.

    Circulars issued.

    Guidelines promulgated.

    But Birmingham is not Manchester

    Leeds is not Liverpool

    Bristol is not Coventry

    And none of these cities are Scottish or Welsh.

    If the English tax payer has to pay for the new freedoms of Scotland and Wales there should be choice, diversity, opportunity and, yes, experimentation in the relationship between Whitehall and Town Hall.

    Each city has a different history, different strengths, different opportunities.

    We believe in trust for the people.

    We should also recognise that same spirit of independence in the governance of provincial England.

    We should never forget that the majority of us live in or are affected by what happens in our cities.

    I know of no country like ours that so suffocates its cities. In Europe and the United States they are respected for the great human powerhouses that they are.

    Of course, there are difficult issues to be faced.

    Chief Executives of major cities are paid around £150k to £200k per annum placing then amongst the highest paid in those cities.

    But they are not held to account by local people.

    The leader of the Council works at least the same hours, faces public and press scrutiny, and is paid a fraction of the Chief Executives salary.

    I believe it’s time to combine these two jobs.

    I believe cities should elect leaders held democratically to account every four years.

    The constituency should be the whole city and not a small part of it that is often socially unrepresentative.

    It is tempting in politics to present ideas in the most dramatic and innovative way possible.

    Tempting but misleading.

    Most initiatives are evolutionary not revolutionary.

    I advocate changing the balance. The interests of provincial England were heavier in the scales yesterday than today.

    Indeed we created the greatest empire the world has ever seen at a time when Mancunians proclaimed “what Manchester says today, the rest of England says tomorrow”. There may be an element of controversy in that statement but no one would quarrel with the pride and self confidence it revealed.

    Britain of past centuries thrived, on its dispersed dynamic centres of enterprise and municipal pride.

    The legacy lives on in the majestic buildings, the rich endowments, the museums and art galleries. Too much of that independence has been snuffed out.

    London has become one of the world’s pre-eminent cities.

    Paris maybe more beautiful.

    New York richer.

    Washington more powerful.

    But add history, culture, politics, finance, commerce, sport, music, the arts, and the rule of law… and London has no equal.

    We all gain from this but it creates great pressures on London and the South East.

    Too many in the provinces feel left out. They want their chance to thrive.

    We should offer it to them.

    Let us think about the changes that follow an elected Mayor.

    The first change requires a bonfire of central Government circulars, targets, ring fences and all those hidden persuaders that tighten central Government’s grip.

    Next, we must ask – what powers should a Mayor have?

    First, existing local Government responsibilities such as education, transport, housing, planning, remain.

    Next, policing. Nothing is of greater concern to our citizens than effective policing.

    There are no simple solutions to lawlessness, drunkenness, violence and a range of criminal behaviour.

    But people want these issues tackled. And they want an accountable person in charge.

    Our party has rightfully recognised this. Our policy for the election of local sheriffs to break the Home Office monopoly over the police is an imaginative response.

    Any such new power should be vested in an elected Mayor.

    Next, the huge sums of money spent by Central Government quangos.

    These powers were largely removed from local authorities and should be restored.

    Next, there are imaginative ideas that could enhance local democracy.

    Over my four decades in the House of Commons I was very aware of changing public attitudes to the Health Service.

    There remains overwhelming support for our National Health Service, and great admiration for the men and women who often provide extraordinary service and skill.

    But when things go wrong the scale of the machine, the remoteness of responsibility, the feeling that there are more excuses than answers argues for local not national accountability.

    Next, we should look at the administration of education.

    Study the statistics of crime.

    Examine the background of our prison population.

    You will find educational failure.

    That is the extreme.

    But look at the long-term unemployed. You will find educational failure there too.

    Ask any employer if they can recruit the people they need with adequate education and proper training.

    You will get an emphatic “no”.

    The lost opportunities are immeasurable.

    There are too many overlapping authorities each with a finger in the educational pie.

    A wider education authority could also have responsibility for much of the positive aspects of employment policy.

    Getting people back to work is often about the failures of education.

    In the pursuit of raising national education standards we should empower local people to devise local solutions.

    I have spent too much ministerial time wrestling with local Government finance to believe there are easy or acceptable alternatives.

    But there are changes that are possible.

    Authorities could keep additional business rates created through new development.

    They could have access to the capital bond market with no Government guarantee.

    Finally, we should build on our City Challenge ideas of the 1990’s.

    We proved that if central Government offered to help finance local development plans, then local communities were enthusiastic to respond.

    In every city there are organisations whose interests can coincide. Imaginative leadership can bring them together.

    Such plans would be rewarded on their merits.

    Yes, some cities would get more.

    The others would try harder.

    That is how you drive standards up.

    The simplest example are the housebuilders who will build houses on brown field sites if the public sector first eliminates toxicity from them.

    Such interrelationships are endless.

    Clean-up canals and tourist facilities flourish.

    Specialist universities bring business parks.

    Roads open up development.

    Better environment encourages new jobs.

    It is about building on local strengths, creating communities of self interest, letting people own their cities.

    We all know we have a fight on our hands.

    We have to fight in the cities because we can’t return to Government without their enthusiastic support.

    We know it can be done.

    We control Birmingham, Coventry, Bradford, Trafford, Dudley, Solihull, Walsall and a range of London Boroughs.

    Winston Churchill once famously rallied our country with his exhortation to fight on the beaches, the fields and the streets.

    In very different circumstances and with very different weapons.

    We must fight with ideas.

    We must offer a new, a fairer, an exciting partnership for tomorrow.

    Set the people free.

    Let us start by giving our cities back to the people.

  • Oliver Letwin – 2007 Speech on Cameron Conservatism

    Below is the text of the speech made by Oliver Letwin on 8th May 2007.

    Do Cameron Conservatives have a theory?

    This is not, of course, the same as asking whether Cameron Conservatism is theory-driven.

    Like any distinctively Conservative discourse, Cameron Conservatism is radically pragmatic rather than radically dogmatic. It is a practical response to felt need – a balanced answer to what are understood to be real and present challenges.

    But a political position which is not theory-driven, (which, indeed, is profoundly sceptical of theory as a guide to political action) may nevertheless disclose deep theoretical dispositions – distinctive patterns of thought which, through their internal coherence, lend strength to pragmatic responses as these come under attack in the battle of ideas and strengthen also the unity of purpose displayed when pragmatically tackling the perceived real-world challenges.

    In this sense, then, I repeat my question, do Cameron Conservatives have a theory?

    And my answer, in that same sense, is yes. The pragmatic responses of Cameron Conservatism to perceived real-world challenges do disclose a set of coherent theoretical dispositions.

    In particular, Cameron Conservatism is an attempt to achieve two paradigm shifts – a shift in the locus of political debate and a shift in the theory of the state.

    First, it is an attempt to shift the locus of debate from an econo-centric paradigm to a socio-centric paradigm.

    Second, it is an attempt to shift the theory of the state from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm, within which government (apart from its perennial role in guaranteeing security and stability)…

    is conceived principally as an agency for enabling individuals, families, associations and corporations to internalise externalities and hence to live up to social responsibilities without the further intervention of authority.

    This concise description of the theory is inevitably both dense and unfamiliar.

    Let me now unpack it, employing a somewhat more perspicuous and familiar idiom.

    But before I do so, let me offer you what is sometimes called a meta-thought or a second-order observation.

    There is a reason why I have been using this ridiculous, high-falutin language.

