UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2011

  • Sadiq Khan – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice, to the Labour Party conference on 28th September 2011.

    Conference.

    It’s a privilege and a pleasure to be here today for the first time as your Shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

    This past 12 months the challenges of our criminal justice system have become all too apparent.

    The groups and campaigning organisations; I’ve met the prisons, young offenders institutions and courts; I’ve visited the judiciary and legal professionals I’ve listened to; and the victims whose experiences I’ve heard.

    Take Barry and Margaret Mizen who, following the tragic and unprovoked murder of their young son Jimmy, have channelled all their energies into working towards a safer community for young people across London through the Jimmy Mizen Foundation.

    I’m honoured to have Barry advising my policy review.

    And the probation officer in Preston with 30 years of experience who spoke of her frustration and disappointment at seeing several generations of the same family come into conflict with the law.

    These experiences have shaped my thinking and have reminded me of the progress we made in government but highlighted the hard work that still needs to be done.

    As you know, I shadow the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

    Someone once said that a downside of being in the Shadow Cabinet is that you begin to resemble the cabinet minister that you shadow!

    Well, so far, I don’t wear hush puppies.

    Don’t smoke cigars.

    And manage to stay awake during my leader’s speeches.

    Ken and I are very different.

    Unlike Ken, I’m not hopelessly out of touch on the issues of crime and justice.

    I grew up on a council estate in my South London constituency of Tooting.

    I know that often victims and criminals live side by side.

    And I understand how important it is for communities blighted by crime to gain important respite from persistent and serial offenders by the handing down of custodial sentences.

    Over the past year some of you may have agreed with the tone and sentiment of Ken Clarke’s verdict on our justice system.

    And I admit he can sometimes talk a good talk.

    After all, who could disagree in principle with a ‘rehabilitation revolution’?

    But, Conference, do not be hoodwinked.

    Because of Ken Clarke’s and this Government’s policies the Ministry of Justice faces a budget cut of a quarter risking the effective functioning of our justice system.

    Dedicated experienced professionals in our prison and probation service face uncertainty about the future of their crucial work.

    Even his own Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, said this month he’s found no evidence at all of a rehabilitation revolution!

    However, I’m not going to pretend that had we won the last election I wouldn’t have made cuts.

    I would’ve closed down some courts.

    We would’ve introduced a new scheme for contracting solicitors for criminal legal aid.

    I would’ve continued Labour’s work on payment by results!

    But let’s be clear, not only are the Coalition’s cuts deeper and faster than we would’ve made but Ken Clarke along with Teresa May has simply rolled over to the Treasury without even a whimper.

    Because of their timidity and complacency, communities up and down the country will pay the price for botched law and order policies.

    With no strategy for cutting crime, this Government’s policies on crime and justice are a shambles.

    The truth is the Tories cannot be trusted on law and order.

    Ken Clarke has not only fallen asleep on the job but he’s also dangerously out of touch.

    Remember his insensitive and offensive comments on rape?

    On Radio 5Live, and in response to the statement “rape is rape, with respect?”

    He said, and I quote: “No, it’s not”.

    Mr Clarke, let me tell you rape is rape.

    On our watch, we prioritised victims of rape.

    We strengthened the law on consent.

    Trained 500 more specialist rape prosecutors.

    Increased investment on centres offering help to victims of rape and sexual assaults.

    And, because of human rights legislation, rape victims are no longer put through the traumatic experience of being cross-examined in person by their alleged assailants.

    And remember this Government’s proposals for a 50% reduction in sentence for early guilty pleas?

    This would’ve meant that someone pleading guilty to rape being back on the streets after only 15 months.

    I believe we should all worry that this Coalition Government threatens to undermine our hard work.

    This Government inherited crime 43% lower than in 1997.

    We were the first government in history to leave office with crime lower than when we began.

    Leaving a justice system much better resourced be it the prison estate, probation services, youth justice or diversion and rehabilitation policies.

    More joined up than ever, building the necessary multi-agency, cross-government approach to tackling re-offending.

    Investing in prevention policies like Sure Start, parenting classes, early intervention projects, Educational Maintenance Allowance and much more.

    Record numbers of police and community support officers.

    And yes, being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.

    As relevant in 2011 as it was when Tony Blair first uttered it in 1993.

    But, Conference, I know all wasn’t rosy on our watch.

    Re-offending rates nudged down far too slowly.

    Too many in our justice system are repeat offenders.

    The public perceive non-custodial sentences as a soft option.

    And there’s the challenge of moving on from the overly-simplistic “prison works” versus “prison doesn’t work” debate.

    Of course, society should seek to prevent crimes taking place in the first place.

    That’s what we mean by being tough on the causes of crime.

    Recognising the complex and deep roots of criminality.

    In government we drew together agencies to work on improving education, health, housing, employment opportunities, seeking out and eradicating inequality.

    Sure Start through to EMA.

    All now threatened by this Government.

    But, it’s also about having enough police to catch those who still commit criminal acts.

    Yet under this government, police numbers are falling.

    Getting prevention right should make the job of Secretary of State for Justice easier!

    Less crime and less repeat crime would mean fewer people in our criminal justice system.

    But Conference, we shouldn’t forget that we must also punish those that commit crime.

    That’s what we mean by ‘tough on crime’.

    It’s an absolutely fundamental part of any justice system that for those committing serious and violent offences, custody is the only appropriate option.

    My own background has shown to me that we owe it to communities blighted by crime to give them respite from criminals through custodial sentences.

    We owe it to victims to punish criminals.

    But we also owe it to communities and victims to prevent offenders drifting back into criminality.

    And this isn’t about being easy on offenders it’s ultimately about making communities safer by preventing offenders from returning to crime.

    The National Audit Office estimate that the economic cost of offending by young people alone is £11billion a year.

    But the social impacts blighted communities, frightened residents, victims of crime are huge too.

    For Labour, we’ve an economic and a social imperative to reduce crime.

    It’s a win-win. We want to eradicate the economic and social costs, reform offenders, and support communities and victims dealing with the consequences of crime.

    Justice relies on the public having confidence in those in authority holding to account those responsible for criminal actions and victims need confidence they’ll be treated properly.

    During our time in government:

    We made progress with victims

    We introduced victim impact statements

    We increased investment in victims support

    We established a Victims Commissioner and did much more.

    Yet, all this is in danger of being undone by this Government.

    They’ve slashed resources to victim support services.

    Compensation for victims of overseas terrorism such as those affected by bombings in Mumbai and Bali has shamefully yet to materialise.

    They’ve refused to create the Office of Chief Coroner – a post that would provide an appeals system for families unhappy with a coroner’s decision on the death of a loved one.

    They are planning to slash the budget of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

    By restricting the definition of domestic violence, Ken Clarke has removed access to legal aid for some of the most vulnerable women in society posing a threat to women’s safety and that of any children in the family.

    And, in fact, this Government is cutting legal aid altogether for housing, debt, benefits and employment issues at a time when people need this the most.

    Advice deserts being created as law centres and CABs close down.

    And their changes to “no-win, no-fee” cases mean that people like Milly Dowler’s family and other victims of wrong doing by organisations wealthier and more powerful won’t be able to hold them to account.

    I want the Labour Party to build a justice system with victims at its heart.

    Giving the public, including victims, the confidence that the justice system is on their side.

    My policy review will be reporting next year on policies to strike the right balance between punishment and reform, setting out what works to protect the public, support victims, and stop crime.

    But, Conference, I am able to announce today that a future Labour Government will introduce a new Victims Law as called for by the Victims Commissioner, Louise Casey, enshrined in statute so that the rights of bereaved families of victims of homicide are honoured.

    Delivering effective justice, and treating victims with respect and dignity.

    Supporting victims through all stages of the process, including the deeply traumatic experience of when a case reaches court.

    Under Labour, victims will be at the heart of our criminal justice system.

    And I will work with victims groups to ensure we get this right.

    This summer’s riots show that we need a government that isn’t out of touch.

    Our country deserves better than knock down justice.

    We need to make the important decisions on crime and justice at the same time as making tough fiscal choices.

    But Ken Clarke and this Government are simply getting these choices wrong.

    It will be down to us to put it right.

    There’s only one party that can be trusted on law and order.

    That’s us – the Labour Party.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2011 Speech to Barnado's

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sadiq Khan, the then Shadow Justice Secretary, to Barnado’s on 8th September 2011.

    I would like to thank you all for coming here this morning and to thank Barnardos for organising this event.

    For almost 150 years Barnardos has been supporting our country’s most vulnerable children.

    The basic sentiment that informs Barnardos work on youth justice and youth offending – that, regardless of their background or behaviour, all children, even the most troubled, deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around – is perhaps more relevant now than ever.

    In recent weeks, following the riots which began in London and spread across the country, we have heard children described as ‘feral’, ‘out of control’ and a ‘drain on police time and our penal resources’. As Anne Marie [Carrie] has already pointed out on her blog last month – a 2008 Barnardos poll found that 54% of the public thought that British children were beginning to behave like animals. I’m afraid we can only imagine what that figure would be if the poll was carried out now.

    Although the riots were by no means exclusively perpetrated by young people, the ages of some of those involved were as shocking as the crimes themselves. And despite the fact that the vast majority of young people, including those in riot-hit areas, are law abiding citizens, there is no doubt that the unrest we saw in August will shape debates we have from now on on youth provision, youth services and – the issue I’m going to focus on today – youth justice.

    The fact that the majority of the public have supported tough sentences, even for young people involved, is understandable. Nothing can excuse or justify the actions of those – however young or old – who caused the unrest last month. People were scared in their homes, their places of work and on their streets and it is right that those who instilled that fear face the consequences of their actions.

    But punishment is just one function of our criminal justice system, which must also protect the public, reform offenders and try to prevent people entering it in the first place.

    For as much as people want perpetrators of the riots punished, they also want assurances, as far as is possible, that crimes of this sort – and others – won’t happen again.

    In the aftermath of the unrest people I have met, in my own community in south London and elsewhere, while unequivocal in their condemnation, have also expressed a deep desire to explain and understand why it happened. Particularly in relation to the involvement of young people:

    What led young people to take to the streets and commit these crimes?

    Why are so many young people being drawn into gangs?

    What caused this breakdown of respect for the law? For authority? For each other?

    What would deter them and what can reform them?

