UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2011

  • David Gauke – 2011 Speech to the Tax Journal Group

    davidgauke

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, to the Tax Journal Group on 9th November 2011.

    Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to speak here today. It’s a pleasure to speak to so many of the leading legal and business executives from the tax industry.

    The businesses that are represented today from the backbone of our economy, and are the driving force for our recovery.

    Your companies and your success are critical to meeting the growth challenge, creating the jobs, driving the investment, and stimulating the innovation that we need.

    But the businesses here today, and the businesses represented on the panels throughout this conference haven’t assumed the position of domestic and global leadership through mere luck. They have done so through enterprise and ambition.

    And it’s the same endeavour that this Government supports to lead us through tough economic times.

    It’s no small challenge. We are still in the midst of an economic crisis that stretches back three years. What was once the worst financial crisis in almost a century, a crisis of private and banking sector debt, has transformed into a crisis of sovereign debt.

    The focus today is on Greece and Italy, but it’s easy to forget that when we came into Government there was much concern about the UK’s fiscal credibility.

    Because we inherited a dire economic situation. The largest peace time deficit the country had ever seen, borrowing one pound for every four that we spent, with Standard & Poor’s putting our AAA rating on negative watch.

    But through the toughest Spending Review in decades, we set out plans to eliminate the structural current budget deficit by 2015.

    It was a plan that meant S&P took us off negative watch. It’s the reason the market continues to back our debt, with gilt yields falling record lows in recent months. When we came to Government our rates were tracking the likes of Spain and Italy. But we managed to break rank, and now we’re tracking the likes of Germany.

    And those low interest rates make a real difference to businesses refinancing debts, and households paying mortgages. An interest rate increase of just one per cent, would take as much as £10bn out of families’ pockets, and would bring unbearable pressure on businesses across the country.

    Fiscal consolidation is not an ideological commitment it is an economic necessity. And as we face continued instability, now is not a time to change tack. We have to stick to the plan and we will.

    But fiscal consolidation begs the fundamental question…where should the burden lie? Spending or taxation?

    In our Spending Review we were clear…the burden would fall on spending. Restoring spending as a share of the economy to a level closer to its historical average.

    All the international evidence and experience suggest that consolidation through spending restraint would be more likely to promote growth.

    Hand in hand with that, we have to ensure that we have a tax system that supports our businesses.

    In today’s globalised economy, tax competitiveness is arguably more important than ever.

    After years of tariff reform, technological advance, and information revolution we are operating in a much more fluid world economy.

    Globalisation and the free movement of capital and labour have created vast new opportunities, and indeed the UK has capitalised on these. And in difficult economic times like these, free and open markets are the most powerful tool that we have for a global recovery.

    But globalisation also brings challenges…where our competitiveness slips, we can very quickly be left behind. And more often than not, business success in the UK has come in spite of rather than because of our tax system.

    In 1997, the UK had the tenth lowest main rate of corporation tax in the EU. But by the time we came to office, we’d slipped to 20th

    According to the World Economic Forum, on an overall measure of competitiveness, in the last decade we slipped from 4th to 12th in the global league table.

    We are committed to reversing the decline that has marred the last decade or so.

    First and foremost that means making our tax system an asset. Making sure that we have a tax system that supports growth and doesn’t stand in its way.

    Our ambition is to create the most competitive tax system in the G20.

    This is a big challenge. But it’s one that we can meet even as other countries rise to the task.

    In fact I was struck by comments by the former Labour Cabinet Minister, James Purnell in an article in the Financial Times only last week. In it he argues that the British state has is ‘good at fixing problems’… Thatcher after the Winter of Discontent, Tony Blair on the health service, and he also lists, the Chancellor George Osborne through the deficit reduction plan.

    Compare our resolve in tackling our deficit with the fiscal deadlock in the US this summer, or the monetary hesitancy in the Eurozone. In James Purnell’s words, not mine, “Britain’s state governs. It’s one of Britain’s real competitive advantages.”

    We are committed to creating a tax system which is competitive and stable will provide business with the confidence to invest and expand over the long term.

    Higher taxes on profits simply make the UK business environment internationally uncompetitive…reducing the returns on, and the incentive to invest…undermining productivity to the detriment of our private sector and our wider society, rich and poor alike.

    That’s why we are reducing the main rate of Corporation Tax by 2014 it will reach 23% – the lowest rate in the G7 and one of the lowest rates in the G20.

    We are resisting the European Commission’s proposals for an EU financial transaction tax. Whilst we support the idea in principle, it can only work if implemented globally. Even the Commission itself estimates that the current proposal could reduce EU GDP by as much as 3.4% of EU GDP, that’s €422 bn. And, as the Chancellor said in Brussels yesterday, the tax will be paid by pensioners not by banks and bankers.

    Furthermore, as a home to many of the world’s biggest Multi-national companies, our approach to tax needs to reflect the realities of dealing with companies stretching around the world and over different jurisdictions.

    A competitive tax system should recognise that fact.

    Central to doing that is a move towards a more territorial system of taxation.

    That is why we have taken steps to reform the taxation of foreign branches, introducing an opt-in exemption from corporate tax for the profits of foreign branches of UK companies.

    And it’s why we are also taking action to improve the Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules… rules that have been in place since 1984 and have become outdated.

    The consultation on new CFC regime closed at the end of September and I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the debate that has taken place over the summer. You have given us much to think about and I am grateful for the level of engagement from the industry, including from many of you here today.

    There will be an update on the CFC proposals in the next few weeks, ahead of the publication of draft legislation, and we remain determined to embed a competitive CFC regime.

    However any reform to the tax system has to consider the issue of fairness alongside that of competitiveness.

    Facing the deficit that we do, we have had to make difficult decisions on tax….decisions that at times necessarily involve a trade off with competitiveness. But decisions that nonetheless ensure that we embed a tax system that is fair.

    Firstly, we inherited the 50p rate of tax from the previous Government.

    And we have kept the rate as a demonstration of our commitment to share the burden for reducing the deficit. But we nonetheless understand that higher marginal tax rates are not good for the UK.

    We believe that making this permanent would do lasting damage to the UK’s economy which is why we have repeated that this is only a temporary measure.

    Secondly, the bank levy.

    We believe that it’s right that banks make a full and fair contribution to cutting the deficit, and a fair contribution in respect of the risks they pose to the UK economy.

    It is also intended to encourage banks to move to less risky funding profiles. Encouraging them to look to more stable sources of funding rather than flighty short term funding. Because as we saw in the crisis, a liquidity shock can all too easily turn into a system wide seizure.

    Banks need to be more resilient to those shocks. Look to secure stability for the long term, working with the grain of our wider reform programme, to underpin a sustainable and stable economy.

    But the levy balances that imperative, with our commitment to maintaining the UK’s presence as a leading, global financial services centre.

    In delivering tax policies, there are times where it is necessary to make trade-offs.  There are times when different objectives take us in different directions.

    But I think it was helpful for the Chancellor, in his March Budget, to set out his principles of good taxation for a modern age.  They are that:

    Our taxes should be efficient and support growth.

    They should be certain and predictable.

    They should be simple to understand and easy to comply with.

    And our tax system should be fair, reward work, support aspiration and ask the most from those who can most afford it.

    I have said something about how we have made our tax system more efficient and growth supporting.  And about the need for fairness.

    But let me say a little about certainty and predictability and simplicity.

    Because there are always pressures to add to the complexity of the tax system.  Usually, this is as a consequence of the belief that the tax system should be used not just to raise revenue but also to achieve other policy objectives.

    And, of course, there are times when tax can do just that.  For example, it is legitimate for the tax system to encourage expenditure in research and development.

    We know that there is a market failure that needs to be corrected because firms reinvesting in R&D cannot capture all the benefits that accrue from investment in this area.

    And there is a place for using the tax system so that externalities are incorporated into the cost of a good, for example.

    But there are those that argue that we can go further, that we distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ business practices and tax them accordingly.

    On examination, this raises many issues.  Some would say that we should favour ‘long term investment’ versus ‘short term speculation’.

    But should the tax system encourage people to hold onto an investment for longer than they want to solely to benefit from a tax break?  That would damage economic efficiency.

    We could see whole business models facing a changed tax regime because of the activities of one or two businesses that attract negative headlines – thus damaging predictability.

    And the history of providing tax breaks to encourage particular types of behaviour has often resulted in avoidance opportunities that have proved to be very expensive.  Which was then followed by complex anti-avoidance provisions.

    There is always a risk that attempts to use the tax system to influence behaviour can result in additional complexity and uncertainty for businesses.

    So, for the avoidance of doubt, it is not the Government’s attention to assess all businesses and divide them into producers and predators.  And then apply different tax rates to them, perhaps with a ‘predator surcharge’.

    Of course, such an approach would place considerable extra demands on HMRC.

    HMRC already faces a substantial and difficult task to effectively protect the tax base, ensuring that businesses and people pay what they owe.

    We want a tax system that supports business, that demonstrates that the UK is open for business, but doesn’t leave the tax base open to exploitation.

    It’s impossible to protect low and competitive rates, if we’re not prepared to protect the tax base.

    This isn’t something that can be achieved through sabre rattling however.

    How companies experience the UK tax system is as important to tax competitiveness as the headline rates that we set.

    It means that our approach to tax collection has to be as intelligent as it is vigilant.