    I want to make the point that ridiculous high-falutin language is not the sole prerogative of Gordon Brown with his post neo-classical endogenous growth theory…

    Nor of David Miliband with his “emphasis on the value of equality and solidarity…supplemented by renewed commitment to the extension of personal autonomy in an increasingly interdependent world”.

    You shouldn’t think that, just because someone uses complicated words, they have a coherent theory. And you shouldn’t think that, just because someone tries, most of the time to speak in plain English, they don’t have a theory.

    Cameron Conservatives have a strong attachment to plain English. That is because we think that it is easier to think clearly in clear language. But this has misled some people who think that theories come in complicated language to think we haven’t got one.

    And my point is that, despite our general preference for plain language, we do have a theory. It can be expressed (as I have just expressed it) in complicated language. It can also be expressed (as I am about to do) in much simpler terms.

    So what do I mean by Cameron Conservatism being an attempt to shift the locus of debate from an econo-centric paradigm to a socio-centric paradigm?

    It all goes back to Marx.

    Before Marx, politics was multi-dimensional – constitutional, social, environmental as well as economic. But Marx changed all that. The real triumph of Marxism consisted in the way that it defined the preoccupations not only of its supporters but also of its opponents.

    After Marx, socialists defended socialism and free marketeers defended capitalism. For both sides, the centrepiece of the debate was the system of economic management. Politics became econo-centric.

    But, as we begin the 21st century, things have changed. Since Thatcher, and despite recent recurrences of something like full-blooded socialism in some parts of Latin America, the capitalist/socialist debate has in general ceased to dominate modern politics. From Beijing to Brussels, the free market has won the battle of economic ideas.

    Victories like this often cause a hiatus in political thought. And the transition to a post-Marxist politics caused just such a hiatus.

    For several years, politicians have been wandering round in the mist, trying to discern the shape of a new politics more suited to an age in which socialism and capitalism no longer vie for acceptance.

    After war, the peace is sometimes more difficult for the victors than for the vanquished. So it was in this ideological war. Peace proved particularly difficult for British Conservatives – the very group that had raised the battle-standard and led the global army of the free market to victory.

    But, after a decade of disarray and enforced reflection on the part of the British Conservative Party, an answer has emerged. Cameron Conservatives have recognised the profound consequences of the fact that we have entered a post-Marxist era. Politics – once econo-centric – must now become socio-centric.

    If the free market is a matter of consensus, the debate must change its nature. Instead of arguing about systems of economic management, we have to discuss how to make better lives out of the prosperity generated by the free market. Growth in well-being hasn’t kept pace with growth in domestic product.

    At the recent Conservative Spring Forum, I chaired a discussion about the work of our six policy groups. Afterwards, a senior party official – who had taken time off from his arduous administrative responsibilities to listen to the discussion – approached me to say that he had now understood what we were up to. “Instead of economics”, he said, “it’s now about the whole way we live our lives”.

    Bull’s eye.

    Instead of being about economics, politics in a post-Marxist age is about the whole way we live our lives; it is about society.

    Politics today is socio-centric.

    The first theoretical advance (the first paradigm shift) of Cameron-Conservatism is to see that fact clearly – to refocus the debate, to change the terms of political trade, to ask a different set of questions.

    As David Cameron put it in his speech to the same Spring Forum:

    “It’s not economic breakdown that Britain now faces, but social breakdown. Not businesses that aren’t delivering, but public services. Not rampant inflation but rampant crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. Not irresponsible unions – it’s irresponsible parents…

    And as a recent report from UNICEF showed – a report which put Britain at the bottom of the international league table for the well-being of children – it’s not that Britain is the sick man of Europe; we’re becoming the sick family of Europe…The mission of the modern Conservative Party, could not be clearer. It is to bring about Britain’s social revival: to improve the quality of life for everyone in our country, increasing our well-being, not just our wealth.”

    So far, I hope, so clear.

    But what do I mean by saying that Cameron Conservatism is also “an attempt to shift the theory of the state from a provision-based paradigm to a framework-based paradigm, within which government (apart from its perennial role in guaranteeing security and stability)…

    is conceived principally as an agency for enabling individuals, families, associations and corporations to internalise externalities and hence to live up to social responsibilities without the further intervention of authority?”

    Here, we move from the focus of the debate to the arguments on each side of the refocused debate – from the nature of the question to the nature of the answer.

    And, first, we have to attend to the meaning of the provision-theory of the modern state.

    This is the successor to socialism in the post-Marxist era. It is, in British terms, the essence of Gordon Brown’s version of New Labour.

    The provision-theory accepts the free market as the engine of economic growth. But, just as Clause 4 socialism once saw the state as the proper provider of goods and services through ownership of the means of production, so the provision-theorists of Brownian New Labour see the state as the proper provider of public services and of well-being through direction and control.

    The tell-tale marks of provision-theory are to be seen in much of the record of the last ten years – the targets and directives, the reorganisations, schemes and initiatives. Direct government intervention has been brought – with the best of intentions, though often with notable lack of practical success – to bear on schools and hospitals, police officers and neighbourhoods, local authorities and universities…

    The state has been seen as the source of enlightened social action, just as it was once seen as the source of enlightened economic action.

    The Cameron Conservative framework-theory of the state is fundamentally different. It takes the same place in the socio-centric political debate of the twenty-first century that free market theory once took before it triumphed in, and hence outdated, the econo-centric debate of the twentieth century.

    The framework theory of the modern state sees government as having two fundamental roles: to guarantee the stability and security upon which, by common consent, both the free market and well-being depend; and, much more controversially, to establish a framework…

    of support and incentive which enables and induces individual citizens and organisations to act in ways that fulfil not merely their own self-interested ambitions but also their wider social responsibilities.

    It is in emphasising this second duty of government that Cameron Conservatism distinguishes itself radically from the provision-theory of Brownian New Labour.

    Cameron Conservatism puts no faith in central direction and control. Instead, it seeks to identify externalities (social and environmental responsibilities) that participants in the free market are likely to neglect, and then seeks to establish frameworks that will lead people and organisations to internalise those externalities – to act of their own volition in ways that will improve society by increasing general well being.

    The intuitions about human nature that underpin this framework-theory of the modern state in twenty-first century post-Marxist socio-centric politics are unsurprisingly the same as the intuitions about human nature that underpinned free market theory in twentieth century econo-centric politics.

    The first intuition is that human enterprise, initiative, vocation and morale are the things that lead to progress and sustainable success in the socio-environmental sphere, just as in the economic sphere. The second, allied intuition is that command and control systems eventually fall under their own weight because they stifle enterprise, initiative, vocation and morale.

    And the third intuition is that a framework which leads people to internalise their social responsibilities and to fulfil those responsibilities of their own volition in their own ways is accordingly a much more powerful engine for sustained socio-environmental success than direct government control.

    Will the framework-theory based on these liberal conservative intuitions come in time to win the battle of ideas in socio-centric politics as comprehensively as its precursor, liberal conservative free market theory, did in the old econo-centric political debates?

    It is too early to tell.

    But one thing at least is clear. Cameron Conservatives have both an analysis of the nature of twenty-first century politics and a theory of the role of the modern state.

    To win a battle of ideas is always a hard task. But having an idea is certainly a good starting-point.

  • John Redwood – 2007 Speech to the Bruges Group

    The below speech was made by John Redwood at a fringe meeting during the Conservative Party Conference in October 2007.