    The solution to the problem of all youth offending, not just rioting, lies in the answers to questions like these.

    We now have, I hope, an opportunity for a grown up debate on how to make our youth justice system work, for the young people within it and the communities it protects – by examining the root causes of youth offending, what preventative action can be taken, how to most appropriately punish and reform offenders and rehabilitate them back into our society.

    In seeking root causes, it is tempting but futile to make sweeping generalisations about the backgrounds of young people who commit crime. About their parents, their family make up, or their ethnicity.

    But we can look at the statistics. And they demonstrate the scale of the challenge we face:

    – Over 70% of children in custody have been involved with, or in the care of social services

    – 40% had been homeless before entering custody

    – More than a quarter of children in the youth justice system have been identified with special educational needs, almost half are under achieving in school and 90% of young men in prison were excluded from school

    – More than half of all offenders were convicted of their first crime before they reached 18 and a further 21% before their 24th birthday.

    It is this data that we need to focus on. And in government tackling this is what we meant when we said we would be tough on the causes of crime.

    We understood that the right way to halt the unrestrained rise in crime we saw in the 1980s and early 1990s and to cut the number of young people in custody was to stop them turning to crime in the first place.

    This meant several agencies working together to deliver a national strategy at a local level. So we tried to develop a joined up youth justice system, with the Home Office and later the MoJ, the Departments of Health and Education as well as the police and local government – all of this overseen by the Youth Justice Board.

    Via the YJB, we armed prevention professionals with the resources they needed to intervene early to try to stop at risk young people from turning to crime. They worked with local Youth Offending Teams to deal with young offenders through the Youth Justice System – from arrest to diversionary options or to charge. Through to sentencing and to the management of their reintegration back into their community.

    And we knew that early intervention can never be too early. That’s why we created schemes like Sure Start to support very young children and their families and why we developed targeted Family Intervention Projects to offer intensive, personalised support to parents and guardians to help provide the stability families need to bring up their children to be responsible citizens.

    And we continued to support young people in their passage to adulthood: with Youth Inclusion Programmes for young teenagers most at risk of offending and the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) to give older teenagers the option to stay in full time education.

    Of course when we left office last year things weren’t perfect. There was still more work to do, but we did make significant progress in preventing youth crime. Over the last parliament alone we saw a:

    – A 43% reduction in first time youth offenders

    – A 34% reduction overall in crimes committed by young people

    – And we’ve also witnessed the closure of some of the youth secure estate because of falling levels of youth crime

    So prevention is the key.

    But prevention doesn’t always work. Once a crime is committed by a young person and he or she is caught, there is still the matter of “what next?”

    For low level first offences committed by young people effective divergence mechanisms from the criminal justice system have been developed in recent years. Police can refer a low-level young offender to a triage programme instead of charging them if they admit their offence during police interview. Instead of going through the court system the young person will be sent to a Youth Offending Service office where an intervention plan to address their offending behaviour and make restorations to the victim will be drawn up and which they will be expected to follow. And if they don’t comply, they will be charged by the police. So there is a carrot and a stick.

    However, for more serious crimes committed by young people, charge by the police and entry into the youth justice system where a legal punishment is passed down will be necessary.

    Legal punishment of young people is, of course, controversial.

    There are abolitionists who feel punishment for young people is wrong in all instances. And there are those that militate in favour of draconian punishments. In the riots calls for flogging, live ammunition and the stocks were common place according to the polls and the popular press. These were dismissed as lamentable by lawmakers of all parties and of course rightly so.

    But public confidence in our justice system, including the youth justice system, does require some punishment for crimes committed to be inflicted on the perpetrator. And the debate about what is the most appropriate and proportionate punishment is best held in the centre, not at the fringes. I believe that most citizens – teachers, nurses, shopkeepers as well as politicians – have a balanced and moderate view of legal punishment and in government we did continue to develop and fund non-custodial forms to compliment custodial options.

    Although we successfully brought the numbers of children requiring a custodial sentence more in line with international norms by providing productive alternatives for young offenders, custody is sometimes the only appropriate course of action.

    But children given a custodial sentence in the secure estate are still just that: children.

    It is only too clear to me when I visit Youth Offending Institutions and Secure Training Centres that I am dealing with children, even if their physical size makes them seem more grown up. They often have incomplete moral vocabulary, stunted emotional intelligence and a limited understanding of how the actions that led to their detention harmed victims and violated the covenants that allow our society to function.

    So, when we do detain children, as well as addressing offender behaviour, it is right to invest in their education, their emotional development and general wellbeing. It is tragic to me when I see a young person who thrives under the stability offered to them in the secure estate, en gaged in healthy relationships, perhaps getting qualifications they would never have considered outside at hugely increased costs. And it reinforces to me that every crime committed by a child represents missed opportunities by multiple state agencies and the family, the community as well as the individual. That is why a joined-up approach between all these actors is necessary.

    And in this sense, we shouldn’t view crime as transactional between two parties – the offender and the victim. Crime creates social volatility and affects everyone. It damages the communities and the society as a whole, particularly when committed by young people. It is right that the state, representing the people, recognises the duty to incapacitate, punish, reform and deter. But we must find the best ways do this – by looking at what works.

    Community punishments are a valuable part of our youth justice system. They can sometimes be more effective in reforming young offenders and in reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. We believe that tough community sentences for young offenders should be expanded and their funding guaranteed.

    But youth justice projects are being squeezed or forced to shut down in the face of cuts to local authority budgets, NOMS, the YJB and YOTs. YOTs are taking hits of up to 60 per cent to non-statutory functions like prevention initiatives including working with gangs. As a result Intensive Intervention Projects are closing down or reducing their services. Already East Sussex, Gateshead, Haringey, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham, Peterborough, Southampton and Trafford have discontinued their projects!

    This is drastically restricting the options available to magistrates and judges to pass down non-custodial community sentences. If they don’t have the confidence in the availability and efficacy of community punishment they will be forced to resort to the secure estate. We’re already hearing from magistrates that cuts to YOT budgets in just the last year are impacting their sentencing options.

    It is economically misguided to diminish YOT and community justice budgets and is undermining the Government’s plan to reduce detention numbers.

    Strategically incoherent and a false economy seems to sum up the current approach.

    According to the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour, it can cost up for £193,000 per year to hold a young person in a secure training centre. And for some it is the best option. But it is a very costly alternative to a community disposal for those for whom it is not necessary or proportionate.

    Forcing magistrates and judges into that position because of short term cuts will not result in long term savings and is hugely detrimental to the future life chances of the children placed into custody and the communities who will be the victims of further crimes due to the reoffending of these young people.

    I’m proud that we reversed the unconstrained increase in youth detention by investing to tackle the causes of crime.

    The number of under 18 year olds imprisoned has reduced by a third over the last three years. And during the same period we also saw a reduction in crime. But this took time. It took investment. And it took a concerted joined-up effort.

    I’m glad that the institutional innovations of Labour – Youth Offending Teams and the Youth Justice Board – both exist (for the time being anyway) and are able to do their valuable work in providing pre-sentencing support and advice, and where necessary, working to ensure young people in the secure estate are treated as children and that the secure estate recognises their particular needs and vulnerabilities as far as possible.

    I’ll admit, It’s not perfect. For example, we don’t do enough on sharing best practice. We don’t do enough on exploring which interventions work best by leveraging the work of criminologists and experts in the field to plan as rationally as possible.

    And while we need to be careful not to inflate the scale of the problem of gangs, it is clear that there are areas where territorial gangs are proving to be a key driver of local criminality. This is where politicians need to listen to and work with the organisations engaging with young people in gangs who know what works to get them out.

    Again, there is best practice out there – both overseas and domestically – into how best we tackle the gang problem, involving early interventions and targeting resources

    But you don’t have to go far back to remember the problems that existed in the youth justice system prior to 1997. A system that was broken. A system that was still, to a great extent, predicated on Willy Whitelaw’s “short, sharp shock”.

    The innovations of the last Labour government – intensive family intervention, a focus on education, recognition of a child’s unique needs – were a repudiation of the past and a genuine and heartfelt attempt to build a brighter future.

    When this government unveiled their approach to youth justice there was excitement in the sector – that this may genuinely be something new from the Conservatives on crime reduction and a continuation of the progress we started.

    But the Government plans to roll the YJB back into the Ministry of Justice which could risk unravelling some of the progress we’ve seen. Legitimate concerns that rationalisation of functions with NOMS will lead to the erosion of the child-centric approach the YJB began are being dismissed by this government, despite the House of Lords already voting to keep the YJB independent.

    Independence, to a degree, insulates the Youth Justice Board from the worst ravages of populist rhetoric. Not entirely, but sufficiently to give them greater latitude than would be afforded a politician and a greater emphasis on what actually works to cut youth crime.

    And why are they letting a public body with a proven track record of reducing crime go up in the smoke of the bonfire of the quangos? The decision was not based on a review of performance. As with everything, the decision seems largely based on costs, not value.

    But cutting the YJB won’t save much money – around £100,000 over three years – and threatens, through undermining a joined-up youth justice system, to actually increase costs over the long term through higher criminality and the attendant costs to individuals and the state.

    The system is not just under assault in that sense though. There are also deep concerns about funding the secure estate. The rate of detainee deaths in custody this year is far higher than in past years. The secure estate is having to absorb big cuts in budgets. And anything less than an obsessive focus on ensuring safety is not compromised is, to my mind, a severe abrogation of duty. We will continue to press the Prisons Minister on the matter of deaths of young people in custody and will work with the government and any other agencies to do what we can to ensure the secure estate is safe for detainees.

    Basic safety and protection of well being, both physical and mental, should be the least we expect when it comes to treatment of young people who come into conflict with the law.

    We also have a duty to prevent the all too frequent transition from youth offender to adult offender.

    Although we were able to reduce it somewhat in government; the stubbornly high rates of reoffending amongst young people need to be urgently addressed.

    We don’t only have a moral duty to try to rehabilitate young people and offer them a second chance at responsible citizenship. It is also an economic imperative.

    The National Audit Office has estimated the cost to the UK economy of offending by young people as £11bn per year. If we are to bring this cost down, not to mention the unquantifiable emotional costs to victims of crime, we must invest in rehabilitation.