    That’s why I support the work of HMRC’s Large Business Service. And it is why I think it is right than an approach of constructive engagement between HMRC and taxpayers is in the best interest of maximising revenue collection, and expanding business activity in the UK.

    It’s an approach based on cooperation and trust. Trust from Government in business not to engage in aggressive avoidance. And trust from business in Government and HMRC to treat them fairly and work in complete confidence.

    With ever increasing complexity of business affairs, increased cooperation is the only route to efficient and competitive tax systems. It goes hand in hand with the headline reduction in tax rates.

    We’ve come a long way in the last year alone to restore UK competitiveness.

    Indeed, according to the World Economic Forum, for the first time in a decade the UK has moved back into the top 10 in the global competitiveness index.

    But we still have a long way to go, and in difficult economic times it is vital that we work together to understand what more, or indeed what less, our Government can do to boost competitiveness and promote growth.

    I look forward to working with you all in the years to come.

  • David Gauke – 2011 Speech to the Hundred Group

    davidgauke

    Below is the text of David Gauke’s (the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury) speech to the Hundred Group in London, made on 1st March 2011.

    It is a great pleasure to be here today.

    I know that the PwC Total Tax Survey is in its sixth year… but I think this year’s event – and the findings that Susan has just set out – are particularly timely.

    When public finances are incredibly constrained – where difficult decisions are being made on public expenditure – the interest in business taxation has rarely been greater.

    Indeed perhaps the easiest, or the most politically palatable approach to bringing down the deficit would be to concentrate on raising business taxes.

    That, however, has not been our approach.

    We need a pro-growth strategy to get us out of the mess we’ve inherited.

    And this means that the UK must remain an attractive place to do business.

    A place where you want to locate, invest, and succeed.

    Which is why creating the most competitive corporate tax environment in the G20 is such a priority.

    Not only through annual reductions to the mainstream rate – bringing it down to just 24% by the end of this Parliament

    But also through the introduction of a patent box – making the UK an attractive location for innovative industries.

    Moving to a more territorial system – through reforms to the foreign branches and CFC regimes.

    And improving the way in which we make tax law – taking a more deliberative and consultative approach.

    This has included innovations such as the corporate tax roadmap… and publishing finance bill clauses in draft… both of which have been warmly received by the business community.

    As I believe that a Government who are focussed on supporting economic growth must ensure that we have a corporate tax system that is an asset to our economy, not a liability.

    A tax system that encourages businesses to come here in the first place, not the reason they move away.

    And that this is in the best interests of everyone.

    Yet there are considerable challenges we face when trying to get this message across.

    First, there is a perception that the total tax contribution businesses make is restricted to the corporation tax they pay.

    Yes, corporation tax is important…

    …but as the work carried out by the Hundred Group and PwC demonstrates…

    …our largest firms make a vital contribution in terms of business rates, irrecoverable VAT, employers National Insurance Contributions, as well as the income tax and National Insurance Contributions paid for employees.

    The second challenge we face is that people believe – or at least give the impression they do – that corporation tax is somehow a victimless tax, not paid by real people.

    Of course, as with any tax, the incidence will ultimately fall on someone.

    As far as corporation tax is concerned, the question is whether the burden falls on shareholders (largely in the form of pension funds) employees (through lower wages) or consumers (as a result of higher prices).

    The consensus, among economists at least, is that it’s predominantly the employee who foots the bill.

    And it is testament to the lack of understanding of this fact that – when this point was made to a member of UK Uncut on Newsnight – his response was to say that this demonstrated the unfairness of the tax system.

    It is rather like someone complaining about the law of gravity if an apple fell on his head.

    And the third misperception is that a competitive corporate tax system somehow involves being weak on avoidance.

    This Government is determined to be tough when it comes to reducing avoidance.

    As part of the Spending Review, we strengthened HMRC’s capacity in this area.

    Under our watch all the major banks have signed up to the code of practice on taxation for banks.

    In December, we set out bold policies to tackle longstanding avoidance opportunities, including disguised remuneration.

    And we have asked Graham Aaronson QC to explore how a General Anti Avoidance Rule might work in the UK and what it would look like.

    Because we all know, at the margin, some people try to be too clever by half in an overly aggressive pursuit of lower tax bills.

    The truth is the public will not wear this – especially during times like these.

    And as their representative, nor will we.

    But it is equally unhelpful to try to exaggerate the scale of the problem.

    We have all seen some campaigners choosing to stoke the fires of public opinion.

    It is a feature of this debate that legitimate behaviour by taxpayers – consistent with both the letter and spirit of the law – is being classified as ‘avoidance’.

    This action artificially inflates both estimates and perceptions of the ‘tax gap’.

    It is, I think, to the credit of Richard Murphy, author of the oft-quoted TUC tax gap estimates, that he acknowledges the use of allowances and reliefs within his calculations.

    Only last month he wrote that:

    ‘It is a persistent argument of business that the tax gap on corporate profits (which I have estimated to exceed £10 billion a year in the UK) is not the result of any form of avoidance at all, but simply the use of perfectly acceptable allowances and reliefs.

    And some of it may be… of course that has to be true.’

    And he then went on to argue:

    ‘…[that] the use of such reliefs is a valid element in the tax gap.’

    That is not my view, nor, I think the view of most people.

    But it does demonstrate the difficulty and confusion that can exist in this area.

    Where a combination of complexity in the law, fluidity in definition and, quite rightly, a strong desire on the part of the public to see that everyone pays what’s due, can often conflate the problem.

    It is not surprising, therefore, that individual businesses – some of our biggest high street names, even the guardian media group, whose publications regularly provide comment on tax, for instance – are finding their individual tax affairs under intense public scrutiny.

    And it strikes me that this won’t be the last of it.

    It will just run and run.

    At present many of the more questionable assumptions that fuel this campaign are taking place without effective rebuttal.

    So, having set out the challenges that faces a Government wanting to put in place a competitive tax environment, let me set out a challenge to business.

    I know that, for most businesses, the sensible course of action is to keep a low profile here.

    To avoid being drawn into a contest that is both complicated and unpredictable.

    But although that might make sense for the individual, there is a danger that the collective voice of business is getting lost.

    We could have a better-informed debate over the coming years if businesses were willing, perhaps, to be more transparent about the tax they pay… and explain the story behind the figures.

    At a time when, across the board, the public expect greater openness…

    …I think it could be in your long-term interests to engage more forthrightly in this discussion.

    To set out your own position. To be more robust on the essential contribution you are making individually to reduce the deficit.

    Yes, that may mean greater scrutiny and, for some, this could be uncomfortable.

    But it could also be an opportunity… an opportunity to address some of the myths and confusion that exist.

    That’s why I welcome the work undertaken in respect of the Total Tax Contribution.

    It is a valuable source in the debate

    And a constructive first step towards meeting one of the key communication challenges for UK business over the coming years.

    A first step toward, generating and maintaining public consensus in support of an effective and competitive tax system in the UK.

    Thank you.

  • David Gauke – 2011 Speech to the Financial Executive Network Group

    davidgauke

    Below is the text of the speech by David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, at the Financial Executive Network Group, on 27th January 2011.

    Introduction

    Thank you.

    It’s a pleasure to be here this morning and to talk a little about the Government’s approach to taxation.

    As the Minister responsible for tax policy making, I’m well aware of the issues that have detracted from our tax system.

    That businesses require more certainty if they’re to make plans for the future.

    That there’s a pressing need to ease the burdens placed on the individual taxpayer.

    And that taxation in Britain is far too complex.

    In short, we need a simpler, more stable tax system, and this is what I’d like to focus on today.

    How the tax system is not simple

    Because under the previous Government, simplicity took a backseat to other objectives and constant tinkering.

    Whatever the motivation, the lack of strategic direction and the willingness to use taxation in an attempt to meet a range of goals led to increased complexity and further instability…

    …dare I mention the almost yearly changes to the small companies’ rate?

    And one would only need to look at the evolution of the tax code to get a flavour of the problem.

    Since the turn of the century it has almost exploded… more than doubling in size in just ten short years.

    In fact, almost amusingly, it got to the stage where Tolley’s began using a smaller font in a fraught bid to keep down the number of pages.

    We also witnessed the introduction of two fiscal events for every financial year.

    A Pre-Budget Report that carried just as much weight as the Budget.

    Each one jam-packed with tax amendments.

    Amendments that were almost always made under the veneer of consultation.

    While in reality, businesses often had little or no say in tax policy, let alone the frequency of these changes.

    During my time in Opposition, I remember having a conversation with one company director who said he’d resorted to hiring staff just to monitor HMRC’s website… as this was the only way his firm could keep track of the spiralling myriad of complexity coming out of Whitehall.

    And all too often, this desire for constant change led to ill-thought-out proposals.

    All this served to show that policymakers needed to think again about the way tax law is made in this country.

    Reform was needed.

    And it’s reform that this Government has promised.

    With stability and certainty being at the heart of our approach.

    But as a Ministerial Team, we’re also mindful of the constraints we face as when trying to grapple with these issues.

    The challenges we need to address.

    And the complex balances we have to strike.

    The first set of these are financial, as we deal with Britain’s debts.

    I can tell you it is humbling to enter the Treasury as a Minister for the first time, and face a situation where the country is borrowing a pound for every four it spends.

    The excitement of that first red box, was tempered by the amount of red ink in the first briefing. And the experience inevitably stays with us as we contemplate the tax reform this country needs…

    …as we consider how we reform our tax system to assist long term, sustainable economic growth.