    The constitutional treaty is part of a process to try and create a United Federal States of Europe. Indeed, it would not be that federal because there would be an enormous amount of central power coming from the Brussels machine. We as democrats object to it because the power is not properly democratically accountable. It is exercised mainly by unelected senior executives (who on the continent are regarded as if they were elected politicians), the Commissioners, and of course a lot of it is done through the process of the court itself, constantly driving decisions in favour of more and more federal power.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a mighty cause that we must unite to fight. This is a vital cause if we want to keep our democracy in Britain, or if we want to recapture parts of our democracy that have already been lost, needlessly frittered away by an insouciant government that tells us one thing and does another.

    This is a mighty test of British democracy itself. It goes to the very heart of the breaking of the bond of trust between a main political party and the people who elected it. The government promised and the government has failed to deliver. It goes to the very issue of whether you can believe politicians and political parties in general when you have so many senior politicians in this country seeking to tell you the fanciful, that this is not the constitution, that this is a very watered down version of the constitution, that there is nothing serious going on, that you will be able to carry on governing your own country in the usual democratic way after all these powers have been surrendered.

    This is a government which is now dicing with the most important powers of the state of all. It is playing nonchalantly with the right of parliament and government in this country to decide if and when our forces should be committed to battle, what our foreign policy stance should be on the major problem areas of the world, how people should be charged with serious criminal offences and how they should be treated if they are found guilty of those criminal offences.

    These are the very essence of state power. We here don’t think those powers have always been well used and sensibly used by this government, but what we want is to continue to live in a system where we can challenge the way the government of the day makes decisions over war and peace and criminal justice and foreign affairs, and where we are in the right to persuade the British people and come to power to do something differently.

    What we wish to avoid is the British people ending up in a position where, because they don’t trust their politicians enough, and because some of their politicians so badly mislead them, we end up with those vital decisions taken way away from these shores by people we cannot elect, and more importantly, by people we cannot drum out of office when they do the wrong thing.

    The one power that all parliamentarians seriously fear is the power of the British electorate to dismiss us when we get it wrong and when we misbehave and when we let you down.

    I am a democrat to my core. I believe in that power. I believe I should be accountable to all my electors, and on national issues to the wider nation. I want that power the people have over their elected representatives to be strengthened, and I want the power my elected representatives have over the laws and the administration of this country also to be strengthened so the accountability can mean something. The more the power is transferred to the unelected and the unaccountable, the more people will scorn and despise government, the more that bond of trust will be irreparably broken, the more your democracy will be taken away from you.

    Ladies and gentlemen, it is vital we unite and fight. It is vital we use any general election forthcoming to make this one of the big issues of the day. It is vital we do not miss our opportunity. We fought them and won to save our pound. Now we need to fight them and win to save our country.

  • James Purnell – 2007 Speech to National Association of Pension Funds Conference

    jamespurnell

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Purnell, the then Minister of State for Pension Reform, to the National Association of Pension Funds conference on 16th January 2007.

    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address your seminar here today.

    I’d like to start by thanking NAPF for all the advice you have given us in the months leading up to December’s White Paper. Not just because you endorsed many of our key proposals – although that was nice! – but because you put forward some important and helpful proposals that we were able to accept.

    The title of your seminar today begs the question have we got our Personal Account proposals right. We think we have. By giving millions of people an easy way to save, by providing clear incentives through employer contributions and, crucially, by reforming the state and private system to ensure it pays to save; we’re confident that the proposals in the White Paper will help millions more workers save.

    Without these reforms, most people would have been retiring on Pension Credit in 2050. Thanks to our reforms, that proportion will fall from over 75% to around 30%.

    Employees will see their savings matched pound for pound by a combination of contributions from their employer and the Government. Low charges, achieved through economies of scale, will mean that people will see the more of their money going directly into their pension pot rather than being lost in administration.

    This combination of policies will transform incentives to save. As the Pensions Policy Institute have made clear, that means that automatic enrolment into personal accounts will be possible.

    However, the PPI also said there should be good generic advice for those groups that should think about opting out of personal accounts.

    We’ve listened and yesterday, Ed Balls and I announced that work we’ve asked Otto Thoresen – Chief Executive of Aegon UK – to research and design a national generic financial advice service. Otto will be reporting by the end of the year and I am looking forward to developing this project to help meet the information needs of personal accounts.

    The central announcement in the December White Paper was the decision that the National Pension Saving Scheme model represented the best method for delivering personal accounts.

    We chose this model for two reasons: cost and simplicity.

    On cost, our evaluation found that the Commission’s model is likely to be significantly cheaper than the alternatives that were put forward. We are confident that we will be able to achieve the level of charges Turner set out, which could mean savers keeping up to 25% more of their pension pot.

    In your response to the White Paper the NAPF rightly identified that simplicity was going to be key. And for us, it was one of the main reasons for choosing the NPSS model. Under this model consumers will not be forced to make choices about who administers their fund. This is particularly important when you consider our target market will be moderate to low earners – a group who historically have had low levels of financial literacy.

    But our White Paper measures are not simply about the introduction of personal accounts. They are also about protecting and supporting good existing provision.

    Personal accounts are to be focused on a target market – those not currently making adequate provision and without access to a good workplace scehme. In the main, median and low earners, a significant proportion of whom are women. Personal accounts are designed to fill a gap in the existing market, not replace it.

    And we’ve taken measures to mitigate against any ‘mission creep’. There will be no transfers into or out of personal accounts from or to existing pension schemes. There will be an annual limit of the level of contirbutions an individual can put into their account. £10,000 in the first year – to allow individuals currently without access to a good quality occupational pension to save in non-pension products before 2012 and then to move them to personal accounts. We have proposed a limit of £5,000 for subsequent years and have asked for views as to whether this is the right level.

    Many employers today provide excellent occupational pension schemes – and we are determined that alongside the introduction of personal accounts, they should be supported in continuing to do so.

    So we’re taking forward a rolling deregulatory review with the aim of reducing the administration currently associated with occupational schemes. An advisory group has already been set up and last month we appointed two external reviewers – Ed Sweeney and Chris Lewin – to set the direction of the review.

    We know that we can also help by ensuring that the exemption process for high quality schemes is as simple and straightforward as possible – and so we are planning for it to be largely based on existing tests and self-certification.

    I know the NAPF and colleagues in the pensions industry have raised concerns about “levelling down” – fearing that the introduction of personal accounts will usher in a future in which a 3% employer contribution will be the norm for all schemes. So I’d like to make a few points on this issue.

    Firstly, we should not lose sight of the fact that employers are currently free to make no contribution at all if they wish. Indeed, nearly 9 million employees currently work for such an employer. From this perspective the minimum employer contribution could be considered as “levelling-up”, creating a floor below which no employer can fall. This minimum floor will also help those employers who provide a pension today, creating a more level playing field by ensuring that their domestic competitors are at least contributing 3 per cent.

    And secondly, we need to remember that a 3% minimum employer contribution, along with automatic enrolment and personal accounts, will mean that total contributions into pensions will increase significantly. We don’t think that levelling down is inevitable. But it’s worth noting that even in the worst case scenario modelled by the NAPF, in your research report published last month, pension saving would still increase overall. Your analysis shows that in 2012 total pensions contributions could increase by around 60%, from under £20 billion to over £30 billion.

    We think the reality may be more positive. Our research, conducted with over 2,500 private sector employers, about how they might respond to the reforms in 2012 suggested that levelling down would not have the dramatic effect that some are predicting.

    But we do take these concerns seriously. If levelling down is to be minimised, it is important that existing good provision is supported, and that employers continue to view offering a high quality pension as a way of attracting employees. So we welcome the proposals put forward by the NAPF to support existing provision, many of which we have also proposed in the White Paper – a simple exemption test, for example, and an objective for the personal accounts delivery authority around existing provision.