    And when we’re dealing with young people, this does not just mean giving them the practical educational skills they will need to play a productive part in public life. It must also involve fostering an understanding about the consequences their actions have not only for their own lives but for the victims of their crimes. An understanding often lacking for many young offenders.

    Restorative justice programmes that make young offenders take responsibility for their crimes can indeed be transformative justice. It can help develop the moral vocabulary, emotional intelligence and offer a level of reparation for the victim that punishment alone can’t always deliver.

    Where restorative justice has been used, in Northern Ireland it has produced lower reconviction rates and higher satisfaction rates for victims. A 2010 Prison Reform Trust report shows almost a 50 per cent reduction in the reoffending rates of young offenders that took part in Northern Ireland’s restorative justice programme.

    It is of course not appropriate for every crime or every young offender. A fifteen year old that kills or rapes as part of a gang initiation needs to be dealt with differently. But it is a mechanism that merits further emphasis within our youth justice system and something Labour would be committed to expanding where victims feel it would help.

    So I can announce this morning that Labour will be seeking to amend the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill so that courts have an explicit duty to consider making an order to participate in a restorative justice course. And if the government is true to its word that it wants to replicate Northern Ireland’s restorative justice programme, then supporting our amendment would be a positive step.

    But their record to date makes me doubtful of their commitment.

    It is not only the preventative innovations of the last government that are at risk – the Sure Start centres and youth clubs which are closing, family Intervention Projects being put at risk by ring fenced funding being removed, the EMA being scrapped, Youth Offending Teams being disbanded – rehabilitative measures are also taking a hit. My fear is that it will not only be young people whose lives will be wasted to crime that will suffer, but also communities up and down the country battling anti-social behaviour and youth offending.

    The intolerable outbreak of crime we saw on the streets of our cities this summer shined a light on our youth justice system and the underlying reasons why young people sometimes feel they have nothing to lose and a lot to gain from crime.

    We need to look carefully at what this light has uncovered – from the shadowy world of gangs to opportunities for work and training that young people need.

    That is precisely why we’re reaching out – to experts, practitioners and young people themselves – for solutions.

    I am chairing an extensive policy review looking at all aspects of criminal justice policy. My review will be analysing the evidence of what works to prevent young people from committing criminal acts in the first place and how we can best reform the ones that do. We will scratch below the surface to deal with the complex issues we know play a part – including deprivation, gang culture and exclusion. And how our youth justice system can be made to work for the young people within it.

    I will need your help. The work of organisations like Barnardos and many others represented here today should inform youth justice policy so it is genuinely child-centric, evidence based and effective. We will also need to look at what lessons from the successes we’ve seen in youth justice can be transferred to the adult criminal justice system.

    Youth crime went down in recent year s and youth custody levels fell. So there is something distinctive about the youth justice system which shows we can reduce crime and imprisonment at the same time. Unlike the adult penal system.

    The relationship between custody and crime is never simple, but I don’t think it’s immodest to say that an important factor was the investments Labour made, in money and in effort, to prevent and deter youth crime.

    Casting simplistic assertions about a ‘feral underclass’ as Ken Clarke has about those involved in riots is lazy. This kind of language absolves people from responsibility for their actions, implying that somehow they had no self control or no choice. Instead we will be looking at how we can make young people responsible citizens who understand the consequences of their actions and have the opportunities and the means to stay away from crime. But at the same time, have a youth justice system that effectively punishes and reforms those who do commit offences.

    It is a moral and economic imperative to stop young lives being wasted to crime. The vast majority of young people want to play a productive, not destructive role in society. It is all our responsibility to make that happen and to help reform those who are struggling to do so – for everyone’s sake.

  • Carwyn Jones – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Carwyn Jones to the Labour Party conference on 26th September 2011.

    Cadeirydd, cynhadledd. Diolch am y croeso.

    Chair, Conference. Thank you for that welcome.

    Forgive me if I look a tad pleased this morning but I am sure you will understand the reason is that Wales have just beaten Namibia in the Rugby World Cup!

    Colleagues, on the 5th May our Party had the best ever result since devolution, and Labour formed the Government!

    On every measure – the number of seats won, the number of votes cast and the share of vote – Welsh Labour won the election.

    And importantly for this Party, it sent a message across these islands.

    A message that despite the outcome of the last General Election, Labour is back in the ‘saddle’ – setting out an alternative vision to people right across the UK.

    A message that amidst the laissez faire trademark approach of the Tory and Lib Dem coalition – we in Wales have shown that people from all backgrounds will come out and vote positively for a set of policies that offer them vision and hope for the future.

    Be in no doubt colleagues – our Party can replicate the success we have enjoyed in Wales across the rest of the UK.

    But the election of a Labour Government on the 5th of May was not our only success this year.

    On 3rd March, the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of the Assembly having powers to make ‘Welsh Laws’.

    Laws made in Wales, for the people of Wales.

    This is the year that Wales truly came of age. And at the heart of this change was the Labour Party.

    I would like to thank Ed personally for his support – not just during ‘Yes’ campaign, but for his frequent visits to Wales since becoming Party Leader.

    Diolch i chi Ed – you are a true friend of Wales!

    Also, I would like to thank Peter Hain for the way he has thrown himself into the ‘Refounding Labour’ debate over recent months.

    Peter – you have done the Party a fantastic service – well done!

    So, you may ask – “What was this vision that you offered to the people of Wales back in May?”

    Well Conference, our manifesto was the most comprehensive ever put before the Welsh people.

    And it was born of travelling the length and breadth of Wales over many months – talking to doctors and patients, to those providing social care and those relying on it for their everyday needs.

    Listening to teachers and pupils, to the people who collect our rubbish.

    To the voluntary groups who work tirelessly in their local communities to ensure youngsters get a chance.

    Our Programme for Government – which will be published tomorrow – will have at its heart the five pledges that we offered to the people of Wales at the election and a great deal more.

    We will deliver:

    More apprenticeships and training for young people – unlike the Tories, we won’t accept another lost generation of young people;

    Better access to GP surgeries in the evenings and on Saturdays and health checks for the over 50s;

    More funding for all our schools;

    An extra 500 police community support officers to keep our streets safe; and

    More children benefiting from free childcare and health visiting.

    Conference, the world economy is in a difficult state. However, that does not mean we can just sit back and let the tide wash over us. Far from it.

    In Wales, whilst we don’t have all the economic levers at our disposal, we can still make a difference to people’s lives.

    Unlike the Tories, we will not fail in our duty to help our people during difficult times.

    This Party was founded on standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the people through hard times.

    We will never abandon that principle!

    Conference, I just want to say something about the NHS.

    We are watching with great sadness the mess the Tories and Lib Dems are making of the health service in England.

    An NHS being dismantled by Tory dogma and their obsession with the market. One where waiting lists are running out of control, and where people are still subject to a ‘tablet tax’ on prescriptions.

    Welsh doctors are telling me they’d much prefer to work in Wales.

    That’s because:

    In Wales, we will not privatise the NHS.

    In Wales, we will not introduce market principles and competition in the NHS.

    And in case anyone is any doubt, in Wales, free prescriptions are here to stay.

    The NHS – made in Wales and safe in Wales – under Labour!

    Conference, I know the people I serve, are people to whom fairness – or chwarae teg – comes as second nature.

    People who know the true meaning of community.

    Indeed, it was that sense of community that was witnessed by the world in recent days, following the tragic events at the Gleision mine in the Swansea Valley.

    We must build on that sense of community.

    Conference, our Party in Wales is in a truly privileged position and I am in no doubt that now we have to deliver:

    On jobs and growth in the Welsh economy;

    Equipping our youngsters with the skills they need for the future;

    Providing more and better quality homes; and

    Underpinning it all, the Labour values of social justice and equality of opportunity for all.

    Conference – together, we can make that future a reality.

    Together, we will build a better Wales.

  • Tessa Jowell – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tessa Jowell to Labour Party conference on 25th September 2011.

    Conference, I think I speak for all of us when I say how proud we are to be here in Liverpool, the 2008 City of Culture, to celebrate London as an Olympic city in 2012.

    But of course it’s not just a celebration for London – but a celebration for the whole of the UK.

    Because the Olympics will be held in the largest new urban park in Europe.

    Built in East London by businesses all around the UK.

    More than 1,000 contracts nationwide.

    40,000 jobs just in the Olympic Park, apprenticeships across the country.

    And just look at the Olympic Stadium.

    The concrete from Essex.

    The steel from Bolton.

    The seats from Luton.

    And the turf from Scunthorpe.

    Conference, these Games will change the geography of London.

    A new cultural, commercial and sporting quarter in East London.

    Fulfilling the promise that we made when we bid to host the Games, when we were in Government.

    60 years of regeneration in just six.

    It’s an achievement of which we can all be proud.

    Completed on time and under budget.

    So 2012 will see the Olympics and the Paralympics, and it will also see the celebrations of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee.

    But before that…

    We have big elections for the GLA and the Mayor of London.

    A big Labour-Tory battle.

    Londoners face the double whammy of a Tory Mayor and a Tory-led Government.

    The people of London live with what this means

    – That it’s the Tories that put up their tube fares.

    – That it’s the Tories that break their promises on the police.

    – And that it’s the Tories that place the economy at risk – by playing politics with jobs and growth

    London’s first line of defence is our Labour members of the GLA, and we’re so proud of you all:

    The Leader of the Group, Len Duvall:

    Jennette Arnold

    John Biggs

    Joanne McCartney

    Navin Shah

    Nicky Gavron

    Murad Qureshi

    And of course the person we hope will be the next deputy Mayor, Val Shawcross.

    Standing up for what Labour did – and what London Labour has to do.

    Just remember what Ken oversaw as Mayor.

    The biggest investment in public transport since the Second World War.

    Neighbourhood police teams in every ward.

    And, with Tony Blair and me – an Olympic moment and Olympic legacy that will change London forever.

    Ken, as we remember your achievements and the challenges ahead, we must make sure that the contest next May will not be just a contest of celebrity.

    It must be a campaign about who will be the most effective leader, the most effective Mayor of London during these most difficult of times.

    A campaign about who understands the lives of real Londoners.

    The millions of people who never see their face in the diary pages of the Evening Standard or Hello Magazine – but day in day out, work hard, play by the rules and just want to get on.

    This is Ken’s city and those people are Ken’s Londoners.

    These are the people who are counting on the Mayor to get things done for them – so that they can do more for themselves.