    The second challenge is that of time.

    In our 24/7 news culture, politicians have to deliver progress, and usually the deadline is yesterday.

    There’s a constant pressure for immediate announcements and rapid impact.

    This is something to which the previous Government too often succumbed.

    Yet in tax policy, short-term gains are often in tension with fundamental long-term reform.

    So we’re setting ourselves against the patchwork quilt, knitted by constant change in the tax system. But at times this doesn’t sit easily with proclaiming on a regular basis that “something must be done”.

    And third, there is the balance to be struck between genuine and open consultation and the desire for certainty.

    We believe firmly in the benefits of consultation, especially in tax. There are well-established norms about the length of time we should consult for, and it seems only polite to adhere to them.

    But we also hear business demands for certainty in our tax system.

    So we find ourselves weighing up how best to consult on tax reform without creating undue uncertainty.

    Above all, how can we avoid an overall sense that too much of our tax system is in flux at any one time, even as we contemplate the big reforms that businesses say they want to see.

    These are challenges we face.

    So the question is: how can we create a simpler, more stable, tax system in the wake of:

    Fiscal consolidation.

    Short term pressures coupled with calls for reform.

    And wanting to be open, without causing undue uncertainty.

    And our answer has been to adopt a new approach to tax policy.

    One that is more focussed on the longer-term.

    More transparent, more inclusive, and far less prone to the vagaries that plagued the previous regime.

    Our approach to simplification

    It’s about accepting that changes to the tax system are inevitable.

    But the way you make these changes is not.

    So we will be a Government of fewer, better thought out reforms; one that engages business throughout policy development; and one that places a greater emphasis on simplification.

    This strategy has two separate elements.

    The first being to look at the current stock of tax legislation, and eliminating any unnecessary complexities.

    The second is about the way you introduce new tax law; the manner it’s communicated; and how it evolves from idea, to proposal, to statute.

    In short, our plan to promote simplicity is shared equally between what already exists… and what’s yet to come.

    So let me address each in turn.

    Starting with the current stock of British tax law.

    Improving current stock

    Looking at where improvements can be made to current legislation is nothing new.

    Prominent members of the Conservative party have been calling for this for a number of years.

    That’s why, as one of our first acts in Government, we followed the advice of Lord Howe and announced the formation of the independent Office of Tax Simplification….

    …drawing together individuals from across the business, tax and legal professions to provide the much needed institutional ballast, and expert advice that Government has previously lacked.

    The OTS has, under the leadership of Michael Jack and John Whiting, the unenviable task of unravelling the tangled wool that is our tax system.

    And as a starting point, the OTS is taking forward two reviews: one on simplifying small business taxation, and the other on tax reliefs.

    Both of which will be reporting in time for the Budget… identifying options for simplification across each area.

    Indeed, this work has already begun.

    I’m sure you’re all aware that the OTS has already published a comprehensive list of all the reliefs and exemptions that exist within our tax system.

    For me it’s striking that when they began this process in the summer, the general view was that we had no more than perhaps 400 reliefs.

    Their assessment shows that we actually have more than a thousand.

    Now many of these serve a useful role in our tax system, but it’s not unreasonable to ask if at least some of these reliefs are truly justified.

    For example, as I’ve said, I’m all for taking a long term view of the tax system, but do we really need a ‘millennium gift aid tax relief’ when the next one’s not for another 989 years?

    But we also know that abolishing reliefs is not as simple as it sounds.

    That it’s far easier to give tax breaks, than to take them away.

    And that behind every relief, and every exemption, is an interested party who’ll be championing its cause.

    We understand all of this.

    And in many cases, there may well be good evidence to support a specific relief.

    But if we’re serious about simplification, we’ll have to make tough choices.

    Yes, there’ll be some losers… this is inevitable.

    But there will be far more winners.

    Because this is no zero sum game.

    The work of the OTS is looking to improve the tax system as a whole.

    Reducing complexity.

    And ensuring that our tax system works in everyone’s interests.

    So that as we get rid of reliefs.

    And level the playing field.

    We will create a tax system with a broader base, and lower rates.

    With overall impact that will be beneficial for the both taxpayer and the British economy.

    Tax Policy Making

    While the OTS is playing a valuable role in improving the stock of UK tax law…

    … we also recognise we’ve got to watch the flow of new measures.

    Yes, we need a simpler tax system, one with fewer exemptions and fewer reliefs.

    And this means change.

    But a little paradoxically, I know that businesses need greater certainty.

    As a Government, we’ve taken this as a call to create a more transparent framework within which tax policy is developed…

    …a framework that will improve the quality of tax law and the way tax policy is made.

    It’s our intention to put simplicity and stability first.

    This means setting out our long-term ideas for reform.

    Allowing ample time for the scrutiny of Government proposals.

    And giving businesses the opportunity to help develop major tax changes.

    We kicked off this process in November by outlining our plans for Britain’s Corporate Tax regime.

    This reiterated our commitment to lower the headline rate in each of the next four years…

    …but also, for the first time, put in place a clear timeline for when changes will be considered to the tax treatment of foreign profits controlled foreign companies; and intellectual property.

    This is all part of a more deliberate approach to tax policy-making.

    One that is simpler, more comprehensive, and ought to mean far fewer surprises.

    In support of these objectives, we’re also allowing for greater scrutiny of our proposals through the publication of draft Finance Bills.

    This convention will avoid many of the problems we saw under the previous administration… where badly constructed policies – produced in the absence of consultation – were rushed through Parliament with little consideration of their overall impact.

    Last July, we released the first ever draft of the Finance Bill.

    In response we received over 60 comments.

    And this led to changes being made to 9 of the Bill’s clauses.

    On the 9th December, we repeated this process for the 2011 Finance Bill.

    Because at every stage of the tax policy-making, we want to involve businesses in our decisions.

    To help improve the quality of our legislation, and avoid any unforeseen complexities.

    So while I’ll freely admit that life as a Government Minister in the Treasury is very different from my time in Opposition.

    That there can sometimes be a temptation to conduct less external engagement – and merely rely on the experience that resides within Whitehall.

    We’ve deliberately opted against this approach.

    As I understand the value that’s to be had from collecting the thoughts of those who are directly employed in the tax profession.

    Who, through their own experience, have ideas about where improvements can be made… that Whitehall doesn’t have all the answers.

    As a Government, we’re making engagement with external experts a real priority.

    And we’ll continue to seek feedback on the way we make tax policy…

    …to ensure that our choices have your backing; that you know the direction we’re heading, and feel confident enough to make long-term decisions about the future.

    Conclusion

    This is my promise.

    And the promise of Government:

    That stability and simplicity are at the top of our agenda. That they’re not simply words used for dramatic effect. But are, in fact, firmly ingrained in our approach to tax policy. That through the work of the OTS.

    External engagement.

    And the publication of draft legislation…

    …we’re making the fundamental changes needed to create a better British tax system.

    One that is simple, stable, and that is an asset to our economy.

    Thank you.

  • Maria Eagle – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    marieagle

    Below is the text of the speech made by Maria Eagle, the Shadow Transport Secretary, to the Labour Party conference in Liverpool on 26th September 2011.

    Conference.

    As Liverpool’s voice in the Shadow Cabinet, I’m proud to welcome you to our fantastic city. A city transformed under a Labour government. A city determined not to be dragged back, despite the best efforts of the Tories and Liberal Democrats. And I pay tribute to the inspirational leadership of Joe Anderson as he steers our city through tough times.

    And in May, Liverpool told the Liberal Democrats what we thought of their decision to sell out this city. To prop up a Tory government. We defeated them in seat after seat. And I want to welcome to his first conference our energetic new councillor for Wavertree: elected in May at just 18 years old: Jake Morrison.

    It’s great to see Liverpool leading the way on transport. Outside London, the only city to take control of its rail network. Keeping fares down. And about to introduce our version of London’s Oystercard: the Walrus – the first travelcard in the country that buys more than just your ticket.

    And wouldn’t it be good if London was once again led by someone who understands why transport matters? Someone who doesn’t let bus and tube fares spiral, but brings them under control. So let’s ensure the next Mayor of London is a Labour Mayor: Ken Livingstone.

    Devolving funding and decision making over transport is making a real difference in our cities. But in government we didn’t go far enough.

    That’s why our policy review has been looking at how we can devolve more transport responsibilities. Local and regional rail services. Investment in our roads. These are decisions that should be made locally, by integrated transport authorities. Not just in our major cities but right across the country.

    And, just like in London, powers to deliver bus services in the way that best suits each community. Quality Contracts were a good start. But the incentives to use them just aren’t there and the risks too great.

    In too many places: No accountability. No way for local communities to set priorities. Profits, not passengers, too often driving decisions.

    So, our policy review is looking at the right way to reverse bus deregulation.

    But it’s not right to say that this government doesn’t believe in devolution. When it suits them.

    Like devolving to local authorities the cuts to local transport. Half a billion pounds, this year alone.

    Setting back the progress we made on road safety.

    Setting back initiatives to get people cycling and walking.

    Cutting bus services: Reducing opportunities for young people. Increasing social isolation.

    Just think back to the election. Remember the TV debates? Remember David Cameron’s outrage when we warned that free bus passes for older people were under threat? Yet he’s slashed funding for the scheme. So bus routes are being cut. And now, up and down the country, pensioners want to know: what use is a free bus pass without a bus?

    And do you know what is even more despicable?