    And we agree with you that more needs to be done to help employees see the value of employer contributions. I was particularly interested in the NAPF’s proposal for a ’Good Workplace Pension‘ quality mark – so that employees can easily recognise a scheme that offers high quality pensions.

    The NAPF envisaged the quality mark would be awarded to employer’s schemes that offered total and employer contributions higher than personal accounts. And that all scheme members would be provided with information about the quality mark, thereby helping them better understand the value of the pension on offer.

    We’re keen to see this happen, although it is the responsibility of the pensions industry to develop further details and ultimately establish a quality mark. But I think this could be a very useful tool in encouraging employers to raise, rather than lower, their standards: The 3% minimum will provide one floor below which no employer can fall. But with a quality mark we would be aiming to set a second floor – a standard to which employers will want to rise.

    And this could be linked to another area we’re exploring: whether there should be waiting periods for companies that make these higher contributions.

    Personal Accounts are only one of a number of significant steps this government has taken in securing the long term future of work based pensions. The Pensions Act 2004 saw the creation of two new independent bodies, The Pensions Regulator and the Pensions Protection Fund.

    Personal accounts will also be an occupational pension, so it is important therefore that we consider how these institutions fit within the Government’s overall pensions policies. In the May White Paper, we therefore proposed an Institutional Review.

    The institutional review will consider how the functions of organisations involved in the regulation and protection of workplace pensions – such as the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and the FSA – fit with our new proposals.

    I’m very pleased to announce today that we have appointed an independent external reviewer to lead the Institutional Review – Paul Thornton. Paul has a wealth of experience in this field. He is currently a Managing Director of Gazelle Corporate Finance. And has previously been a President of Institute of Actuaries and a senior partner at Watson Wyatt.

    As with our White Paper proposals, in taking forward the review, we want to encourage debate amongst the stakeholders involved and build a consensus on the best way forward. Ensuring we have appropriate regulation and protection for all work based pensions – including personal accounts – means we need to think carefully about how the functions of the various institutions involved can best be arranged. The review will commence from today and report – with recommendations – to Ministers by Spring 2007.

    Advice on how to contribute to the Review is available from today on the DWP website.

    I’d like to conclude by thanking you for your positive engagement with us as we have developed the proposals in our White Paper and also make a plea for you to continue with this engagement as we refine and finalise our plans over the coming months. “Getting it right” – to borrow from the title of today’s event – and delivering a robust, enduring and comprehensive pension settlement is something in which we all have a vital interest.

  • James Plaskitt – 2007 Speech on Public Perceptions of Welfare

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Plaskitt, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Work and Pensions, on 7th February 2007 to the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation Benefits Conference in Harrogate.

    Good Morning. I am delighted to be invited back to speak at your conference today. This is actually my fifth speech to one of your conferences and my second visit to your Harrogate venue.

    So you might be thinking why does he keep coming back?  Hasn’t he said it all before?   Well actually no he hasn’t. But some things do bear repeating. Coming back allows me to thank you again personally for all the work you have done in recent years to turn the HB service round. And it allows me to set out just what an important role I think you have in helping us shape a new approach to welfare.

    There are many local authorities who are setting the pace already. I can see from your agenda that you will be hearing from Stockport and East Riding later on.

    I understand that Stockport and East Riding were joint winners of the IRRV benefits team of the year in 2006.

    Both authorities have shown that they can provide an excellent service through effective management, streamlined processes, and genuine innovation. They have achieved something to be proud of.

    I want to develop some ideas on shaping a modern welfare state later in my speech today.

    But first I want to talk to you about security.

    Security in the Housing Benefit system. Security in welfare delivery.

    And how we can all contribute to building a better system – where you have the right tools for the job, where customers act more responsibly, and where the public recognise we are running highly effective and efficient services.

    So I want to turn to our attention to tackling fraud and error in Housing Benefit. This is very much a live issue – I am sure many of you will have seen the latest figures we released only a week ago.

    Some of these figures show significant improvements. An overall reduction in fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker’s Allowance is welcome news.

    As is the success you have had in reducing levels of fraud in Housing Benefit – now half of previous levels at the lowest ever recorded figure of 1.4% of expenditure.

    But, yes – you’ve guessed it, there is still a lot to be done here. Customer error has increased by nearly two thirds and now it accounts for more than both fraud and official error combined.

    I know there are many reasons for this. A fundamental issue is that customers are simply not reporting changes in their circumstances as they used to do. And, as I understand it, there are three major contributing factors to this:

    First, there is evidence that some customers are confused by different reporting regimes in different benefits.

    For example, the arrangements for reporting changes in both Pension Credit and tax credits are different from Housing Benefit.

    Of course, both Pension Credit and tax credits are major welfare reforms this Government pioneered in order to direct more support to those who need it most.

    Those over pension age who deserve a long and dignified retirement. And those people who are getting on in work to provide better lives for themselves and their families.

    But it has meant that some Housing Benefit customers are now less clear about their responsibilities. We need to put this right and that is what I intend to see happen.

    Second, we abolished benefit periods. This was undoubtedly the right decision. Not all customers should be required to restate and re-verify their circumstances annually.

    This was overly intrusive for the vast majority of genuine customers, and administratively both complex and costly. But it may have contributed to a culture amongst some of not reporting changes at the right time.

    Third, the risk-based reviews we introduced to replace benefit periods have not reduced error as much as we expected.

    This is why we are introducing a more holistic performance measure in April that focuses on reductions – so the measure will be more about overall outcomes than specific tasks and activities.

    You may be aware that my Department launched an overall strategy for tackling error recently, which followed a similar strategy for reducing fraud.

    And I know that Housing Benefit has its own particular challenges. So today I’m presenting to you our action plan for tackling fraud and error in HB document aims to build on the overarching DWP strategies and puts them into the local authority context.

    The principles are the same but the details are specific to Housing and Council Tax Benefits.

    It will be no surprise to you that a central element of the strategy is to reduce customer error.

    I can feel some of you tensing up!

    It is not a matter of asking you to do more of the same. I am not seeking to do that. But clearly, we need to get to those root causes of the problems as I have identified them and deal with them head on.

    That is why the strategy identifies four areas we should tackle, and sets out an action plan for achieving specific goals.

    First, we must ensure that you have direct access to all of the information we have available. It is why for example we are working hard to get you online access to tax credits data as an upmost priority.

    Second, I firmly believe that we can radically reduce customers’ genuine errors by encouraging them to take more responsibility for reporting changes in their circumstances.

    Indeed, the vast majority of our customers want to keep their benefit levels right – and it is our job to make sure they know what they need to tell us, and when they need to tell us. And, it is essential that we back this up fully by detecting mistakes when this doesn’t happen.

    Last month, I launched an important ‘Something to Declare – Nothing to Declare’ campaign targeted at customer compliance in Peterborough. With promising early results.

    Third, we need to improve the efficiency of IT and business processes to the fullest extent that we can. We won’t be able to do everything overnight, but we can – and we will -make significant improvements as rapidly as we can. For example establishing secure e-mail links to support data-matching.

    But the fourth point is, I believe, most important. It is about empowerment. We want to build on your evident commitment to reduce fraud and error. And move away from the prescriptive measures that frankly I have never been comfortable with, such as asking you to review 50% of your caseload each year.

    From next April, we will implement the new performance measure that will allow you to choose the most appropriate activities to reduce fraud and error in your authority.

    This is fully in line with our overall approach – to set fewer targets and to focus on outcomes built on the needs of the citizen.