    Because it’s competence not celebrity that gets young people back to work.

    Competence not celebrity that will build them new homes.

    Competence not celebrity that will keep their tube fares down.

    They don’t need a TV personality – but they do need a mayor that realises this is the largest job in public service outside No 10 Downing Street.

    With the talent, ambition and drive to build a better future for London.

    London is a Labour City.

    And Ken, we are with you.

    Every activist will be working tirelessly to return a Labour GLA and elect you as mayor.

    But we all know that beating Boris Johnson will be a whole lot tougher.

    We shouldn’t underestimate how the Olympics will give him the advantage of incumbency.

    Turning this around will be a real challenge.

    Ken knows that. He’s up for that fight.

    Our activists, who chose him so overwhelmingly, know that too.

    And that’s why, Conference, we are today united in our determination and our passion to win this campaign.

    So this week, each and every one of you, make a pledge to help Ken win.

    Our campaign will be led from the grassroots, spread through word of mouth.

    So get on yourken.org and pledge how you can get involved.

    Lead the campaign in your ward or take responsibility for your street.

    And you can see how it’s done here.

    So Conference, so that Londoners, across our city, can finish the sentence – ‘I’m voting for Ken because’.

    I’m proud to introduce.

    Our candidate.

    The future Mayor of London.

    Ken Livingstone.

  • Peter Hain – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Peter Hain to the Labour Party conference on 25th September 2011.

    Conference, we’ve heard today from Margaret Hodge about the magnificent campaign in Barking where she kicked out Nick Griffin and the BNP.

    A great victory for us, and a great victory for democracy.

    We’ve also heard today about the fantastic wins in Birmingham Edgbaston and Oxford East. Seats the pundits had written off, seats we should have lost.

    Suppose we had replicated their success right across all of our 100 most marginal seats.

    What would have happened?

    We could still have been in power.

    Maybe not with a majority.

    But at least as the biggest party.

    Able to protect the country from the dogma inflicted by this right wing Tory-led Government.

    Because, although on paper each of those constituencies should have been lost, they defied the massive national swing against Labour.

    They won against the tide because – through years of patient work in the community – they mobilised hundreds of supporters, and not just members, to campaign for Labour.

    They were at the heart of their communities and so people who would never have joined the Party delivered leaflets, persuaded neighbours, friends and relatives.

    They were Labour’s invisible army in these constituencies.

    They went under the radar of ferocious attacks on our Party, and Labour won.

    This is what Refounding Labour is about, and this is why it’s so important.

    It’s not just about creating a party fit for the digital era, and rooted in community organising, linked like an umbilical cord to voters.

    It is also about winning.

    Those and another dozen constituencies demonstrated what can be achieved by being in tune with the new politics.

    They denied David Cameron his majority.

    If – and only if – voters trust local Labour parties, trust our MPs, trust our candidates, and trust our councillors, they don’t necessarily go with national trends in the way they used to.

    In an age of 24-hour news and the internet, politics may have become more global and national.

    But it has also become more local.

    And that is where our opportunity lies.

    To build a vibrant movement capable of winning the next General Election, Labour also needs to transform our policy making, because that is essential to rebuilding trust and support from members, trade unionists and voters. We want to open up our process of making policy, both to give party members a greater say and to enable supporters and voters to feed in their ideas, so that the party leadership keeps in much closer touch with them.

    Revitalising our policy-making in this way will help ensure that lessons learned on the doorstep, in meetings with community groups and through discussion with our supporters, can genuinely and easily make their way from local party activists to the National Policy Forum and Annual Conference – and from there into manifestos which reflect the needs of the squeezed middle who are finding life tougher and tougher right across Britain.

    As the NEC Statement says, in the next few months we will consult on the detail.

    On how exactly we make a reformed policy making system more accessible and responsive to members, on how exactly we make a freshly empowered Annual Conference more democratic.

    We will also make it easier for members to be involved in the party.

    We will introduce clear lines of accountability to the membership and the wider public for all Labour candidates and elected representatives – from local councillors to Shadow Cabinet members.

    We will insist that every Labour candidate and elected representative signs a contract committing to probity, active service to the public and leadership in party campaigning.

    This is what we mean by Refounding Labour.

    And we will reach out to potentially hundreds of thousands of Labour supporters – people who wouldn’t join, but who could be registered as supporters.

    That’s what Barack Obama did to win in 2008 – created a peoples’ movement amongst those who never saw themselves as party animals but were with him and were vital to his victory.

    That’s what Ken is doing in London.

    This is what we mean by Refounding Labour.

    Registering thousands of new supporters is a huge opportunity, not a threat.  Members, not supporters, will still choose our MPs and councillors, still choose delegates to Conference, still make policy. Members and trade unionists will still have a much, much bigger say than supporters in leadership elections.

    But we want to open up our Party to those who won’t join but will support.

    We have to build a peoples’ movement for Labour; in our neighbourhoods, in our workplaces.

    This is what we mean by Refounding Labour.

    And let me say this to Nick Clegg who last week attacked our Party’s link with 3 million trade unionists just as his Tory master David Cameron will do next week.

    Ten days ago who was there at the very start for the trapped Welsh miners?

    The South Wales National Union of Mineworkers.

    Who is now looking after their traumatised families?

    The NUM.

    Trade unionism is vital in any society and we are proud of our union link.

    Whatever attacks come from Tories, Liberals, or next month the independent Standards Committee, we say from this conference: we will not weaken, but strengthen our links with individual trade unionists.

    But agreement on these reforms is only the beginning.

    We have to implement them so that we genuinely do ‘Refound Labour’.

    And this cannot be achieved from above, even with an Annual Conference mandate.

    It can only be delivered from below, at the grassroots of our movement, in every constituency party.

    That is the challenge for each and every one of us: to build a quite different type of party in tune with the new politics rather than remaining with the old. If we achieve this – and last year’s General Election successes in constituencies like Barking, Edgbaston and Oxford East demonstrate that we can – then we will have leapfrogged the other major parties, and left them stuck behind.

    Now let’s go out and together get on with the job of Refounding Labour to win.

  • Liam Fox – 2011 Value for Money Speech

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, at Civitas in London on Tuesday 22nd February 2011.

    Introduction

    Being the Secretary of State for defence was always going to be one of the toughest jobs in the new Government.

    Defence was the worst in a grim set of inheritances.

    As the Chancellor said, Defence was the “most chaotic, most disorganised, most over-committed” budget he had seen.

    Labour had avoided a strategic defence review for 12 years.

    As a consequence we were always going to need a step change not incremental reform.

    The black hole in the MoD budget by the end of the decade was more than one year’s entire defence spending.

    This had resulted from the serial failure of Labour ministers to take difficult decisions and what Bernard Gray described as ‘the conspiracy of optimism’ in the department’s planning.

    On top of this was the need to contribute to the deficit reduction.

    Next year’s interest payment on the national debt will be bigger than the defence, foreign office and the international aid budgets combined.

    Unless we deal with the deficit it will become an increasingly dangerous national security liability as more and more money is swallowed up in interest and less is available to spend on the safety of our country.

    In less than a year huge progress has been made in turning these problems round.

    The SDSR set a clear direction for policy, implementing the National Security strategy.

    It decided on an adaptive posture for the UK – neither Fortress Britain nor overcommitted expeditionary forces on the other.

    We had inevitably to divest ourselves of some legacy to enable us to invest in dealing with the threats of the future, not least in cyberspace where government will now spend an extra £650m.

    But the SDSR was not a single event, it was part of a cycle of five yearly defence reviews designed to constantly adapt to changing global security circumstances.

    The 12 year gap in defence reviews, the budgetary black hole and the need for deficit reduction inevitably meant that we would have to take tough and sometimes unpopular decisions.

    But we were able, nonetheless, to show a path to the Future Force 2020 where Britain’s defences will be coherent, efficient and cutting-edge.

    But the change cannot stop there.

    Across Government, we must transform the way public services are delivered.

    For years successive Defence Secretaries have failed to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation

    Only today we are reminded by the Public Accounts Committee of Labour’s desperate legacy.

    In their final year in office just two programmes reported an increase of cost by a staggering £3.3 billion.

    The MoD must fundamentally change how it does business and today I want to set out how this change will come about.

    The drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability, from ministers down, must be tackled if we are to avoid history repeating itself.

    The constant postponement of difficult decisions created a bow wave in the department’s finances which became increasingly difficult to handle.

    It would be folly to tackle this, as are doing, only to allow the systemic failures which created it to continue.

    We need greater accountability and transparency to ensure that our resources genuinely match our ambitions and cost control is rigorously enforced.

    Too often when ministers have wanted to pull levers they find themselves pushing string instead.

    So there are a number of changes that are crucial.

    First, the so-called conspiracy of optimism, through which the risks and costs in new projects are under-estimated, only to find mushrooming costs later, needs to end.

    Second, future programmes should not be included unless there is a clear budgetary line for development, procurement and deployment.

    Third, we must end the lack of real time cost control with tight budgetary discipline.

    And fourth, we must rebalance our relationship with industry so that we achieve maximum value for money, remembering that the primary purpose of the procurement process is to give our Armed Forces to the need when they need it at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

    Dealing with the Conspiracy of Optimism

    For too many years projects have been included in the future defence programme without a proper appreciation of the risks or costs.

    The conspiracy of optimism based on poor cost estimation and unrealistic timescales, across the Department has – to be frank – involved politicians, the civil service, the military and industry.

    Too often in the past, in order to get pet projects included in the programme, unrealistic costs have been accepted at the outset knowing that they can be recovered later due to what are euphemistically called ‘cost overruns’.

    These practices in the MoD would not be tolerated in the private sector and they cannot be tolerated in the MoD.

    By looking at and approving programmes in isolation from the totality of departmental spend any programme can be made to look affordable.

    But when they are considered together, the cumulative risk and cost become unmanageable.

    So a risk-aware and cost-conscious mentality must permeate every level at the Ministry of Defence, civilian and military alike.

    Now more than ever, every penny counts.

    Value for money is not about compromising your defence aim. It is about realising that aim in a sustainable way.

    From now on, guarantees of realistic budgets for development, procurement and deployment must be presented to ministers before spending can begin on new programmes.

    At the same time we must examine the future programmes we currently have to ensure risks and costs are well understood and that they remain affordable.