    Ending reduced fares on coaches for older and disabled people. Cutting a lifeline. Causing misery and isolation this Christmas.

    And who has been in the driving seat of these cuts? Liberal Democrat Transport Minister, Norman Baker. Fast becoming a modern day Beeching for the buses.

    The same Norman Baker who promised to cut rail fares at the election. But is hiking them by 8%. Not for one year. But three years in a row.

    Eye watering ticket prices. Not my words. But Transport Secretary Philip Hammond’s. Has there ever been a Secretary of State so out of touch with the day to day lives of millions of people, up and down the country?

    And the Lib Dems just let him get away with it.

    And what has Norman Baker got in return?

    The centrepiece of his conference speech last week:

    The Road Signs Review.

    I think we know which road signs will survive his review.

    No left turn.

    U-turn here.

    And no doubt we’ll be seeing lots more Give Way signs.

    Giving way on rail fares.

    Giving way on bus cuts.

    Norman Baker: the Give Way Minister in a Give Way party: that’s the Liberal Democrats in this Tory-led Government.

    It’s right to blame the government for bus cuts and fare rises.

    But the transport companies have a social responsibility too. And since privatisation, we’ve not seen enough of it.

    We’ve stood by the bus companies as the government has cut their subsidies. Now I want them to stand by Britain’s next generation.

    So today I call on them to work together. And in return for the support they receive, invest some of their profits in Britain’s young people. And in time for the next academic year, deliver a concessionary fares scheme for 16-18 year olds in education or training. And if they don’t, the government should insist that they do.

    And we need greater responsibility from the train operating companies too.

    So when rail franchises come up, here’s what the government should do.

    Not reward companies that walk away from franchises to avoid payments to Government. Then expect to bid again or carry on making money somewhere else on the network.

    Not reward companies who stealthily widen peak time, to charge the highest prices for more of the day.

    Not reward companies who average out the fare cap, so commuters pay way over the odds for a ticket. Even though Tory ministers tell them it’s OK.

    That’s the irresponsibility at the top that Ed Miliband has pledged that a future Labour government will tackle. No more something for nothing in our privatised industries.

    And let’s be honest. Our rail system is not fit for purpose and needs radical change. And I think we were too timid about this in government.

    It cannot be right that the rail industry costs the taxpayer £4bn a year, yet a few at the top can walk away with hundreds of millions of pounds in profit every year.

    The Tory answer? Close ticket offices. Sack frontline staff. Profit driving infrastructure, not just services. Back to the days of Railtrack.

    But there is an alternative.

    Isn’t it time to tackle the fragmentation of our rail industry that is the disastrous legacy of the Tory privatisation?

    Because it is madness that the taxpayer has to pay compensation to train companies while track is repaired – even though it’s essential to run their services.

    It is madness that the taxpayer then pays the same company again, so that their bus division can provide a rail replacement service.

    I think that if your train is replaced by a bus, your ticket should cost less. But under our fragmented industry, that won’t happen. Because the train companies will just pass on the cost to the taxpayer.

    The country wants us to find a better way to deliver rail service in Britain. That’s what we heard loud and clear in our policy review.

    They manage it in other parts of the EU. And we can do it here.

    So, over the coming months, we will be looking at the right way to bring order back to the chaos in our railways.

    And let’s have a new deal for British train manufacturing too.

    When the Prime Minister took his Cabinet to Derby, home of our last train manufacturer, he said he’d support local businesses. Then placed a massive order for new trains with a company that will build them in Germany.

    It’s time to nail a lie.

    If the government thought the tender was wrong: they had every right to rip it up and start again.

    The truth? As Philip Hammond has admitted: it just didn’t occur to him.

    Because this is a government that cannot think beyond the bottom line.

    The local workforce at Bombardier should be proud of the way they are fighting. Not just for their jobs, but for the future of train manufacturing in this country. And we should be proud of the fantastic job that our local Labour MPs – Margaret Beckett and Chris Williamson – are doing. And the effort and resources of the trade unions, leading this fight. We stand with you and we must keep fighting for those jobs.

    And let’s make sure that never again do we stack the odds so badly against Britain.

    So today I say to Philip Hammond: there is no faith that your Department will give British manufacturing a fair chance. So hand over responsibility for ordering the new Crossrail trains to Transport for London, which – thanks to Labour – has a track record of buying British. And, while we’re at it, let’s show our commitment to rail devolution by letting them manage more of London’s suburban rail services. Providing another opportunity for British train manufacturing.

    And let’s set out a long term strategy for investing in our rail infrastructure.

    No more talk of classic rail, but a network transformed with a programme to complete electrification and introduce a new generation of high speed inter-city trains. And, yes, let’s also tackle capacity problems between north and south. And in the only credible way it can be done.

    That’s why it was Labour that set out plans for a new high speed line. Not just from London to Birmingham, but on to Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. Cutting journey times across the UK, benefitting Glasgow and Edinburgh. And, yes, bringing Liverpool under 100 minutes from London.

    But the Tory-led Government is only planning to take powers to construct the line as far as Birmingham which casts real doubt on their long term commitment to delivering high speed rail in the north. They should think again and ensure the whole route is included in the forthcoming legislation.

    And let’s make it a line that is affordable for the many, not the few. Because when Philip Hammond says, that if you work in a factory in Manchester you will never use it. But, not to worry, because you’ll benefit when your company director does. I’m sorry but that is a Tory vision for high speed rail, not a Labour vision. Philip Hammond may think it is a rich man’s toy, but I don’t. I know you don’t. And a future Labour government never will.

    So, Conference.

    We have a tough journey ahead of us.

    We’ve only just set out.

    So celebrating what we achieved. Recognising what we got wrong.

    We’ve started to chart a new course for transport.

    Putting communities in charge, here in Liverpool and across Britain.

    Tackling irresponsibility at the top.

    Backing British manufacturing, jobs and growth.

    Affordability, our number one priority.

    That’s Labour’s new direction for transport.

  • Angela Eagle – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Angela Eagle to the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool on 27th September 2011.

    It’s fantastic to be here at Labour Party Conference in Labour run Liverpool.

    We have a great venue here at the Echo arena and it’s just across the river from the centre of the universe – my own constituency of Wallasey.

    You know the first time I came to this great new place I was down there in the front row and one of my heroines Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders was up here performing. Well I won’t be attempting anything as brilliant or as loud as the Pretenders produced then because I’ve forgotten to bring my guitar. And anyway there might be a few sore heads in the hall after ‘Scouse night’.

    You know we are in a great city with a proud history of Labour representation.

    Those of you who came up on the train might have seen the statue of ‘Battling Bessie Braddock’ when you arrived at Lime Street. Bessie was the MP for Liverpool Exchange for 24 years and the first woman to represent Liverpool in Parliament. She was a passionate campaigner who did much to rid Liverpool of its slums. She fought poverty, hunger and unemployment all her life and she would have been delighted that our Conference was taking place in her city.

    A city Labour-led: revitalised under our Government after years of Tory neglect.

    And now I worry that those days are returning.

    ECONOMIC BACKDROP

    As Ed Balls, our Shadow Chancellor said yesterday, we are living through the darkest and most dangerous times in the global economy for many generations. And we need a serious response from this Government.

    But do you know what really makes me angry? It’s the Tories and their crude partisan propaganda about the economic challenges we face.

    This crisis wasn’t caused by Labour investing in schools and hospitals. It wasn’t caused by Labour deciding to regenerate cities like Liverpool either.

    It was caused by greed in the banking industry and a global failure to rein in the excesses. And every developed Western economy is now grappling with the consequences of those mistakes. And don’t let the Tories tell you any different.

    Because they argued for less regulation and now by making the wrong economic judgements, they’re making a bad situation worse.

    TORY-LED GOVERNMENT’S DAMAGING CHOICES

    Do you remember Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg posing for the cameras outside Number 10 after the election? Well 16 months later we are beginning to see the consequences of the values they both share and the political choices they have made together.

    And it’s not a pretty sight.

    Everyone agreed that the deficit had to be tackled but ferocious Tory austerity wasn’t the solution to the crisis, it was the price of Lib Dem seats in the Cabinet.

    Together both parties made a political choice to cut the deficit further and faster than was economically necessary and to start cutting before the recovery was secure.

    Last year they introduced spending cuts and tax rises that go further and faster than any other advanced economy except Iceland and Ireland. That has made us much more vulnerable as the global situation has worsened.

    And they also made a political choice to put women and children in the front line of those cuts. From closed Sure Start centres, cuts to child tax credits, and job losses, women are bearing the brunt of this Tory-led Government’s reckless economic experiment.

    What are the results so far?

    They have delivered the biggest squeeze in living standards since the 1920s.

    And up and down the country people are feeling the pain.

    Like the dinner lady I met in south London who has to work 1 ½ hours before she can even cover the cost of her bus fare to the job. Now she’s worried about this Government’s cuts to her tax credits.

    Or the security officer I met here in Liverpool. Barely paid the minimum wage but expected to remain on call through the night for no extra pay and be back in at work by 9.30 the following morning.

    The Daily Telegraph have just calculated that a middle income family of four living Kent will be £3,252 worse off this year alone!

    I’m told that this is almost the cost of a full uniform for the Bullingdon club. Loose change for the Prime Minister and Chancellor maybe but a hammer blow to already stretched household budgets.

    It is people and communities up and down this land that are suffering but the Tories just don’t get it. Their policies are making things worse.