    We will introduce a simpler, less burdensome performance framework for local government from April 2008, which responds to concerns I know you have raised with us in the past.

    Our fraud and error action plan sets out a framework for a more secure delivery of Housing and Council Tax Benefit. And I have no doubt this is something we can deliver.

    Essentially what we should be aiming for here is the same level of success we have seen in improving processing times.

    And I really believe that this is a success that we don’t celebrate enough. There have been some quite staggering improvements over the last four or so years.

    For example, since 2002/03, you have improved the average time to process new Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit claims by three weeks – 21 days!

    The poorest performers have made the greatest improvements, with the bottom 15% improving the average time to process new claims from 99 days in 2002/03 to 54 days in 2005/06.

    In 2002/03, the average time to process a new claim was 56 days; and the number of authorities taking over 48 days was 169!  That was over 40 per cent of authorities.

    But by 2005/06 the average time to process a claim had improved 36 days; and the number of authorities taking over 48 days had reduced to just 40.

    I recently saw something of this for myself when I visited the London Borough of Hackney.

    In 2001, Hackney took 234 days to process new claims; in the first half this financial year they took just 28 days.

    This is a clear example of what can be achieved by local authorities through political will, good management, and the commitment of staff.

    I am pleased that we have been able to give support to Hackney through our Performance Standards Fund and the free consultancy provided by the Department’s Performance Development Team.

    And in Liverpool City Council, Housing Benefit claims were being processed in an average of 95 days in 2002 – but by the second quarter of this year this had been reduced to just 33 days.

    Lambeth too have seen substantial reductions in processing times from 89 to 37 days.

    And if I may just give an example of an authority who have shown consistently good service, Guildford Council have been processing Housing Benefit claims in an average of under 30 days for a number of years.

    And these are just a few cases. I could name many authorities who are represented here today, and forgive me if I don’t do so!  All across the country we have seen, time after time, authorities who have turned their Housing Benefit service around.

    So you have already proved beyond doubt that you can make substantial and lasting change. Well I am asking you to do the same thing again in reducing the amount of error in the system.

    I know we in the Department need to play a full and active role in supporting you in doing this. And I hope this new action plan assures you that we have every intention of providing you with this support.

    I am certain we can join together to deliver a faster, more secure and more streamlined service for the customer.

    And I think that, as well as building partnerships across government and voluntary bodies, we will undoubtedly see more sharing of services between and within local authorities. This is key to the way we need to work in future.

    Some of you may have read the report by Sir David Varney that the Chancellor published towards the end of last year. I certainly recommend that you have a look at it.

    It is all about joining-up services for the benefit of the citizen – and many of the best examples Sir David quotes are from local authorities.

    It sets out a vision we can all share for a more integrated approach to public services. And I firmly believe we need a new approach.

    We should not expect the customer to navigate their way around our services – we should do it for them.

    Customers should have to give information to us only once, not repeat it to countless different organisations.

    In DWP we have accepted the challenge David Varney set for us. We are beginning now to consider how we can develop a new way for customers to report changes in their circumstances to just one place and then pass it to others who need it.

    Service transformation is about delivering efficiencies by improving performance, reducing waste and duplication, more intelligent use of front-line e-services, and business process improvements.

    It is about looking for new, and better, ways of working. It is about not being afraid to try out new ideas.

    And I know many local authorities have, or are seeking to find ways of exploiting new technology and of finding ways of meeting the needs of a modern society.

    I look forward to hearing more about of these ideas, of shared solutions to common problems in the coming months.

    This matters so much because it has such a central role in helping us meet our objectives for reforming welfare in its entirety.

    Providing a safety net so that people have enough money to pay their rent is a fundamental pillar to ensuring everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent home.

    And, more than this, I believe Housing Benefit can encourage and empower people to live independent lives, and to contribute to the transformation of the welfare state.

    It will do this if we can make it a more active and responsive benefit. And a secure benefit.

    As you know, the Welfare Reform Bill will enable national implementation of the Local Housing Allowance for tenants in the private rented sector.

    I believe the Local Housing Allowance will be liberating – it offers more choice and it encourages more responsibility.

    I am pleased to have had the opportunity to visit some of the pathfinder authorities. To listen to what the staff have to say about the new scheme.

    And I have read with interest the evaluation reports we have published. Whilst of course there remain some concerns, there are real positives.

    Payments to tenants have remained at very high levels. Rent arrears have not rocketed, homelessness has not increased.

    The Local Housing Allowance is certainly a lever for getting people back into the financial mainstream and for providing support for people moving into work.

    I am very grateful to the 18 authorities who have already implemented the Local Housing Allowance. It is a groundbreaking reform and they have implemented it very successfully.

    Going on to implement the LHA nationally will be a huge task. All authorities will take on LHA at the same time, from April next year, starting with new customers and those existing tenants who move house or break their claim.

    A lot of thorough preparation will be needed.   Talking to stakeholders. Making as many payments as possible direct to bank accounts. We will help of course with guidance and funding. And we will build on the experience of the authorities who have led the way.

    I know the hard work will reap rewards. Because the Local Housing Allowance will really contribute to changing people’s lives by taking them out of benefit dependency.

    But this is not our only area of reform – there are other things we need to do as well.

    It is clear from our research that most people think that Housing Benefit is for people out of work.

    It is essential that we must change this perception. We will bury this myth and do all we can to promote access to Housing Benefit as an in-work benefit.

    This is why over the next few months we will develop and implement, a programme of work designed specifically to promote awareness of Housing Benefit as in-work support.

    This is where we have an opportunity to see partnership working at its very best – local authorities, Jobcentre Plus, and voluntary organisations working together to help people back into work.

    The Local Housing Allowance is clearly the way forward for the private rented sector. But the social sector is also crying out for reform.

    With 80% of those receiving Housing Benefit living in social housing – and a very high percentage of these people not in work – it is clear there’s a strong case for reforming Housing Benefit for social tenants.

    Of course, I realise there are significant differences between the private rental market and social housing – but we do need to find a way of enabling social tenants to exercise a greater degree of personal responsibility in managing their finances.

    And we will work with you, and with other expert organisations, to find the best ways of tackling worklessness in the social sector.

    I want to ensure that the same opportunities, the same rights, the same security is available to all of our customers, regardless of their tenure.

    I firmly believe that, as the Welfare Reform Bill completes its passage through Parliament, we are entering a new stage in the development of the welfare state in this country.

    Building on the secure foundations of Beveridge over fifty years ago, we now move towards welfare delivery that fits with a modern society.

    We face big changes and big challenges.

    There is increasing competition from the economies of China and India. All the developed economies of the world are facing unprecedented economic migration.

    In these circumstances, the modern, active welfare state we are building is crucial in tackling child poverty, supporting the family and promoting social justice.

    We need above all a thriving labour market in this country to meet the challenges of technological, social, economic and demographic change.

    So we have set ourselves the ambitious aspiration of achieving an 80% employment rate for people of working age.

    This means 2 million more of our people moving into the workforce – and many of them moving off benefit. Tall order?  Unrealistic?  I don’t think so. Its exactly what we’ve achieved over the last ten years. We can do it again over the next ten.

    We will do it by reforming Incapacity Benefit, by getting more lone parents into work, and by encouraging older people into work.

    With the new Employment and Support Allowance increased responsibility will be matched by increased support.

    The emphasis will be on what people are capable of doing, not what they are incapable of doing.

    And for older people, we are building a society where security in retirement is a right for pensioners now and in the future.

    In our paper Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system we havepublished proposals for pensions that will see us into the next fifty years.