    I have asked the Permanent Secretary, Ursula Brennan and Bernard Gray to carry out this process immediately.

    Real Time Cost Control

    If we are to achieve real budgetary discipline we must also have better real-time control of project budgets.

    How often have we had to listen to the National Audit Office detailing projects which run over time and over budget?

    Too often the MoD has simply presided over a post-mortem on programs — in my previous profession a post-mortem was not considered a good professional outcome and it will not be so in the MOD.

    There are a number of changes we need to make.

    We need to give project managers the right resources and authority to deliver what we ask of them and hold them to account.

    We also need to keep them in post long enough to deliver, ensuring that they have the skills available to make the tough calls necessary.

    The private sector would view the rapid turnover of project managers in the MoD – with what I call the repetitive loss of expertise – as crazy.

    It is for all these reasons that I am establishing the Major Projects Review Board.

    This will be chaired by me as the Secretary of State and will receive a quarterly update on the Ministry’s major programs to ensure that they are on time and within budget.

    This will begin with the 20 biggest projects by value and will rapidly expand to the 50 biggest projects.

    There must be a real sense of urgency about achieving this goal.

    Where projects are falling behind schedule or budget we must take immediate remedial measures.

    Those responsible will be brought to account in front of the project board.

    And in addition we will publish a list every quarter of the Major Project Review Board’s ‘Projects of Concern’.

    That way the public and the market can judge how well we and industry are doing in supporting our Armed Forces while offering value for money to the taxpayers.

    I want shareholders to see where projects are under-performing so that they can bring market discipline to substandard management where required.

    Rebalancing Our Relationship with Industry

    But change cannot just be internal.

    This government showed from the outset its commitment to the defence industry and an understanding that the best way to sustain defence jobs in the long term is to widen the customer base through enhanced defence exports.

    A great deal of energy has already been devoted to this across government departments with substantial results.

    It will ensure that skills and employment are retained in some of our most technologically advanced areas, that SMEs can compete as equals and we keep British industry at the cutting edge on the world market.

    In the Ministry of Defence we established the new Defence Exports Support Group to ensure that MoD, alongside our UKTI colleagues, is focusing its efforts in support of defence exports.

    This way, the MoD can be at the forefront of the Government export led growth strategy.

    In December we published a Green paper on equipment support and technology for UK defence and security and we are currently consulting on this.

    The defence industry is a major source of revenue, jobs and exports and can play an important role in the government’s growth agenda.

    But industry must also play a role in reducing costs at a time when budgets are constrained by the need to control the deficit we inherited.

    Following the SDSR, we have entered into a period of intense negotiation with a number of our major industrial suppliers.

    This is already looking at 130 contracts relating to SDSR decisions to ensure they are both necessary and give greater value for money for the taxpayer.

    For the first time these negotiations are taking place at a company level as well as a project level.

    The number of these contracts will soon be expanded by around 500 contracts and we will complete this work over the next 18 months releasing significant cost savings across the Department.

    We must also have a relationship with industry that is open, transparent and reflects the realities of the current business environment.

    We have recently launched an independent review, led by Lord Currie of Marylebone, into the pricing mechanism – called the Yellow Book – which the MoD uses for single source contracts.

    Some of you may never have heard of this.

    But these are arrangements have been in place since 1968 without a fundamental update from either Conservative or Labour governments.

    They reflect an entirely different industrial era and they need to be updated.

    Under the Yellow Book we currently place around 40% of our contracts on a non-competitive basis, worth around £9 billion annually.

    We will set out the first stage of this review, recommending changes in consultation with industry, in the summer.

    This will affect all future non-competitive contracts and is intended to save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

    The MoD is also working through the Centralising Category Procurement Initiative, run by the Cabinet Office, which will transform how government buys common goods and services through centralised management, standardisation of specification and aggregation of spend.

    This again will deliver significant and sustainable cost reductions across government.

    Finally, we need to update the way in which the MOD engages with industry itself.

    The relationship must take into account both the overlapping interests and the differences which government and industry have.

    We have a synergy to bring in areas such as defence exports where profits to industry also result in relationships and influence which can benefit the national interest.

    Yet we must also remember that industry is ultimately answerable to shareholders for their profits while government is answerable to the taxpayers for the management of their money.

    At present, the National Defence Industries Council acts as the body that represents the interests of the defence industry to Ministers.

    This body, however, is self appointed and excludes some of the department’s major suppliers.

    And though our defence industry relies on many thousands of Small and Medium-Size Enterprises (SMEs), I believe they are currently under-represented.

    I can announce today that I am establishing a new Defence Suppliers Forum that I will chair which will include representatives of the full range of the Department’s defence suppliers from the UK and overseas and which will better reflect the defence industry as a whole.

    Conclusion

    We need to have the mechanisms to ensure value for money in the Ministry of Defence.

    The SDSR took the necessarily tough decisions to correct years of mismanagement under Labour.

    The Ministry of Defence needs to have the structures and mechanisms to deliver the conclusions of that Review and ensure value for money for the tax payer.

    We need a new, frank and honest relationship between government and industry based on the national interest, mindful of commercial realities and sensitive market mechanisms.

    The measures I have set out today will help towards achieving these goals.

    Change, let’s face it, is seldom popular but the case for change in these areas is overwhelming.

    Let us just remember that there is no such thing as government money.

    There is only taxpayers’ money — money raised from individuals and from businesses large and small.

    They expect us to spend money wisely and properly and to enter into contracts that will deliver the equipment that our Armed Forces need when they need it while protecting taxpayers’ interests and sustaining industrial growth.

    Successive Labour Defence Secretaries have played pass the parcel with the black hole in the defence program.

    Each one has made the situation worse for their successor by failing to take the difficult decisions necessary.

    Well this is where the music stops.

    It has fallen to this government and to me as defence secretary to deal with Labour’s appalling defence legacy.

    It cannot be done overnight and it cannot be done painlessly.

    But it can and will be done.

    In the first nine months of government we have already started implementing a programme of fundamental change and will not rest until the job is done.

    And the changes I have announced today will continue that process.

    In the months ahead we will set out further reforms-for the Armed Forces, including the Reserves and Senior Rank structures and for structural change within the Ministry of Defence itself, including as a result of Lord Levene’s work on Defence Reform.

    Our National interest requires that we continue to take difficult decisions.

    And, as promised, we intend to govern in the National interest.

  • Liam Fox – 2011 Speech on Protecting National Security in the 21st Century

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, on Thursday 19th March 2011 at Chatham House.

    INTRODUCTION

    The true test of Government is to act not for party political advantage, but to act in the national interest.

    The Coalition Government inherited a level of debt and economic mismanagement that represents a national economic emergency.

    To deal with it we have had to take difficult and potentially unpopular measures.

    But they are essential if we are to put Britain back on track in the long-term.

    This is as important for national security as it is for national prosperity.

    This requires not only dealing with the here and now, but charting a course 10, 15, 20 years ahead – acting to position the country for the safety and prosperity of future generations.

    ACTING IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST

    So in no area is this more important than in Defence and Security.

    Our Armed Forces remain at a high and sustained operational tempo.

    The requirement to fight, and win, the wars of today is not optional but necessary to protect national security and meet the national interest.

    And when our Armed Forces are committed, they deserve and the country expects that they get the support they need to do the job we ask of them.

    That is why current operations in Afghanistan and in Libya remain the priority for the Ministry of Defence and the men and women of our Armed Forces fighting on the front-line get first call on MOD resources.

    But the requirement for strategic thinking, for strategic planning and preparation – the requirement to play the long-game – is equally necessary.

    Why?

    First – because conflict and threats to national security do not fit neatly into electoral cycles.

    The hunt for Osama bin Laden and the campaign against al-Qaeda’s brand of violent extremism has been taken forward under three American Presidents and three British Prime Ministers of different political persuasions.

    For the long watch of the Cold War – it took 10 different US Presidents and 9 different British Prime Ministers.

    Second – the character of conflict evolves and new threats arise, but the complex military equipment required to meet these challenges can take a decade or more to design and build.

    So we must constantly scan the horizon and prepare for the world as it will be, not as we hope it will be.

    In Defence, contingency planning is central to ensuring that we are prepared for what may come – even if we can’t predict exactly when and where threats may emerge.

    This drives a continuing requirement for Armed Forces that are agile, adaptable and of the highest quality.

    Third – building and sustaining the power, influence and prosperity of a country in the long flow of history – particularly in our age of rapid change and unpredictability – requires action now to ensure the country can succeed in the future.

    Energy security is one example.

    Climate change would be another.

    So today I want to set out what we have achieved in Defence over the last year to set in place a long-term strategy for the safety, security and prosperity of our citizens.

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review has ensured that we will remain in the premier league of military powers.

    It is not an agenda for retrenchment; it’s an ambitious agenda for transformation over time.

    It is not an agenda for the next general election; it’s an agenda for the next generation.

    This long-term vision for Britain’s Defence depends upon a sound economic base that enables sustainable military power to be built – together economic power and military power are the foundation of global influence.

    A proper strategy for the long-term health of our country must balance ends and ways with the means available.

    That is why tackling the crisis in the public finances is not just an issue of economics but an issue of national security too.

    It is central to sustaining in the long-term Britain’s reach, military power and influence.

    THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

    Let us not forget our own history.

    The contraction of European influence in the 20th century was driven as much by the economic exhaustion of European nations over two World Wars as it was by political enlightenment in support of decolonisation.

    As a result of the First World War in the 1920s and 30s, Britain’s national debt was regularly over 150% of GDP.

    After World War Two, it peaked at around 250% of GDP.

    As examples of the effect, economic considerations underpinned both the British withdrawal from Palestine in 1948, and the abandonment of the Suez campaign in 1956.

    It wasn’t until the 1970s that the debt position recovered to under 50% of GDP – a quarter of a century after the end of the War.

    Britain’s so-called ‘East of Suez’ moment in 1967 when the Wilson Government announced a major withdrawal of UK forces from South East Asia, was a response to the decline in the country’s relative economic strength.

    Equally, the Cold War was won because the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of an economic system that could not sustain the myth of communism’s superiority – nor sustain the military forces required to hold it together.

    During the early 1980s for instance, the Soviet Union was spending around 20% of GDP on Defence – roughly four times the level of the US and wholly unsustainable in the long-term.