    The economy flat-lining.

    Growth at a standstill.

    Unemployment on the rise.

    One in five of our young people abandoned to the misery of the dole queue.

    And the IMF see even greater dangers ahead.

    The warning signs are flashing red and yet the Chancellor just sits on his hands, the embodiment of preening complacency.

    This is the man who claimed last year that Britain was “out of the danger zone”.

    Only last month he announced that the UK was a “safe haven” in the economic storm.

    Now the Prime Minister warns of the global economy “staring down the barrel” but like a medieval physician bleeding an already weak patient, his only prescription is more austerity.

    They are addicted to austerity and their only response to the crisis is to try and export it.

    Ed Balls yesterday unveiled Labour’s five point plan for growth and repeated our commitment to sticking to a tough fiscal strategy to get the deficit down. But almost immediately the Tories dismissed it. Again showing they just don’t understand the urgent need to get our economy growing.

    But what of the Liberal Democrats?

    Well in Birmingham last week they were falling over themselves to criticise their Tory friends. The Coalition was even described by the Liberal Democrat President as a ‘marriage that would inevitably end in divorce’.

    Well, if only Nick Clegg had thought to include his promise on tuition fees in the pre-nuptial agreement.

    Some say it’s a marriage of convenience. To me it is more of a sleazy affair. Exciting while it lasts, but destructive and likely to end in total embarrassment.

    In Birmingham last week nobody was fooled by the Liberal Democrat’s cynically choreographed attacks on their own Government policy or their reheated announcements on tax evasion and executive pay.

    And however much they masquerade as the conscience in this rather peculiar ‘relationship’ they’ve got as much chance of surviving at the next election as Sarah Teather has of starting a career as a stand up comedian. And don’t just take my word for it, have a look on YouTube and you’ll see what I mean.

  • John Denham – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Denham to the Labour Party Conference on 26th September 2011.

    Conference.

    Last week, in Birmingham, Vince Cable gave the Lib Dems what’s been described as the most depressing speech by a Cabinet minister in modern political history.

    I haven’t come to Liverpool to spread doom and gloom.

    You’re not Lib Dems. You haven’t come here to wallow in it.

    There’s no easy way forward.

    The deficit must be dealt with.

    World markets are in turmoil.

    The world we face is so fiercely competitive it will be harder than ever before to pay our way and build a better future for young people.

    But we know there is a way forward for Britain and its families.

    But first I have got a message for Vince Cable and the rest of the Tory-led Government.

    If you’re depressed, stop making things worse.

    Stop saying you will tax the banks and get them lending.

    When you know you’re cutting their taxes and they’re cutting their lending.

    You tripled university fees, scrapped the RDAs, slashed support for business. And you haven’t even paid out a penny from the Regional Growth Fund, 14 months since you launched it.

    You cut too far and too fast.

    Turned the entire department of growth into the department of stagnation.

    No wonder you’re depressed.

    Last week you said that 50 companies are going to get a hot line to ministers.

    It’s not 50 companies who need a hot line to ministers.

    It’s the entire British economy!

    I went to Bombardier in Derby. I asked three young apprentices about their future.

    One said “I want to go as far as I can. Mr Walton” – that’s Colin Walton the MD – “Mr Walton used to be an apprentice once.”

    That was the promise of Britain.

    Hard work taking you as far as your talent would allow.

    Each generation doing better than their parents.

    But Philip Hammond gave the Thameslink contract to Germany.

    Those young ambitions hang by a thread.

    You may be wondering why ministers won’t reopen the contract?

    It’s not because of the finer points of EU competition law.

    It’s because, in their heart of hearts, they think government should just stand by and watch.

    Stand by and watch while wages fall, jobs go, and companies suffer.

    But I tell you, Conference, in difficult times governments can’t just stand by and watch.

    Governments can shape the choices companies make; they can encourage investment in critical parts of the economy; they can use procurement to foster skills, innovation and new markets; they can create the transparency that brings fair pay.

    Governments can shape markets by the competition rules they set, the institutions they create for finance research and technology – and by their vision for the future.

    Conference, we can make the changes Britain needs; to build a different and stronger economy; in which good companies grow; and rewards are fairly shared.

    We say:

    If you’ve got a business idea; you work all hours; you make a go of it; make a million; we’ll cheer you all the way.

    But we won’t if you’re the director of a failing company who takes a million you don’t deserve.

    It’s not our job to run companies, but what Government does makes a difference to the way business leaders run their companies.

    In the economy we want, we will say the company that invests long-term is better for Britain than the one that just wants a quick buck.

    We will say the company with fair pay at every level is better for Britain than one with obscene rewards at the top and poverty pay at the bottom

    We will say the company that innovates is better for Britain than the company that sits back and exploits its monopoly.

    We will say the company that trains is better for Britain than one that just says someone else could do your job for less.

    These are the choices the best companies in Britain are already making.

    But some are not.

    Look at all the scams – from payment protection insurance to fuel bills no one understands, from hidden credit card charges to insurance referrals.

    They’ve all got one thing in common.

    There are people at the top who knew it was wrong.

    But they didn’t think it was their responsibility to stop it.

    But when prices are rising and wages are falling people can’t afford to be ripped off. It’s got to stop.

    So I’ve asked former Chief Executive of the National Consumer Council, Ed Mayo, to lead our investigation into how we can end the corporate cultures that con consumers.

    Conference, business has real concern about regulation. And the worst is regulation that holds good companies back, but doesn’t hinder the bad.

    So be very clear.

    We’ll tackle the bad.

    We’ll back the good.

    Griffon Hoverworks in my Southampton constituency sells the world’s best hovercraft – a British invention – to 40 countries around the world.

    There are thousands of British companies like that.

    In engineering, and in film, theatre and the arts;

    In life sciences and in architecture;

    In advanced manufacturing and in computer games;

    In fashion and in law and in IT;

    In finance yes, and green technologies.

    Companies run by people as bright and as inventive as any British people have ever been.

    But there are not enough of them.

    They aren’t big enough.

    And too often they get taken over before they grow.

    We will only pay our way in the world if those companies grow and prosper.

    And we will only pay our way if the world’s biggest companies also want to have a stake in Britain’s future.

    They don’t want government telling them how to run their business. But they don’t want government just to stand by and watch either.

    Ministers wasted a year on a growth plan so useless it’s already being re-written.

    So I’ll tell you what they should do now.

    Back Ed Balls’ five point plan for economic growth.

    Cut VAT and get the economy moving.

    Tax bank bonuses to build houses, create jobs for young people and back fast growing small business.

    Don’t stand by and watch.

    Do it now.

    Small businesses are hurting. If you can’t get banks lending, don’t just stand by and watch. Get the Green Investment Bank going now, reform the banks the public owns, and like Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and me, look at the case for a national investment bank.

    Listen to the CBI and unlock investment in greening and renewing the infrastructure for a new economy.

    Don’t just stand by and watch.

    Do it now.

    Get business round the table and agree where Britain will take on the world. Show how we will deliver the technologies, the capabilities, the skills to do it. Give them the confidence to invest.

    Don’t just stand by and watch.

    Do it now.

    Back Labour’s plans to cap fees and then tell every university in every region to concentrate on getting skills, technology and research to British business.

    And Vince – one more thing, when you celebrated the one bit of really good news all year – the investments in Nissan, BMW and JLR – didn’t you notice that in every one trade unions were full partners in that success; why not say that instead of just union bashing?

    Conference, when Ed Miliband asked me and the Shadow Business Team – Gareth, Gordon, Nia, Ian, Chi, Chuka, Tony and Wilf – he said get out and listen to thousands of businesses across Britain.

    Everything I’ve said today comes from things British business has said to us.

    From oil in Aberdeen to renewables in Wrexham.

    Chambers of Commerce in Norwich to car makers in Sunderland.

    Manufacturers in Leeds to bioscience in London.

    Hi-tech start-ups in Cambridge to banks in Birmingham.

    And it’s because of what they told us, not what we told them, that I can tell you that British business, working with Labour, can build a better future for Britain, can build a country where the promise of Britain is honoured once more.

  • Ray Collins – 2011 Speech to Labour Party Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Ray Collins, the then Labour Party General Secretary, to the party conference on 25th September 2011.

    Thank you Chair, and thank you Conference.

    This is the 38th consecutive Party Conference I have attended, and whilst I hope to be attending many more, this is my last Conference as your General Secretary.

    For many conferences now, you have heard me bang on about my priorities as General Secretary.

    I am afraid that, for one last time, I am going to bang on about them again here today.

    My priorities were threefold:

    – To put the Party on a stable organisational and financial footing.

    – To ensure that we are the Party of equality, advancing the cause of women, Black, Asian, and ethnic minority communities and other under-represented groups.

    – And to ensure we are a party of the future, with a growing and vibrant youth movement.

    Being General Secretary has given me the opportunity to meet and get to know many of the Party’s young activists. I have always believed that our young members are not just the leaders of tomorrow; they are important voices here and now.

    But it is only latterly that I have fully appreciated quite how capable those leaders of tomorrow are. I have endeavoured to support their work, and in response to their extremely persistent lobbying, agreed to fund a full-time Youth Officer in Head Office.

    I am also extremely proud to have worked – alongside a great many others – to ensure that we look like the country we seek to represent.

    There is very much more to do, and we must never be complacent about the future, but when I sit in the PLP, and look around me at our diverse, talented Labour benches, I feel an incredible sense of optimism.