    Clearly the world is changing – people are living longer, men and women work throughout their lives and social changes must be reflected in the way we, as a society, prepare for retirement.

    And I believe our plans for pensioners do just that by reforming the state pensions system, supporting people in saving for their retirement and really making a difference for future generations.

    In this country we have a tradition of providing for those people who need our support the most. That’s what a civilised society does.

    And it is only right that we continue with this tradition. But it is equally important that we develop a social security system that continues to do much more than this.

    To ensure that we have an active system that encourages people into work and then supports them in staying in work;

    – that we allow older people to work for as long as they want to but then to enjoy a long and fruitful retirement;

    – that we lay down secure foundations for the future and eradicate child poverty within a generation.

    And of course, to provide a secure and safe system that delivers the very best service to our customers. And a system that enjoys public confidence because we have all but eliminated fraud and error whatever the source.

    Where we utilise modern techniques and modern technology to be the very best in the world.

    And if we are to deliver a world-class system that can compete on the international stage, we all have a part to play.

    I want to see our striving to deliver this together. We can only deliver this vision if we all pull in the same direction.

    People are at the heart of any organisation. And if we work together, to strive to be the very best, I know we will succeed in achieving our common goals.

    Now I know you are all wrestling with this day in day out. Actually, so am I. Sometimes it all looks up-hill. More change. More challenges.

    Another gruelling day on the welfare assault course!

    I hear that – sometimes – when I’m out talking to staff on the frontline. But more often I come across other responses. People who see the opportunities. Understand the challenges – but want to rise to them.

    And people who understand that making it better still isn’t a chore. Its an obligation. And a source of some pride in what we can all achieve.

    That’s what you can feel when you know you’re getting welfare right.

    Thank you for helping us do that. And thanks for your continuing commitment.

  • Boris Johnson – 2007 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    borisjohnson

    Below is the text of the speech made by Boris Johnson at the 2007 Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool on 30th September 2007.

    I stand before you proud to be your candidate, proud to be given the chance to represent the greatest city on earth, but what gives me the greatest pride of all is that from day one I have provoked such gibbering squeals of denunciation from King Newt and his allies that I know they are scared and they can see all too clearly that we Conservatives are launching a fightback in London that will recapture the capital for common sense government for the first time in a generation.

    And when people ask me are you serious about this I can tell them that I can think of nothing more serious than the security and prosperity of the powerhouse of the British economy and whose booming service industries are the best possible vindication of the revolutions brought in by Conservative governments.

    That’s why in the last weeks and months I have been travelling through all 32 boroughs, sometimes in a Routemaster bus, sometimes at the wheel of that bus.

    And in the hundreds of miles I travelled, I marvelled at the diversity of this city and I met hundreds of people who offered me all sorts of opinions not all of them fit to be repeated; and of all the conversations I had, there is one that sticks in my mind with a 14 year old young offender in Wandsworth who looked me in the eye and said in the tones of one who knows all there is to know about growing up in 21st century London: “The trouble is these days that adults are scared of kids”.

    I have to tell you conference that I felt a certain challenge in his gaze and we both knew that he was saying something that was both sad and true about Britain today, and one of the reasons I want to be Mayor is that I want to help change that feeling on the streets of London.

    Believe you me, the Mayor of London does have the power to end the climate of intimidation on too many bus routes and take away free travel from the minority of young people who are abusing their privilege and turning buses into glorified getaway cars and when they are caught we want to give the Community Support Officers real powers to make a difference. Because I have been out with the Safer Neighbourhood teams and I have seen how they do not even have an incentive to detain a shoplifter because that means summoning a Police Constable who then has to spend 4 and a half hours processing the case when he should be out on the beat deterring more serious crimes. And that, conference, is criminal.

    Above all I want to work with the people in London who are tackling the most fundamental problem of all the tragedy that these kids are themselves afraid, afraid that THEY will be stabbed, and who see the gang and the gang culture as the only real source in their lives of authority and community and esteem.

    That is why I want to support the work of people like Ray Lewis of Eastside Young Leaders Academy and Camila Batmangeligh of Kids Company who in a completely non-ideological way are helping our most disadvantaged young people to see that there is another future and to raise their aspirations and to give them hope because I believe Conservatives win when we enable people to fulfil their aspirations.

    As Mayor I want to give hope to the tens of thousands of people in London who do not have a place they can call home. There is so much scope for more imaginative shared ownership schemes and backing David Cameron’s plans to lift the stamp duty threshold for first time buyers and using mayoral power to encourage more social housing and more rented housing; but not in the counter-productive and anti-democratic way of Gordon Brown’s new friend the Labour candidate who seeks to wreck the skyline of London’s boroughs, by going against the wishes of local communities and their leaders.

    With rabbit-hutch tower blocks containing some of the smallest rooms in Europe and a blind repetition of the mistakes of the 1960s Conference, let’s stop this ego-fuelled civil war in London and let’s build homes that will still be loved and valued and conserved in 100 years time so that future generations will look back on our generation with admiration and respect for our foresight, and not blame us for the ghettoes of tomorrow.

    I want to give hope to all those who feel they have lost the basic right to get to work on time by building Crossrail now, getting the Underground repaired and improved, bringing an end to the jack-knifing, traffic-blocking, self-combusting, cyclist-crushing bendy buses, and yes, I want a greener London; a London where more trees are being planted than are being cut down and I want us all to have the confidence to cycle.

    My friends, people say the mayor has no power. They say he is just a figurehead. Well I say nonsense. They have not studied the enormous budgets he wields. Ken Livingstone and Gordon Brown have got to realise that they can’t keep taxing and bullying and delivering so little in return.

    It’s time to build on the record of Conservative councils across London who have found savings and shown there is another way.

    They have kept council tax low while they have created safer, cleaner and greener streets. If they can do it, so can I, and over the next few months, that will mean a policy lockdown and crunching the numbers so that when the election begins in 2008 we will have a winning manifesto that is based on Conservative principles of freedom and democracy and taxpayer value.

    On May 1st join me in winning back London not for you and me but because our nation’s capital deserves more.

  • Ian Paisley – 2007 Speech at Stormont

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ian Paisley at Stormont in Northern Ireland on 8th May 2007.

    How true are the words of Holy Scripture, ‘We know not what a day may bring forth’.

    If anyone had told me that I would be standing here today to take this office, I would have been totally unbelieving. I am here by the vote of the majority of the electorate of our beloved province.

    During the past few days I have listened to many very well placed people from outside Northern Ireland seeking to emphasise the contribution they claim to have made in bringing it about.

    However, the real truth of the matter is rather different.

    If those same people had only allowed the Ulster people to settle the matter without their interference and insistance upon their way and their way alone, we would all have come to this day a lot earlier.

    I remember well the night the Belfast Agreement was signed, I was wrongfully arrested and locked up on the orders of the then secretary of state for Northern Ireland. It was only after the assistant chief of police intervened that I was released. On my release I was kicked and cursed by certain loyalists who supported the Belfast Agreement.

    But that was yesterday, this is today, and tomorrow is tomorrow.

    Today at long last we are starting upon the road – I emphasise starting – which I believe will take us to lasting peace in our province. I have not changed my unionism, the union of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, which I believe is today stronger than ever.

    We are making this declaration, we are all aiming to build a Northern Ireland in which all can live together in peace, being equal under the law and equally subject to the law.

    I welcome the pledge we have all taken to that effect today. That is the rock foundation upon which we must build.

    Today we salute Ulster’s honoured and unageing dead – the innocent victims, that gallant band, members of both religions, Protestant and Roman Catholic, strong in their allegiance to their differing political beliefs, unionist and nationalist, male and female, children and adults, all innocent victims of the terrible conflict.