    The lessons of history are clear.

    Relative economic power is the wellspring of strategic strength.

    And conversely, economic weakness debilitates every arm of government.

    Structural economic weakness, if not dealt with, will bring an unavoidable reduction in our ability to shape the world.

    ECONOMIC WEAKNESS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY LIABILITY

    Let’s relate these lessons to our situation today.

    Speaking at Chatham House last week, Niall Ferguson said:

    “fiscal and monetary stimulus, no matter how much it may take and how many times you read aloud the collected works of John Maynard Keynes, sooner or later brings a hangover.”

    It has fallen to this Coalition Government to nurse Britain through the hangover of the decade of financial mismanagement that put us where we are today.

    When, as Chancellor, Gordon Brown abandoned sticking to the previous Conservative Government’s strict spending policies, Britain’s national debt began an inexorable rise.

    Despite the benign economic environment of most of the last decade, from 2002-2007 under Labour, UK national debt as a percentage of GDP increased not decreased – from around 31% to around 37%.

    On the back of the financial crisis it has ballooned to around 60% of GDP.

    The Coalition Government inherited from Labour a record peacetime annual deficit equal of over 11% of GDP – in 2009/10 alone that meant a spend of over £150bn more than the Government brought in in income.

    Until the structural deficit is eliminated, Britain’s national debt will only continue to grow.

    Even with the Coalition’s aggressive action, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts public sector net debt to peak at over 70% of GDP in 2014/15.

    It currently stands at over £900bn – equivalent to almost a quarter of a century of spending on Defence at the level of this year’s budget.

    By 2015 it is likely to reach well over 1.3 trillion pounds.

    The interest, just the interest, paid out last year alone was £43bn – greater than the annual budgets of the MoD, FCO and DfID combined.

    £43bn pounds a year of taxpayers’ money that could pay for a tax cut to each taxpayer of almost £1,500 a year.

    Or it could pay for a million teachers or over a million nurses.

    In Defence – a dozen Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carriers or 33 Astute Class submarines.

    And the bad news is, next year the interest payments will be £50bn.

    This is all while we are tackling the deficit and before we even begin reducing the national debt.

    So let me boil down this barrage of statistics to my central point.

    The Chancellor doesn’t just sit on the National Security Council to tell us how much everything costs, he does so because this Government recognises what the last did not – that our national security is linked to the health of our economy.

    Creating military power on the back of borrowing at times of extreme or existential threat, such as during the World War Two, is understandable and reasonable.

    But if you continue to do so as a matter of routine, as Labour did over the last decade, you set off a ticking fiscal time bomb that if not defused will inevitably result in strategic shrinkage.

    I didn’t come into politics to cut the defence budget, but neither did I come into politics to be fiscally irresponsible – because the consequences of that are written deep in the historical record.

    To be a hawk on defence, you need to be a hawk on the deficit and the national debt too.

    THE DEFENCE DEFICIT

    Defence spending represents the fourth largest chunk of public expenditure, so the MoD must play its part in addressing the current economic challenges.

    In the MOD we face a particularly tough job.

    The Defence budget was perhaps the worst inheritance of all – before the SDSR the forward defence programme was overextended to the tune of £38bn over the next decade.

    That was spending on all the equipment, programmes and all other variables previously planned over and above a budget rising at the rate of inflation.

    Everyone knew the Defence Budget was running hot and that addressing this would have been required regardless of fiscal tightening.

    This is one of the reasons why, in relation to the vast majority of government departments, the MOD is contributing less to deficit reduction.

    And this is also why the transformation of Defence will have to take place over a longer-term period too.

    This cannot be done overnight – with sunk costs, kit in build, contractual liabilities and other inherited committed spend, room for manoeuvre in the short-term is limited.

    So it’s a process charting a course for the recovery of Defence capability and the sustainability of its funding.

    The Strategic Defence and Security Review has set the right direction – and I will return to this and Future Force 2020 in a moment – but staying the course will require sustaining the strict cost-control regime I have put in place at the MOD.

    This will inevitably require that tough decisions are taken on a regular basis to keep the budget on track.

    Following the SDSR we made it clear that there would be a series of complicated second order consequences including the basing and reserves reviews, as well as the emerging work from the Defence Reform Unit.

    Having completed the current planning round, we have started the next Planning Round to take forward the work needed to balance defence priorities and the budget over the long-term.

    The Department has recently initiated a three month exercise as part of that work to ensure we match our assumptions with our spending settlement.

    This allows us to draw all this work together to inform the next planning round and to avoid the mistakes of the previous government in building up to an unsustainable Defence programme

    We have made it clear that while the SDSR had made substantial inroads into the £38bn funding deficit, there is still more to be done.

    Given the mess we inherited putting Defence on a sure footing, with a predictable budget, was always going to take time, but we believe it is better to be thorough than quick

    The Prime Minister has set out his personal view, with which I strongly agree, that achieving our vision for the future structure of our Armed Forces will require year-on-year real growth in the Defence Budget after 2015.

    As we approach the next General Election, and as we prepare for the next Defence Review in 2015, a commitment to meet Future Force 2020 will be a key signifier for those political parties dedicated to the vision of a Britain active on the world stage and protected at home.

    BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE

    As the National Security Strategy clearly sets out – our national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs

    Our trade and economic relationships are global.

    A threat that appears in one part of the world can swiftly be felt at home.

    In order to protect our interests at home, we must project our influence abroad.

    Coming together as they did, the National Security Strategy, the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review, set us on a course to maintain our strategic reach, renew military capability on a sustainable basis, and address the structural weakness of the economy.

    In the MOD it was not only a budgetary deficit that we inherited.

    It was also a capability deficit.

    We had failed properly to adapt to meet future challenges.

    We had scores of tanks on the German plains, but insufficient cyber capability.

    We were committed to an expeditionary policy, but increasingly dependent on ageing strategic airlift.

    So we have embarked on a long-term programme of renewal and revitalisation in Defence that maintains our strategic reach.

    In doing so we have rejected alternative postures quite strongly advocated by some.

    One was that we should invest in what you might call ‘Fortress Britain’, withdrawing back closer to home and investing in the appropriate assets in that direction.

    Under such a posture there would be no requirement for expeditionary capabilities on our current scale, for example.

    There were others who said to go exactly the other way, and that we should have a highly committed posture and just assume that the conflicts of the future would be like the one we currently face in Afghanistan.

    Under such a posture there would be no requirement for widespread maritime capabilities, for example.

    Something that is difficult is to quantify but undoubtedly real is Britain’s invisible export of security and stability carried out by our Armed Forces, including the Royal Navy.

    Clearing mines in the Arabian Gulf, anti-piracy actions in the Gulf of Aden, protecting our own sea lanes – all contribute to international stability and the free movement of goods upon which our prosperity relies.

    So neither a fortress nor a committed posture would have met the requirement in the National Security Strategy for continued engagement in a world where threats are evolving and unpredictable.

    The adaptable posture we have embraced gives us the best capability to respond with agility to changing threats in an uncertain world.

    This means keeping our forces ready to react swiftly to those things we cannot easily predict.

    It means upgrading strategic lift capability.

    It means investment in Special Forces.

    It means being efficient, cutting down on duplication and numbers of equipment types to shorten the tail.

    And it means investing in areas of capability that suit the future character of warfare – such as cyber, intelligence and unmanned technology.

    It also means investing in activities, such as conflict prevention and aid, that prevent the development of threats ‘upstream’, before they require a more demanding military response.

    But in doing so we are not ignoring conventional military power required for flexible, multi-rolled, deployable forces.

    By 2020, The RAF will be built around hi-tech multi-role combat aircraft Typhoon and the Joint Strike Fighter, surveillance and intelligence platforms such as Airseeker, and a new fleet of strategic and tactical transport aircraft including A400M and Voyager.

    The Royal Navy will have new aircraft carriers with the JSF carrier-variant, a high readiness amphibious capability, a new fleet of Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines – and ready at that point to accept the new Global Combat Ship.

    The Army, based on Multi-Role Brigades, will be powerful, flexible, fully equipped for the land environment and able to operate across the spectrum of conflict.

    We will remain one of the few countries who can deploy and sustain a brigade sized force plus its air and maritime enablers, capable of both intervention and stabilisation operations almost anywhere in the world.

    And we will remain a nuclear power, maintaining a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

    I am absolutely clear, as I said in the House of Commons yesterday, that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at sea deterrence is right for the UK.

    We still have the fourth largest defence budget in the world and will continue to meet the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on Defence over the spending review period.

    CONCLUSION

    Of course, pursuing the necessary long-term strategy set out in the SDSR is not the only mark of renewal in Defence over the last year.

    For years successive Defence Secretaries have failed, often through no fault of their own, to get a grip on the equipment programme and failed to hold the department and industry to account for delays and poor cost-estimation

    The drivers of structural financial instability and the institutional lack of accountability, from ministers down, must be tackled if we are to avoid history repeating itself.

    That is why the work of Lord Levene and his Defence Reform Unit to reform the operating model of Defence is so important along side the work of the Chief of Defence Materiel, Bernard Gray, to set the forward equipment programme on a sustainable basis.

    We are also acting to redraw and rejuvenate the relationship with industry to ensure the tax payer gets the best deal from the investment in Defence.

    These are all measures in support of the long-term transformation of Defence and the vision set out in the SDSR.

    Labour’s Defence Green Paper published just months before the election admitted with what I have to say is spectacular understatement that:

    “the forward defence programme faces challenging financial pressures”

    It said in particular that the MOD:

    “cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need. We will need to make tough decisions”.

    Well, we have made those tough decisions, and I stand by them.

    I believe in setting your strategic direction and sticking to your plan unless the facts change.

    Since we completed the SDSR, the financial position of the country has not changed nor substantially have the nature of the threats we face.

    Let us be honest about this.

    Those who are arguing for a fundamental reassessment of the SDSR are really arguing for increased defence spending.

    But they fail to spell out the inevitable result – more borrowing, more tax rises, or more cuts elsewhere.

    The bottom line is that a strong economy is a national security requirement and an affordable Defence programme is the only responsible way to support our Armed Forces in the long term.

    There are no easy answers.

    There are no silver bullets.

    There are only tough decisions, hard work and perseverance.

    To pretend otherwise is to fail in our duty to our country and its people.