    On the finances, you will see from the Treasurer’s Annual Report, quite how much progress we have made.

    In 2010, for the first time in many years, we fought a General Election without adding to the Party’s debt burden.

    Our finances forced us to be cleverer in our campaigning, deploying resources where they made the most impact.

    We lost, and we lost badly, but I honestly believe that as a Party we campaigned better and harder than we ever have before.

    And despite all the media predictions, we stopped the Tories achieving an overall majority.

    We have learned the lessons of that campaign by developing Project Gameplan, our strategy to win the next General Election.

    These lessons were learnt in many of the constituencies I had the pleasure to visit, campaigning with members on the doorstep.

    I know I should not single any out, but I do want to mention a few:

    – Chesterfield

    – Edgbaston

    – Islington South

    – Oxford West

    – And Hastings

    These are constituencies that know:

    – That engaging with voters on the doorstep is not something you only do at election time.

    – That ‘Will you vote Labour?’ is the last question you ask, not the first.

    – That there is no such thing as a safe Tory or Lib-Dem seat where there are dedicated activists determined to buck the trend.

    It is these lessons that underpin Refounding Labour. It is how we will become an organisation fit for purpose that will win the next election

    Under Ed Miliband’s leadership we can win.

    I look forward to playing my part in that victory, but also, in something of a departure for me, to being able to speak with my own voice in the House of Lords on issues dear to me, and to the rest of the country.

    It was my experiences as a child that first drew me to politics. The sudden death of my father at an early age meant my mother was faced with the loss of her husband, her home, and her household income in quick succession.

    She was determined to provide for her children, and her hard work and resolve secured our future.

    Yet hard work and resolve were not enough on their own. It was the Equal Pay Act that provided a level playing-field for women like my mother. It was changes in the law that gave my mother protection from exploitation, and it was changes in the law that enabled her to become an economically active individual, rather than dependant on the state.

    The politics is the personal, and we never resonate more than when we are supporting voters in their aspirations for themselves and their families.

    I want to wind up by saying a big thank you to all those who have supported me in my work as General Secretary.

    They are too numerous to mention individually, and I hope to thank them in person over the course of this week.

    But I do want to single out the Party’s staff, who are one of Labour’s greatest assets. They work tirelessly on behalf of the Party they love, and no General Secretary could have asked for more.

    I also wish to thank my husband, Rafael. He has put up with me working weekends and evenings for a very long time, and without his support, I would have been lost.

    The fact that I am able to call him ‘my husband’ is, for me, one of Labour’s greatest achievements in office. Thank you Rafa – for everything.

    But my greatest thanks are reserved for you, the Party members.

    The best bit of my job has been travelling to constituencies up and down the country, seeing the work that you do, knocking on doors, and making new friends.

    You are the lifeblood of our Party, and your passion for our country’s future is formidable to behold.

    I wish my successor as General Secretary, Iain McNicol, all the very best for the future.

    I know he will value you every bit as much as I do – indeed, it would be impossible not to.

    It has been my very great privilege to serve you as General Secretary, and I look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail.

  • Ken Clarke – 2011 Conservative Party Conference Speech

    kenclarke

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Justice Minister, Ken Clarke, at the 2011 Conservative Party Conference on 4th October 2011.

    I don’t know whether you remember, but at last year’s party conference, I called for regime change – regime change in our prisons.

    To turn them from places of idleness, Into places of hard work and reform. Prisons with a purpose – straight from the manifesto.

    The idea is to provide hard work in prison so that prisoners would be…

    Doing something productive,

    Instead of doing nothing.

    Plotting a more honest future,

    Instead of plotting their next crime.

    Earning money to pay back to victims,

    Instead of creating new victims.

    It’s not rocket science and it can be done.

    At Altcourse Prison near Liverpool, prisoners do forty hours of hard work every week in a metal workshop.

    Part of their earnings goes to fund services for victims of crime.

    And because these prisoners have got some skills, they are less likely – a lot less likely – to return to prison.

    So the burden on the taxpayer, on you and me, is less.

    I intend to expand this Working Prisons programme quite dramatically.

    But this is not something Government can do alone.

    No: We need the private sector on board.

    And they are coming on board.

    This morning, eight companies – including Virgin, National Grid, Marks and Spencer give the idea their support, in the FT.

    They – along with the CBI – are helping us to ensure that companies can make the most of this..

    ..Are not disadvantaged or undercut.

    I want to see hard work flourishing in every single jail in the UK.

    More criminals doing an honest day’s work, instead of sitting idle in their cells.

    That will make us safer.

    Provide more money for victims.

    Help us break the cycle of crime.

    Because…

    I believe if we want prison to work,

    Then our prisoners have got to be working.

    Labour

    A brief note to my Labour opponent, Sadiq Khan:

    That’s what you call a policy.

    You probably won’t be able to remember any policy proposals he has put forward.

    Because Labour hasn’t got any significant ones.

    His proudest boast last week, was that he does not fall asleep during his Party Leader’s speeches –

    That is an achievement, Sadiq.

    Many people do go to sleep during Ed Miliband’s speeches.

    But just remember this – he, like the rest of them, was a loyal supporter of Gordon Brown’s Government – the most disastrous Government, that left the most disastrous legacy since Labour in 1931.

    They bequeathed us not just a broken economy, but a broken society and an unreformed Justice system that failed to break the cycle of crime.

    They wasted billions of pounds on justice and prisons.

    They were hyperactive:

    21 Criminal Justice Acts in 13 years.

    Populist.

    Headline chasing.

    And you know what?

    It was all a con.

    They made prison sentences appear longer and longer,

    Whilst devising all sorts of ways to let people out earlier and earlier.

    …80,000 let out on early release…

    I have legislation before Parliament

    – being carried through by Crispin Blunt and Jonathan Djanogly – which aims to reform, simplify, scrap failed gimmicks and give us a system which works better to contribute to a safer, sounder and more honest society.

    CHALLENGE

    That’s how we are facing up to – and delivering – the great challenge we have as a Government…

    …how to save taxpayers’ money whilst striving to repair our broken society.

    Because Labour left us failed policies, a broken society..

    And no money.

    When it comes to public spending,

    We’ve got to show leadership.

    We’ve got to show purpose.

    We’ve got to stick to our guns.

    Frankly, if you look across the western world, most democratic politicians are out of their depth.

    They cannot cope with the consequences of this dreadful crisis.

    We are just about the only government in the Western world where people really think we are going to tackle the deficit.

    People look at this coalition, they look at the spending plans and say – they’re going to deliver.

    George and David are going to ensure that we do not waver in our commitment to reduce public spending and debt and they have my total support.

    When you look at the scale of the economic crisis, I don’t believe we can possibly say…

    … we’re not going to save money on criminals…

    … but we are going to have reductions in spending on Police and Defence, on Transport and Local Government.

    You can’t say that like the health sector, criminals are exempt from the cuts.

    Every criminal we have in jail costs you and me about

    £40,000 a year…

    …and there are more than 80,000 of them in prison right now.

    And I just do not believe that we can follow the old brain-free policy of throwing money at the problem.

    That’s what Labour did.

    And look where it got them. And all of us.

    Riots

    The most shocking reminder of how broken a society ours is.

    In this summer’s riots, more than 75 per cent of the adults charged were repeat offenders.

    1 in 4 of them had been convicted of ten crimes or more.

    Re-offenders.  Career criminals.

    …I had a few other choice words for them at the time…

    Our feral underclass is too big, has been growing, and needs to be diminished.

    Less crime, fewer criminals

    The question for me and my ministry now, is how do we reform the Criminal Justice System so that these unreformed, recidivist criminals, are dealt with more effectively and at  less cost to the taxpayer.

    That’s why we need prisons that work.

    And prisons that are drug free.

    Where problems like addiction and mental health are tackled properly.

    Where the treatment doesn’t suddenly stop when prisoners leave jail, which usually happens with those on short sentences.

    But continues in the outside world.

    So that we are better protected.

    If we want less crime, we need fewer criminals.

    Policy & Ideas

    This year, we have been carefully but quite rapidly developing the concept of Payment by Results –

    A system which concentrates on only paying for what works.

    And the first group of pilots is now underway.

    One of them is at Doncaster Prison, a new contract run by Serco and a charity called Catch 22, which started on Saturday.

    If they deliver law-abiding people back onto the streets, we will pay them. If they fail, and the ex-prisoners they take on reoffend, we will not pay.

    There are twelve of these projects around the country.

    Private or public, businesses and charities, paid for resolving the drugs, the lack of skills, the rootlessness which lies behind much of the reoffending.

    Saving money and protecting the public;

    Paying for what works.

    British Justice

    I believe that at its heart our British justice system is still one of the best in the world despite all Labour’s efforts.

    …when people think of Britain, they think of British justice.

    That is why so much of my last year has been spent returning common sense and proportion to a system which was badly let down by Labour…

    We have policies under way to

    – Resolve public doubts on the law of self defence by victims of crime

    – Criminalise squatting

    – Make community sentences more punitive and more effective

    – Bring competition into the management of prisons

    – Speed up the process of the courts and make them more witness, litigant and victim friendly

    – Curtail the compensation culture and cut excessive spending on Legal Aid

    – Scrap referral fees to end the culture of those ambulance-chasing claims advisors.

    Peroration

    I have spent my entire political life being a vigorous, controversial reformer of public services – but this time it is different.

    Now, I am in a coalition Government which is dealing with the worst economic crisis since the war.