    In the shadows of the evenings and in the sunrise of the mornings we hail their gallantry and heroism. It cannot and will not be erased from our memories.

    Nor can we forget those who continue to bear the scars of suffering and whose bodies have been robbed of sight, robbed of hearing, robbed of limbs. Yes, and we must all shed the silent and bitter tear for those whose loved one’s bodies have not yet been returned.

    Let me read to you the words of Deirdre Speer who lost her police officer father in the struggle:

    Remember me! Remember me!

    My sculptured glens where crystal rivers run,

    My purple mountains, misty in the sun,

    My coastlines, little changed since time begun,

    I gave you birth.

    Remember me! Remember me!

    Though battle-scarred and weary I abide.

    When you speak of history say my name with pride.

    I am Ulster.

    In politics, as in life, it is a truism that no-one can ever have 100% of what they desire. They must make a verdict when they believe they have achieved enough to move things forward. Unlike at any other time I believe we are now able to make progress.

    Winning support for all the institutions of policing has been a critical test that today has been met in pledged word and deed. Recognising the significance of that change from a community that for decades demonstrated hostility for policing, has been critical in Ulster turning the corner.

    I have sensed a great sigh of relief amongst all our people who want the hostility to be replaced with neighbourliness.

    The great king Solomon said:

    ‘To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.

    A time to be born and a time to die.

    A time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted.

    A time to kill and a time to heal.

    A time to break down and a time to build up.

    A time to get and a time to lose.

    A time to keep and a time to cast away.

    A time to love and a time to hate.

    A time of war and a time of peace.’

    I believe that Northern Ireland has come to a time of peace, a time when hate will no longer rule.

    How good it will be to be part of a wonderful healing in our province.

    Today we have begun to plant and we await the harvest.

  • Lord Falconer – 2007 Speech on Judicial Diversity

    charliefalconer

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, on 1st February 2007 at the offices of Wragge & Co in Birmingham.

    Diversity and quality go together. The wider the pool from which lawyers emerge and judges are selected the higher the quality of the legal profession and the bench. We need to increase diversity in our profession and on the bench to maintain our strength. Because it is fair, and because it increases confidence in our justice system.

    Bold statements. But unless bold statements are backed with decisive action on diversity we will not make genuine progress.

    I’d like to do three things this afternoon; firstly, demonstrate why I believe improving the diversity of the judiciary is vital for delivering effective justice; secondly, illustrate that action on diversity is required across the legal profession, from attracting a broader group into the law, to promoting and developing opportunities for existing lawyers and judges currently in the system, and that this action needs to go further and faster than it is currently; and thirdly and finally, to look at some of the barriers to judicial office and some of the specific measures my department will be taking to ensure the high quality of our judiciary is maintained.

    I believe that we are at an important point in the history and the development of our justice system. Increasing the ethnic and gender diversity of the legal profession and the judiciary is an enormously important step in the wider reform of our justice system. We need to continue to attract talent, in individuals of the highest calibre in terms of intellect, and probity.

    I find it exasperating when I hear people express fears that increasing the pool from which our judges are drawn will somehow dilute its quality. As if the only people capable of holding judicial office are drawn from a narrow pre-existing group. That we have still too few women judges, or those from different backgrounds is a measure of how much we still have to do. A system that only selects judges from certain backgrounds misses out on a whole pool of people who have the necessary talent and skills in abundance. There should only be one common denominator when it comes to appointing people to judicial office – merit.

    The importance of a more diverse profession is enormous. Lawyers serve communities whether that community is the City of London or the homeless of Leeds, or the small businesses of Bradford and Birmingham. They need to reflect those communities. Just as the legal profession does – so must the judiciary. Yet personal qualities of intellect, professionalism and probity are not enough. In a modern reflective system of justice, judges have a characteristic of equal importance – and that is understanding. Understanding of communities, of the people and the problems. Understanding, that in part, will come through more people from different ethnic groups, more people from wider social backgrounds, and more women entering the judiciary.

    Courts have to be demonstrably independent and of the highest quality. But they also need to be able to demonstrate that they understand, in a profound way, the problems with which they are dealing. The Commercial Court in London is successful because the commercial community are impressed by the extent to which it understands the issues with which it deals. The Justice Centre in Liverpool succeeds for precisely the same reason.

    The delivery of effective justice depends on a diverse judiciary. Increased diversity will lead to greater judicial understanding of the issues that communities face, day-in-day-out. The wider the diversity of the judiciary the wider the perspective from which decisions are made.

    We should be enormously proud of our judiciary. It consistently displays the highest standards of probity and professionalism in dispensing justice. They are unquestionably of the highest quality and understanding. They are unmatched, I believe, in the world. But to retain that high standing the pool from which they are drawn must widen. Quality will only be maintained if we have diversity. Diversity based solely on merit.

    There is an immense amount of talent out there that remains untapped, because of lack of awareness of the judiciary, or indeed simply the sense that ‘judges aren’t people like me’. We must overcome these barriers if we are to narrow the gap between those doing the judging and those being judged; this is not diversity for the sake of targets, or quotas or for diversity’s sake, it is indeed essential if we are to have a judiciary and a justice system of continued quality and one that inspires public confidence.

    But the arguments for diversity need to move on. Our efforts should not be spent winning the case for diversity, but in making it a reality, by going further than we have gone to date. We need to recognise it is a long term issue. But we also need to identify areas where we can make progress in the shorter and medium term. We are making progress in terms of gender and ethnic diversity. Year on year the statistics are pointing in the right direction. In1999 only 24% of judicial appointments to courts and tribunals were women. By September 2005 this had increased to 46%. Positive trends; with the total number of female judges in courts rising from 14-18% in the last 5 years alone. More and more women are applying for and taking up judicial office, and I hope that increasing the profile of women in the judiciary, promoting more flexible working arrangements, and highlighting the new open, transparent selection procedure will encourage more women to consider a career on the bench.

    A similar picture emerges with those from ethnic minority backgrounds with the percentage of appointments to courts and tribunals increasing from 5% to 17% in that same period. While the percentage of judges in courts from ethnic minority backgrounds has doubled since 2001 to nearly 4% by April last year.

    While this is progress, it is not yet of the rate or amplitude that I would like to see. Public confidence in the justice system will grow when people start to see more women judges and more judges from ethnic minorities in the court room. In terms of ability, in terms of increasing public confidence, in terms of improving the connection with communities, in terms of making decision from a broader perspective – improving gender and ethnic diversity is a necessity.

    Separate from judicial diversity, the legal profession also needs to attract men and women from a wider range of backgrounds to the law as a career. Initiatives such as Pathways to Law, a partnership between the College of Law and the Sutton Trust, to encourage young people from non-privileged backgrounds into the law should be commended. I am sure that this scheme and others like it will be wholeheartedly supported by the legal profession. Not only for the economic benefits of drawing a bigger and better pool into law as a career, but for the undoubted benefits that it will have, in time, on the makeup of our judiciary. The Sutton Trust believes that we need to take proactive steps to widen the basis of the profession. Holding career days, offering work placements, giving advice on applying to law courses, mentoring through school and university – all simple steps. But what the Pathways initiative shows, is that they work. As with women, as with minority ethnic individuals – unless we take steps to widen the educational funnel through which people become lawyers we are missing out on quality. We need to connect to people who are more than bright enough for a career in the law – we need to connect with them and to help them through the process.