  • Caroline Flint – Speech to 2011 Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Flint to the 2011 Labour Party conference on 29th September 2011.

    Conference, nearly 45 years ago, in this great city, the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral opened.

    Built from the donations of ordinary people, when they had so little to give.

    As the dedication reminds us, they did it by touting the streets and pubs and knocking on doors like their own.

    They did it with dolls and raffle tickets.

    They did it with pools and bingo.

    They did it with silver paper and tuppenny legacies.

    They did it with cigarette and Green Shield stamps.

    They did it with old newspapers and wedding rings.

    They did it.

    And the day it opened was their day.

    That is the history of our party.

    From the Christian socialism of the Welsh valleys.

    To the self-help tradition of the Rochdale pioneers and the co-operative movement.

    And visionary trade unionists like Doncaster railwaymen Thomas Steels and Jimmy Holmes, who moved the motion that persuaded the trade unions to create our great party.

    Ours is the story of ordinary people in ordinary communities achieving extraordinary things.

    They said that Labour could never win in Dartmouth.

    Ben Cooper was prepared to stand up for Labour values.

    And he won.

    In Barking and Dagenham, when people feared the rise of the British National Party, brave men and women like Josie Channer, stood up against ignorance and prejudice

    And won.

    In York, Liberal Democrats said that 29 was too young for someone to run the council.

    James Alexander proved that only Labour could bring the change that city wanted.

    And Labour won.

    Labour’s 800 – our new generation of councillors elected in May, prove day in day out that it is not age, it’s attitude that matters.

    Every day, in the face of huge, frontloaded cuts.

    Thousands of Labour councillors are:

    – Giving voice to their communities.

    – Defending the services people rely on.

    – And building the good society.

    The Tories like to talk the language of localism.

    But it’s a strange localism that imposes cuts that fall deeper and faster on local councils and communities, than on almost any central government department.

    It’s a strange localism that dismantles local services and puts blind faith in volunteers taking up the reins – because, as Ed Miliband has said, you can’t volunteer in your local Sure Start centre or library when it’s already been closed.

    It’s a strange localism that sees Eric Pickles take to the TV studios to smear local councillors with cynical, politically motivated attacks.

    It’s a supreme irony that a man of Eric Pickles’ stature is the Minister for Meals on Wheels.

    And barely a day goes by without another missive from Mr Pickles to local councils.

    Frankly, it would take more than a weekly bin collection to get rid of his rubbish.

    Labour councils are showing that we are the real party of localism.

    Not the party of big government, or an over-bearing Whitehall.

    But the party of quality local services, of modern housing, and stronger communities.

    Giving people a voice.

    Giving them hope – when all the Tories offer is chaos, confusion and fear.

    And I want to tell those councillors that we are doing our bit to ensure your voice is heard by the Government.

    I am proud of the support my Shadow Team give to you.

    So my thanks to:

    Barbara Keeley

    Alison Seabeck, to

    Jack Dromey

    Chris Williamson

    Angela Smith

    And Julie Elliott.

    And our Lords team:

    Jeremy Beecham

    Bill McKenzie and

    Roy Kennedy.

    And most of all, our thanks to friends, old and new, in local government.

    Who keep us on our toes.

    And show us the impact of this Government’s failed policies.

    And Dave, thanks to you. Your support has been invaluable in the last year.

    Conference, one Tory MP said that chaos in the planning system is a good thing.

    Well, they’ve certainly delivered on that.

    Their planning reforms have already caused confusion and alarm.

    But we are living in strange times when the Government reveals that the National Trust is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy

    I must be going to the wrong meetings.

    Of course, we all want an effective planning system that is able to meet our future needs for housing, transport and infrastructure, and which supports jobs and growth.

    And that is exactly what we did in government.

    Building businesses and homes, creating jobs, supporting growth.

    And we did so, while we created new National Parks. And protected over 1.6million hectares of green belt.

    Labour did so, while ensuring brownfield and town centre first policies.

    And we won’t let them undermine this now.

    It is a disgraceful sight.

    To see Tory and Liberal Democrat ministers proudly publicising their opposition to local housing schemes in their back yard.

    While standing in Parliament wringing their hands about the need for more homes.

    Pure hypocrisy.

    The truth is the economy isn’t stalling because of the planning system.

    It’s stalling because of the Tories.

    Cuts that go too far, too fast. And no plan for growth.

    Look at what they’re doing on housing.

    First time buyers waiting longer.

    Fewer houses built last year than any year since the 1920s.

    200,000 new homes cancelled in 18 months

    Waiting lists for council houses soaring.

    And only half a million mortgages provided last year.

    Half the number provided each year during Labour’s first ten years.

    Conference, the Tories have sucked the life out of our economy.

    And hit the building industry hard.

    And for every one of the housing developments cancelled there are skilled people put out of work and small suppliers put out of business.

    That’s why we must kickstart the building industry by repeating the bankers’ bonus tax to fund 25,000 new homes.

    And why a temporary cut in VAT to 5% on home improvements is vital.

    Because George:

    You might enjoy it hurting.

    But it certainly ain’t working.

    Conference, I am proud of what we achieved in our 13 years in power.

    Proud of the one and a half million homes modernised.

    Proud of the 250,000 affordable homes built in the teeth of a recession.

    And proud of the 1 million extra families able to buy a home for the first time.

    But I’m honest, too, that we did not do enough.

    So today I reaffirm our commitment:

    To a decent home for all.

    At a price within their means.

    In a place they want to live.

    To the many people who want to own their home.

    Who want to build an asset.

    Who want security.

    Who want a little more control over their own life.

    We will support that dream.

    But I also want those same benefits to be spread to those who live in social housing or the private rented sector as well.

    Conference, we have ambitions for social housing.

    To once again serve its original purpose.

    A positive choice for many.

    Homes for heroes.

    Homes for those in need.

    Homes for the hardworking.

    And I’m not going to take any lectures on aspiration from a prime minister who believes that, if you get a pay rise you should be kicked out of your council house.

    Under Labour, the private rented sector will be properly regulated, so every family that rents has security and choice.

    And we will not ignore that more than a million properties in the private rented sector would not meet the decent homes standard.

    It cannot be right that housing benefit continues to go into the pockets of landlords who have tenants in sub-standard properties.

    Under Labour.

    We will end it.

    To the family who own their home but worry that their children never will.

    To the older person wanting a smaller house.

    But close to the church or community they’ve known their whole life.

    To the son or daughter still living with relatives.

    Or sleeping on the sofa of a friend.

    For all those whose voice is never heard.

    I say, we are on your side.

    And we will fight to keep housing at the top of the agenda.

    But we will only do that if we give councils the powers they need to build the homes their communities want.

    In government, we were too slow to trust local councils and communities.

    We were too reluctant to relinquish the levers of the state.

    Too often, we looked like the party of Whitehall.

    Not the town hall.

    But Ed Miliband and I both know:

    The only way you create stronger, safer, fairer communities is by trusting people to make their own decisions.

    As our film showed, Labour Councils are pioneering new ways of delivering services.

    Reinvigorating civic life.

    And empowering local people.

    But localism can never mean cutting councils loose.

    Leaving communities to fend for themselves.

    Or pitting North against South.

    Where the Tories try to divide our country, we will seek unity.

    Around a funding system fair to everyone, and which reflects need, as well as encouraging growth.

    So that every council is able to deliver the services its community relies on.

    On May 5th, we took another step forward.

    From Gravesham to Gedling, Telford to Ipswich, Hull to Barrow in Furness.

    In our great cities.

    And in our market towns.

    In our villages.

    And in our seaside resorts.

    Labour is regaining the confidence of the British people.

    Town by town.

    Street by street.

    Door by door.

    At every opportunity:

    We must win more seats.

    And more councils.

    Until the Tories’ onslaught on local government is stopped in its tracks.

    Today, I say to the British people:

    Labour is once again finding its voice in all corners of our country.

    The party of community.

    The party of localism.

    And in 2015, the party of government.

  • Lord Freud – 2011 Speech on Reforming Welfare

    lordfreud

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Freud in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 6th December 2011.

    My session this morning is on the welfare revolution.

    And it really is a revolution. There is an awful lot going on at the moment.

    The Work Programme is up and running, helping long term unemployed people find sustainable work.

    The Sickness Absence Review was published a couple of weeks ago and we are working hard on the Government’s response.

    Disabled people’s benefits are being reformed to make them fairer, more accurate and easier to tailor to individual need.

    But today, I don’t want to talk about any of that.

    Today, I want to focus on what’s at the heart of the welfare revolution – the Universal Credit – which we plan to introduce from October 2013.

    This is a new income replacement benefit that will support people both in and out of work.

    It will replace the complex array of benefits currently paid to people with little or no income with just one payment.

    It will be simpler to claim, easier to understand and administer and more effective and responsive than its predecessors.

    We are working on a real time information system that will mean we are able to find out how much people are earning and readjust their Universal Credit payment accordingly. This is better for people whose earnings fluctuate and will help to reduce fraud.

    Most importantly of all people will know what they are entitled to.

    We will withdraw Universal Credit at a steady rate as people start to earn more money.

    This means if someone takes a job or increases the hours they work they will be able to work out exactly how it will affect their benefits – and see for themselves that they will be better off in work.

    Today’s welfare system is a complicated mixture of benefits that have been added together, piled one on the other in a piecemeal way, as successive governments have sought to address different needs.

    It hasn’t been improved so much as extended and stretched beyond any relevance to its original intention.

    And what we’ve ended up with is unintended consequences, rules so complex that the civil servants administering them struggle to understand them and people trapped in welfare dependency are unable to find a way out of the system and get back on their feet.

    This is not what Beveridge intended.

    The introduction of Universal Credit will remove the rules and regulations that prevent people from getting back into work quickly.

    It will take the welfare state back to first principles.

    We want a welfare system that provides financial support for those unable to work – that goes without saying.

    But for those who can work we want a system that encourages a return to employment as quickly as possible.

    That’s how welfare support should work.

    But today’s system barely works at all.

    Let me take you through some of the vagaries of the current system.

    The current Jobseeker’s Allowance system means you need to work 16 hours or more to come off benefit and see a real increase in your income.

    However, for those remaining on benefit and working less than 16 hours, anything they earn over £5 if they are a single person, slightly more if they are a lone parent or disabled, will result in their benefit being reduced pound for pound.