    People are insecure and sometimes a bit frightened.

    We must give strong, confident and principled government.

    How do you set about public reform in a difficult area like mine?

    I’m reminded of Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly and carry a big stick.

    New Labour did the opposite.

    They spoke toughly and carried a pea-shooter.

    I never have mastered the speak softly bit, but the big stick has always appealed.

    It’s no good politicians just sounding off and making tough gestures.

    In office you’ve actually got to make a worthwhile difference.

    That’s what you’re in office for.

    Justice needs to be swift, firm and fair.

    Prisons need to be places of retribution and places of reform.

    Sounds obvious when you think about it.

    Delivering the obvious is what the public want.

    And most Governments do not deliver.

    I remember Iain MacLeod thrilling me when I was a delegate here many years ago.

    Others may dream their dreams, others may scheme their schemes but we have work to do.

    Those appalling riots brought home to me again that in our broken society, we certainly have work to do at the Ministry of Justice.

    And my team and I are proud to be getting on and doing it.

    Give us your support.

  • Chuka Umunna – 2011 Speech to Universities UK

    Below is the text of the speech made by Chuka Umunna to Universities UK on 2nd December 2011.

    Thank you for that kind welcome. I am hugely grateful for your invitation to speak today at this critical time for our universities and the Higher Education sector.

    This gives me the first opportunity to give a speech on this major part of my brief since my appointment as the Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

    At a time of considerable change and instability Universities UK has been a constant voice of good sense and reason. I know both my predecessor in the role, John Denham, and our former lead on Higher Education, Gareth Thomas, greatly appreciated your wise counsel and advice.

    Though he is not here, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank John, who is a real champion of Higher Education. He brought a huge amount of expertise to bear on the brief as a former Secretary of State for Innovation Universities and Skills and as Shadow Business Secretary.

    Both I and Shabana Mahmood, our new Shadow on Universities, want to maintain and grow the close working relationship John and Gareth had with you.

    I, of course, shadow Vince Cable. Vince is a bit different to me – he has been around for somewhat longer than me. In fact, a journalist pointed out when I was appointed in October that not only is Vince twice my age but, during his lifetime, he has been a member of the Labour Party for longer than I have.

    Anyway – notwithstanding the comparisons with Vince – though Shabana and I may not be in Government, we have an important role to play as an Opposition holding the government to account and ensuring they do right by our students, by the institutions our students attend, by those who work in them and, above all, by our country. You want this too which is why a constant dialogue, between us and you, is absolutely essential. For example, we will want to work closely with you on the forthcoming Bill and the changes that it will bring.

    Shabana and I will also be making a series of visits to universities in the coming months to listen and learn, and we look forward to engaging with many of you then as we develop our policy, and thank you for all your help and assistance to date.

    Just as there has been change in our team I know there has been some in yours too.

    I look forward to working with Eric Thomas, and I would like to pay tribute to the work of Steve Smith before him. I want to pay tribute to you, the members – Vice Chancellors and Principal s up and down the country – for the work you do, not just as leaders of your institutions but also as leaders in your communities. You preside over a world class Higher Education sector with a strong international reputation.

    Collectively, you represent excellence in teaching and research. Your institutions consistently feature high up in global rankings as the latest figures demonstrate and you continue to drive innovation through your advanced research and its application.

    People forget that our HE sector is our seventh largest export industry, generating over £59 billion in output, and more than 650,000 jobs. You are drivers of jobs and growth nationally.

    And the institutions that you lead are major employers, and important drivers of regional growth too. With the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies, your voices as advocates for your regions are more important than ever.

    The bottom line is that universities are integral to our future success as a country.

    Nowhere was this more evident to me than during my recent trip with Ed Miliband to the Warwick Manufacturing Group which is part of Warwick University.

    In 1980, Professor Lord Kumar Bhattacharyya set up the WMG to reinvigorate UK manufacturing through the application of cutting edge research and effective knowledge transfer. Thirty years on, it is continuing to do just that. It brings academic rigour together with industrial and organisational practice. It is an example of how the Higher Education sector, working with industry, can drive growth in the real economy.

    There are other excellent examples too like Cambridge Technopole, at the heart of which sits Cambridge University. It provides research and innovation support for high-tech businesses in that region.

    There is the University of Abertay, at the centre of a video games designing cluster, with degree courses providing highly skilled graduates but also managing a research and development fund for local developers.

    One of the business advisers helping our review talks extremely positively of the knowledge transfer from Sheffield Universities and his bakery business, in improving skills progression and development and productivity improvements to achieve his goal of being the best baker in Britain.

    I am sure you would all be able to give me more examples of what your centres of learning are doing to add to this list.

    These kinds of collaborations and partnerships should be a bigger part of getting growth going in our economy and our future success. And so it is an essential element of our policy review work.

    Later I will say something about our thinking to date and the principles that will guide the development of our policy:

    Fairness for students;

    Autonomy for universities enabling them to deliver excellence;

    Sustainable funding; and,

    Universities playing a central role in the economic as well as the cultural life, in regional and national economies.

    However, before I do this I must turn to the elephant in the room (so to speak) – the cloud hanging over your futures – what the Government is pushing through and where it is getting it wrong.

    Where the Conservative-led Government is getting it wrong

    With the anniversary of the vote to triple fees next week, I think it would be worth recapping on what has been, let us say, a challenging year and where we have got to.

    When the Conservative-led Government initially set out its changes to Higher Education – cutting the teaching grant by 80% and hiking up fees – we said what was proposed was unnecessary, unfair and unsustainable: not good for students or the future of Higher Education, one of Britain’s great success stories.

    It was why we asked the Government to lay out their p lans in full so we could subject them to the necessary scrutiny. So what happened?

    The vote to triple tuition fees came first before any White Paper, surely the wrong way round. Then the changes on access and widening participation were forced out, with subsequent changes to those plans.

    As fees levels began to emerge with £9,000 looking to be far from the exception to the rule which the Government promised, their sums didn’t add up and a black hole came into view. First Ministers ignored this and claimed it would all even out in the end. But their miscalculation saw a scramble to claw back in other ways. There were exhortations; claims OFFA was now a regulator and would set levels; even threats to universities with Ministers crudely claiming that fee levels were so high because universities were inefficient.

    Lets take a step back and reflect on that particular claim for a moment – in business, companies have to factor in risk and cost it. You are businesses too and this Government has displayed an abject lesson in creating unnecessary risk for you.

    So the White Paper arrives at the end of June of this year. When the threats failed, frankly because of the mess the Government had created, they pulled ‘core and margin’ and AAB out of a hat which they then bolted onto the original plans.

    This is no way to run government policy on Higher Education – this is no way to treat our universities. Vince Cable called his dismantling of the RDAs Maoist and chaotic. It could equally have applied to another area of his brief.

    The reforms are not the evolutionary change UUK has argued for.

    Institutions have had to make decisions affecting their future financial viability not knowing how the rules will change month to month.

    You are now in the ridiculous position where you have previously set your fee levels and agreed access agreements with OFFA in April only to find that the rules of the game changed with the Wh ite Paper. Following its publication you found you were faced with a deadline to bid for the 20,000 places which were taken from universities and for which you could now bid – that deadline closed before the deadline for revised access agreements to be signed off by OFFA.

    27 institutions have re-submitted their access agreements proposing lower fee levels and 25 today have been told they can change their agreements according to OFFA’s announcement a few moments ago. We still need to look fully at the detail but the OFFA letter confirms there is no evidence on what works best to widen access – fee waivers or bursaries – but the Government still ploughs ahead none-the-less. Fee waivers of course help the Government’s mess as it reduces its bill. The chaos remains for students and the university system, a system which gets ever more complex and bureaucratic.

    If the Government had backed Labour’s proposal at conference, which I will get onto in a moment, none of these current access changes, nor core and margin would have been necessary, nor would quality be under threat. Fees would have been capped at £6,000.

    ‘Core and margin’ is designed to reduce the cost of courses to make up for the Government getting its sums wrong – it isn’t for the benefit of students or the Higher Education sector. And because of this mess students have applied for courses without knowing the fee levels – making far reaching decisions about their lives without the information that they need. This is no way to help our young people get on in life.

    Then there are the visa changes to Tier 4 – the student visa route – which hasn’t helped either. As I said, the UK’s 7th largest export is Higher Education for foreign students. This was thrown into chaos by the Home Office’s changes which deter foreign students from applying to UK universities. There was little regard to the impact and to the reputation of the UK HE Sector around the worl d. Where was the Business Department pressing your case? As an Opposition we recognised this threat and I know John worked with you in trying to get the Government to recognise the damage it was doing.

    Overall, though, their reforms are seeking to introduce something more fundamental: a more market-led system, or mini-markets, overlaid with a more complex and bureaucratic structure.

    We are supportive of student choice. Within a diverse sector, students currently have a wide range of high quality options by course and by institution. We welcome the extension of choice that will result from allowing Further Education colleges the power to award degrees, which will allow people who live in areas that are not near a university to access Higher Education courses.

    But this market is beset with problems and few have said it will work well. There will be intended and unintended consequences. Ministers admitted that there would be institutional failure as a result.

    There are rightly fears that the reforms will discourage universities from offering science and technology courses and student take up of the same, at a time when these types of course should be the centre-piece of a future Higher Education system as our competitors countries recognise.