    The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 rightly transferred responsibility for judicial appointments from the person of the Lord Chancellor to an independent body. The JAC is entirely independent, and while my recent predecessors and I appointed judges scrupulously on merit, the introduction of an independent commission should encourage applications by bringing transparency to the selection process, and by allowing the hitherto closed process to become more open. The JAC has a statutory duty to encourage diversity in the pool of candidates. I know they are committed to making this real. That deeply held commitment needs to be demonstrated by all of us; from law firms to the Lord Chancellor. The creation of the JAC is an important milestone. Improvements to the application and selection processes are already being made to make the process more user friendly much less off-putting. The JAC running and promoting a transparent and manifestly independent application and selection process will encourage more people to apply. It is a significant step. And it represents an important opportunity to change the climate; to provide much needed momentum.

    But the promotion of diversity needs to occur at every key point of the cycle. True, we need to attract a more diverse group into the law as a profession. But I do not accept that we need to wait to see the benefits of these longer term strategies before we start to see real, meaningful improvements in judicial diversity today.

    I am delighted that Wragge and co has hosted this event today as a small measure of your commitment to promoting diversity in your own firm, the wider legal profession and now the Judiciary. I hope that many more firms will follow the active lead set by Wragge and co.

    There are currently deserving barristers, there are currently deserving solicitors – who are simply not considering a career as a judge. There are immediate steps that we can and must take to attract qualified individuals to apply to the bench. Essential to improving quality in diversity is to gain an understanding of the genuine barriers, real or perceived that exist to judicial office.

    Research into these barriers, conducted by my department, has thrown up some interesting results. Many interviewed cited nothing more substantial than a lack of awareness or knowledge of the types of post available, or of the application process or eligibility requirements. Others perceived the judiciary to be an isolated career choice, and feared giving up the more sociable aspects of their current career. Long hours and inflexible working patterns were a disincentive for some. What I found most encouraging about these findings was that there was no sense of a great cultural antipathy towards a career in the judiciary. Rather many concerns were either borne out of the lack of sufficient information to make an informed decision or were around work/life issues that we are committed to resolving.

    The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Bill currently before Parliament includes clauses to extend eligibility for judicial office. Post qualification experience rather than rights of audience will be at the heart of the new eligibility criteria. By removing the emphasis on rights of audience I hope this will encourage more solicitors to apply for judicial office. In addition the changes will also allow for Legal Executives, Patent Agents and Trademark Attorneys, with the appropriate experience, to apply for certain judicial posts. This will widen the pool of potential applicants even further, and recognises that not only solicitors and barristers have the appropriate skills and experience to become judges of the highest calibre.

    In September 2006 I announced my intention that former Judges should be able to return to practice as solicitors and barristers. I remain committed to this idea, not as has been suggested, because I want to encourage existing judicial office holders to leave the judiciary. This is about encouraging more applicants. There is evidence to suggest that prohibition on return to practice is a significant psychological barrier for many potential candidates. In particular solicitors and barristers can be deterred by the realisation that taking up a salaried judicial post would close off future career options.

    Return to practice proposals, with the necessary safeguards, is about increasing the attractiveness of judicial appointment to a wider pool. It recognises that the job market has changed. Flexibility and choice have become hallmarks of our successful economy and employment market. While taking up judicial office is a very special position requiring commitment and dedication, I believe we have to move with the times and give Judges the option of having more flexibility in their career, as is the case with other professions. I remain unconvinced by the argument that permitting return to practice will lead to the risk of bias, real or perceived. The position of fee paid Judges- part time judges who continue to work as solicitors and barristers tends to show that this is not so.

    For those who have participated in the scheme, salaried part time working enables a balance to be struck between one’s professional life, one’s family commitments and one’s other interests. The scheme has proved enormously attractive for many, with around 90 salaried part-time judges. We have had the first 9 salaried part time circuit judges, experienced judges who have embraced a new way of working, and by April this year they will have been joined by several others. Salaried part-time judges are also sitting on both District Judges benches, in the Appeal Service, the Employment Tribunal Service, the Lands Tribunal, and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. A number of whom have gone on to sit full time. As well as attracting people to the bench as a career; we need to explore ways of keeping them there. And the introduction of more flexible working arrangements will be essential in maintaining the judiciary as an attractive and viable career choice.

    And of course one of the reasons I am here at Wragge and co today, is to reiterate my commitment to finding ways of promoting judicial service in our courts and tribunals to solicitors. There is a profound sense of preaching to the converted this afternoon – I am delighted that so many of you are here and expressing an interest in judicial office. I wish you every success.

    Solicitors are still under-represented in the judiciary – with a significant gap in numbers between those who are eligible and those who apply. Solicitors also tend to apply for the more junior posts. We need to understand what the barriers are – and we need to overcome them. Lack of awareness about requirements for judicial office isn’t good enough. I want to dispel the myth that the Bar is the only career route to judicial office. In conjunction with the Law Society we recently sent letters to every solicitor in the country who has recently become eligible for judicial service. And so far, we have signed up 7 major firms, including our hosts, to a 5 point action plan to promote diversity and judicial service. 7 large firms represents progress, but once again not at the pace or depth I wish to see.

    I was particularly pleased to see Lawrence Collins, now Lord Justice Collins appointed to the Court of Appeal not long ago. As a solicitor, he demonstrates that professional background need not be a barrier to taking high judicial office. I am delighted that he is here today, and I urge you all to make the most of his not inconsiderable talent and experience. I hope that he will become an inspiration for many more solicitors in the future.

    Judicial diversity is not tokenism and political correctness. It is not just a numbers game. I want to see a judiciary that has more understanding and engagement with the communities it serves. In no sense is this a slight on the thoroughly able, skilled and connected judiciary that currently provide such marvellous service to their communities. Rather it is a reflection on the future direction of the justice system. As we evolve as a society – so must our systems, structures and institutions adapt; the justice system and the judiciary are no different from any other public service in this regard.

    I want to see the level of community engagement enhanced. I want to see more judges out and about in their local communities, speaking to local people, understanding local concerns, to be more responsive to their local environments.

    The public are increasingly demanding more from their public services, increasingly expecting more from lawyers and judges. Community justice pilots in Liverpool and Salford represent a new way of doing justice. A way of making sure that the courts and the wider justice system are connected to the communities that they are there to support. It is a successful model that I want to see in practice right across England and Wales within the next two years. What the examples of Salford and Liverpool show, is that a visible, credible accessible judge is vital in strengthening links between the courts and the local community. Better connections leads to increased confidence in the work of the court – and what the pilots have demonstrated is that, in turn, greater confidence in the effective delivery of justice can empower communities to play an ever increasing role.

    Judicial diversity isn’t a choice. Unless the profession widens the base from which it is drawn it will be missing out on quality. Unless the profession becomes more representative of the communities it serves there will be gaps in public confidence. Justice is rooted in confidence – confidence is rooted in diversity. When I see the statistics on diversity I do find it concerning – we still don’t have enough women, we still don’t have enough people from ethnic minority groups, or from less privileged backgrounds. But what gives me hope is that these issues are being raised now. What gives me encouragement is that many in the legal profession recognise that they have a responsibility to encourage people from a wider background to consider and pursue a career in the law. What gives me encouragement is that an independent JAC will encourage a more diverse pool of applicants from which to draw the judiciary. What gives me encouragement is that increasingly, through the roll out of community justice, judges will be making ever stronger links with their communities.

    Now is the time we must press for change – not to fix something that is broken but to secure the continued high quality of the judiciary. The measure of success for any diversity strategy should not be statistics – it should be confident communities and effective justice. Thank you.