    This means someone over 25 can’t work for even one full hour per week at minimum wage without seeing an instantaneous fall in benefits.

    If someone does find work for more than 16 hours per week but it is low paid they may be entitled to tax credits.

    But they’d need to end their benefit claim and submit a new claim for tax credits.

    The benefits system and the tax credit system don’t interact with each other.

    So people trying to leave benefits find their benefit income stops instantly but there can be a long wait before tax credit payments start.

    This gap in household income can be catastrophic for family finances.

    It encourages people either to retreat back into the benefits system or worse, never try to leave.

    Universal Credit deals with this issue.

    The tax credit and benefit systems are brought together so there’s no need to move between different systems.

    When someone does take a job the Universal Credit payment is tapered off at a steady rate so there’s no sudden loss of benefits.

    There’s no catastrophic drop of income.

    And there’s no 16 hour cliff edge, the Universal Credit will relate to the actual amount someone earns not disappear at an arbitrary number of hours.

    The 16 hour rule has also had an impact on childcare support.

    Under the old rules working parents could not claim help with registered childcare unless they worked more than 16 hours per week.

    For lone parents in particular this made it particularly difficult to start to move into work.

    Universal Credit deals with this issue.

    We want to remove these barriers so parents can begin a gradual return to work.

    Therefore, under Universal Credit, support for the costs of childcare will be available to all lone parents and couples, where both members are in work, regardless of the number of hours they work.

    It will mean that for the first time around 80,000 extra families will be eligible to receive support through childcare.

    Similarly, the rigidity of the present system makes any form of flexible working, whilst reliant on state support virtually impossible.

    The current system is too clunky and slow to respond to changes in hours and incomes.

    This means unemployed people have been unable to take work unless the employer can guarantee a minimum number of hours.

    This rules out large numbers of agency jobs or casual work. It has made our unemployed population less flexible than the migrant workers who are filling those vacancies.

    It is part of the reason why the number of people on out of work benefits remains around the five million mark.

    Universal Credit deals with this issue.

    Payments will be based on real time earnings.

    So, people can work varying hours and still be confident of a minimum level of income.

    The current system infantilises people.

    It takes budgeting powers away from people by paying their rent and some of their bills for them.

    Benefits are paid weekly or fortnightly, whilst most employees receive a monthly salary.

    Benefits are paid to individuals where as most families manage their budget as a household.

    This means the whole experience of claiming benefits has become completely removed from the experience of receiving a wage.

    This encourages dependency because people literally do not know how they will cope without the support of the state.

    Under Universal Credit the default position will be a single, monthly, household payment, wherever possible.

    This means benefit claimants will have to manage their own finances – their full finances – so when they do find work it’s easier to leave the safety of the welfare system.

    We will provide budgeting support for those who need it. This is a real opportunity to really change people’s lives by giving them the tools they need to take control of their finances.

    That’s what the welfare revolution is all about – that’s the final goal – to bring an end to long-term benefit dependency and begin a cultural transformation.

    Now I do have one more thing I want to talk to you about today – Support for Mortgage Interest payments.

    These are payments made towards the interest on benefit claimants’ eligible home loans.

    We think these payments should only be short term, to help people out when they fall upon hard times, so they don’t lose their homes.

    The current system of SMI payments does not encourage people to get on top of their own finances.

    It is also not sustainable. Even with today’s low interest rates it costs government £400million a year.

    We want to recover some of the SMI money so we can reinvest it in helping more people.

    For new claimants we are looking at options for recouping that money either when a house is sold or by levying a charge on the property for long term claims.

    Today we have published a call for evidence seeking views on a number of options for retrieving some of these funds. We are also reviewing other aspects of our help for home owners.

    The call for evidence closes in February next year and we are keen to hear your views.

    All I have done today is mention a few small areas where our welfare reforms are going to change things for the better.

    And these examples are replicated again and again as we bring coherence to a system that has been inadequate for too long.

    But these reforms aren’t about designing a nice, sensible system.

    They are about people.

    They are about freeing people to get back into work.

    Our welfare reforms are about transforming lives.

    And that’s why they are worthy of the term welfare revolution.

  • Lord Freud – 2011 Speech on Entry Level Employment

    lordfreud

    Below is the text of the speech made by Lord Freud in London on 5th July 2011.

    The stark message from today’s report is that we simply have too many unskilled people, not enough intermediate skilled people, and increasingly need very highly skilled people.

    For a country coming out of recession this is a wake up call.

    We are seeing slow and steady recovery, and the type and range of skills we will need to maintain growth is changing.

    But this is not just about having skills for their own sake.

    We know that people who leave school with no qualifications are over three times more likely to be out of work than people with a degree.

    And there are wider benefits to having skilled people in work.

    Some researchers estimate that a one percentage point reduction in the proportion of working age people with no qualifications would provide a net social benefit of between £32 and £87 million from reduced property crime in Britain.

    But, as this report makes clear, skills training must be related to the reality of employment.

    I was disturbed to read the findings of Professor Alison Wolf’s study into vocational qualifications published just a few months ago.

    She found that among 16 and 17 year olds between a quarter and a third are in, or moving in and out of, vocational provision which offers no clear progression into employment.

    We’ve developed vocational training that does not lead to a vocation.

    We are teaching skills that are neither use nor ornament whilst at the same time employers are crying out for better skilled candidates.

    This is madness.

    We must ensure the skills system is geared towards the needs of employers.

    But having the right skills is just one part of the picture.

    As this report has found, for entry level jobs, having the right attitude to work is just as important, if not more so, than even basic skills.

    Whilst the scope of today’s report is much wider than young people – looking, as it does, at all potential entry level candidates – it made me think of the Wolf report and our failure to properly equip the young with the skills they need in the real world.

    I think, as a society, we have let young people down by not preparing them for life beyond education.

    But worse than that, we have stood by as they have been sold a lie.

    We have allowed reality television to make them an empty promise of overnight success.

    Saturday night talent shows make ten second celebrities of ordinary people.

    This is not harmless viewing; implicit in this programming is the notion that you can get something for nothing.

    That if you wait around long enough your true talents will be discovered and fame and fortune will be yours.

    It is time for these reality shows to get a reality check.

    The rise of the cheap, temporary celebrity has eroded people’s responsibility to support themselves.

    We have a triple whammy of failure for young people in Britain today.

    The education system does not prepare them for the world of work.

    The benefits system encourages inactivity.

    And celebrity culture tells them it’s all going to be fine, that their moment in the sun is just an audition away.

    It is small wonder that we have well over a million** **16-24 year olds who are not in full-time education or employment.

    The real challenge of the CSJ’s report is how to restore employability in the unemployed.

    The report quotes one employer who summarised employability using the acronym PRIDE:

    – Professionalism

    – Reliability

    – Interest

    – Determination

    – Enthusiasm

    How do we restore the principles of PRIDE in our young people and more generally in the long term unemployed?

    We in Government hold some, but by no means all, of the levers for change.

    As the CSJ report rightly points out family, peer groups and wider society also have an enormous impact on aspirations and expectations.

    This is as much about culture change as it is about Government reforms in education or welfare.

    Government is tackling these issues head on.

    We have accepted Professor Wolf’s recommendations to improve the system of vocational education for 14-19 year olds.

    And we are committed to raising the age of participation in education or training to 18 by 2015.

    We are also committed to integrating employment and skills – making the real world of work the focus for skills training.

    We will improve basic skills like literacy and numeracy by providing a full subsidy for basic skills training in England for everyone aged over 19 years old, regardless of benefit status.

    We will also fully fund training for people on active benefits to address skills gaps, working with individuals and employers to ensure training is tailored to their needs.

    And all training will be accredited meaning over time credits from completed courses will add up to full formal qualifications.

    We are empowering Jobcentre Plus to work more closely with local employers, colleges and private providers to help ensure that flexible and responsive provision is delivered to meet the needs of employers and communities.

    One of the most important aspects of this is work is ensuring they understand the local labour market and are able to respond accordingly.

    Frontline services are being encouraged to operate much more strategically and have been granted the power to tailor support to the individual at the right time for them, rather than at specific points in time.

    Additionally, Jobcentre Plus is now able to use data about current and emerging vacancies to identify future skills needs.

    District managers will then work with local training providers to develop short courses designed to meet those needs.

    In addition, from August this year we will give Jobcentre Plus advisers the power to require some benefit claimants to attend training if they are clearly missing specific skills which would help them to get a job.

    We have increased the funding for apprenticeships to over £1.4bn this year, enough to train 360,000 apprentices, delivering real opportunities to progress across a range of industries.

    Apprenticeships are an excellent way of building capacity for the future and ensuring young people in particular are able to move into fulfilling and sustainable careers.

    For long term unemployed people welfare reforms will provide a much more responsive benefits system and personalised back to work support.

    Universal Credit will deliver a real time tax and benefits system, making it much easier for unemployed people to take short term, flexible jobs like those offered at entry level.

    At the same time the new Work Programme will provide tailored support for people finding it difficult to find work.

    This support is being delivered by private providers who are paid by results.

    The emphasis is on sustainable employment with providers earning more money the longer they support someone to stay in work – up to £13,700 over two years in some of the hardest to help cases.

    We have not dictated to providers how they should provide support so that they are free to use whatever methods they know work and to develop innovative new ways to improve existing methods of support.

    However, we know from this report and our own experience that often providers choose to develop effective relationships with employers so that they are able to more accurately match the right candidate to the right job.

    And the emphasis on sustainable employment means that providers will be incentivised to offer some form of in-work support.

    This could reduce the risk to employers of hiring some of the harder to help, long term unemployed as there will be some level of consistent support available to the new employee.

    There are a number of further steps Government is taking to tackle this issue.

    For example, over the summer we hope to launch the new sector based work academies.

    These are sector specific packages of training and work experience with a guaranteed interview at the end.

    They are focused in sectors that have high volumes of vacancies – often at entry level – and included accredited qualifications.

    Government is providing practical solutions, we are pulling all the levers we can but it must be a combined effort.

    We need employers to work with us to ensure training actually provides the skills they need.

    We need training providers and employers to work closely to design and deliver training and work experience packages.

    We need educational reform so young people are able to gain qualifications that are worth something to both students and potential employers.

    But most of all we need to restore PRIDE in our young people and long term unemployed, that’s about societal change and is a task we all share.