    There are rightly fears that social mobility and access will stall. Aim Higher has been scrapped, the National Scholarship Programme, though described as “national” is misleading – it does not have national eligibility criteria but is more a lottery with students with the same social and economic backgrounds getting different types of benefit depending on where they study; and there is widespread confusion among students as to its purpose. The respected Sutton Trust has said the tripling of fees will reduce the gains made on widening access and social mobility. This is exacerbated by ‘AAB’ and ‘core and margin’, which has led to complex access arrangements b eing crow-barred on to try and correct imbalances. Widening access is very much an afterthought not an outcome of the new system.

    OFFA, with a hugely expanded role, is still an office of a handful of staff assessing access agreements. It is not clear what the sanctions are going to be for universities that do not fulfil their obligations.

    In fact, UCAS figures have seen a drop in application to universities and a variation is emerging across regions with the North East seeing the highest drop. What does that say about ‘rebalancing’ the economy?

    Also, there are fears that the expansion of for-profit providers will unbalance Higher Education further and undermine quality. Apollo Group, Kaplan and the Education Management Corporation have all met with the Higher Education Minister, David Willetts. All currently have lawsuits being pursued against them in the US for aggressive recruitment practices and miss-selling of courses.

    And with the changes that have taken place we still do not know how much future turbulence will be added on top – will there be further rounds of core and margin?

    So that is the landscape. In light of all this, let me pause a second and pose some questions:

    Are the changes to Higher Education helping to widen access, ensuring that those with the best potential are in our universities?

    Are they enhancing opportunities?

    Are they giving stability to universities to plan and to build on their success?

    Are they helping our universities compete in the world?

    Are they helping to put universities at the heart of growth, working with business and Government to create future success?

    Are they working to support the STEM needs of our economy?

    In all case the answers is sadly a no.

    So it is in this context that we are having to think about the future of Higher Education – who knows what we would inherit at the time of the next General Election were we elected.

    And I know that you have of course worked with the Government to try and secure a better outcome to the changes. It hasn’t been easy. You all want the best for your institutions and the sector. For some there are silver linings – perhaps the ability to raise more income. Some argued from the start that, with the Government cutting the teaching grant by 80%, higher fees were the only way. Some perhaps see opportunities flowing from the access changes and bidding for courses. Others we know are deeply frustrated with what has been going on.

    So what is our thinking? Well, we must deal with the world as we find it, not as we would like it to be. This lies behind the policy announced by Ed Miliband at the Labour Party Conference.

    First, let me turn to fees. It is absolutely right that graduates make a contribution. It underpins the changes we introduced in Government and which brought an extra £1bn into Higher Education. But this Government is now forcing many students to take on debts of more than £40,000 – long-term debts, and long-term impacts.

    It strikes at the root of what Ed Miliband has called the Promise of Britain – that the next generation should do better than the last. Many families fear their children will do worse than the generation before. That’s why we have put forward an alternative funding package, reducing the maximum level of fees from £9,000 to £6,000.

    No university would be worse off under this plan, as any money lost through a reduction in tuition fees would be compensated for – for individual universities the proposal is revenue neutral.

    And, there would be no need for the core and margin system and the uncertainties and mess it creates. With the sums back under control, there would be no black hole from £9,000 fees.

    I’ll explain how this works: reducing the maximum level of fees to £6,000 while compensating universities for the difference costs £1.1 billion. Of that £1.1 billion:

    £350 million will come from automatic savings from reducing the cap to £6,000 because it will means some associated expenditure, such as on as fee waivers, will no longer be required;

    £300 million comes from cancelling the Government’s planned cut to the corporation tax on the banks; and,

    £500 million comes from asking the top ten percent of graduates – graduates earning over £65,000 in each year of their working life – to pay more through a combination of a higher interest rate (from 3% to 4%) and to continue to pay for an additional two years if they pay off their loan within 20 years.

    So this could be implemented now. It would maintain funding for universities but avoid harm to families and graduates from the Government’s plans. It would reduce the debt which graduates will be loaded with, and would be an important step towards a more graduate-tax like system with wealthier graduates being asked to pay more due to the combination of a higher interest rate and time limited overpayment for two years.

    Our proposal and our approach are guided by our core principles – that graduates should make a fair contribution to the cost of Higher Education and that those who benefit the most should pay the most.

    And if by the time of the next election we can do more, then we will – so starting out from the position set out at our Party Conference this year, we will be looking at further ways to:

    Reduce the burden on families and students who are being saddled with high debts;

    Maintain funding for universities; and

    Develop a fairer payment system for graduates.

    Our policy review will be looking at these issues further.

    To date the review – and the interim findings were published a few weeks ago – has been focused on the economic challenges we face which brings me to my second point – international competitiveness and paying our way in the world.

    We need a new economy, which is fair, resilient, competitive, and supports the long-term. It needs active, intelligent government working with business to build a vision for the future economy, and develop strategies for the sectors for which we have a competitive advantage and where can compete. It is not business as usual but a different approach.

    Higher Education is an essential element of our future success – not only as an export sector as I have laid out, but in terms of training, skilling and developing what will be part of the future workforce, supporting the research and leading the collaborative work with industry. Your report published yesterday supports this view.

    One of the challenges Britain faces is that the economy has skill shortages at the same time as under-utilising the skills we have. We need more companies that can utilise those skills. That means creating the conditions where we encourage companies who invest in the long term; creating the conditions in which we do not rely on low skills, low paid jobs where we cannot and should not compete.

    The role of universities is central to increasing our productivity and building a more skilled workforce to bring this new economy about.

    In 2001 we set a commitment to get 50% of 18-30 year olds entering Higher Education to go to university. It was ambitious. It was right. It helped focus our collective efforts. It wasn’t arbitrary as some claimed but achieved real change. In 1999 39% of young people went to university and this grew to 47% in 2009/10. This is a huge achievement. And it happened at a tim e when we rescued apprenticeships and supported vocational education too.

    But, the target was virtually met when we left office. A fair question is therefore what should the future hold?

    As part of our review, we will be looking at how we can build on this and the best way we can assess ourselves against our competitor countries – I think that has to be the yardstick against which we should judge our progress in the future.

    It is right in the global world, with global markets, that we are outward looking in this way. We need to be focused on being among the best in the world. So we need to benchmark ourselves against the best.

    Yes, the numbers of young people going into university but also a broader account too, of the quality and type of courses students undertake which supports our industries and economy of the future and – in a similar way – the quality, level and take up of vocational education. We need to look at the overall skill and education levels of 100% of our future generation and be among the best in the world.

    In concluding, let me draw on your report and quote two thin gs to support the arguments I’ve just made for a new economy – something I can leave you to think about.

    In your report you say, and I quote:

    “Countries with high levels of innovation [also] tend to have, on average, higher proportions of graduates in their populations and a stronger track record of investment in Higher Education.”

    I think innovation is key.

    In your report you also list the number of Chinese, US and EU graduates per year in 2010 and the estimates in 2020. I added up the numbers. The increase in per year graduates in China in 2020 compared to 2010 is nearly the same as the total number graduates in 2020 in the US and EU combined.

    The landscape is changing.

    Together we must work to ensure Britain is set up to meet the new challenges.

    Thank you.

  • Eric Pickles – 2011 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    ericpickles

    Below is the text of the speech made by the Communities and Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles, to the 2011 Conservative Party conference.

    It’s now almost 18 months since David Cameron entered the doors of Number 10 together with our coalition chums to clean up Labour’s mess.

    Getting our nation’s finances back on the right track has been challenging.

    I’ve seen first hand the inefficiency and incompetence of Labour.

    Take FireControl – John Prescott’s plan to regionalise England’s fire service.

    His vanity project spiralled out of control, wasting half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money.

    You won’t hear about that on money supermarket dot com

    And there’s nothing to show for it – apart from a series of empty bunkers, each kitted out with deluxe chrome coffee machines costing six grand a piece.

    Now that’s Labour’s idea of national resilience.

    Come hell or high water, Labour Ministers could still demand a Venti Skinny cappuccino.

    What a waste! You can get a big pack of Yorkshire Tea for a fiver…

    Now if my Coalition Mucker Chris Huhne tunes in today – that’s what I call a proper Tea Party, Chris.

    Or take the example of Labour blowing £5,000 on my department’s officials having a staff away day at a club.

    Not a working men’s club.

    Not a Pall Mall Gentlemen’s Club.

    No, a different kind of gentlemen’s club –

    A club which features Showgirl Sensation Amber Topaz and her exotic chum, Lady Beau Peep.

    I’ve never thought of the civil service as lost sheep,

    And I’m not sure why they flocked to that establishment.

    No more – I’ve cancelled these plush away days.

    Labour Ministers were at it too.

    With their corporate credit card – the so-called “Government Procurement Card” –

    Labour and their staff wined and dined at the finest restaurants at your expense.

    Boisdales.

    The Cinammon Club.

    The Wolseley.

    And in the very heart of Prezza-land, close to the mouth of the Humber… Mr Chu’s China Palace.

    Unlike Labour, I pay for my own Chicken Chow Mein.

    We are clamping down on the abuse of government credit cards and opening their spending up to public scrutiny.

    Transparency will help councils save billions through better procurement, joint working, and driving out waste.

    In comparison to Whitehall, local government has been the most efficient part of the public sector – especially Conservative councils.

    By dismantling Labour’s interfering, intrusive laws and regulations, we can do even more for less.

    In a radical extension of localism, we are giving councils a new general power of competence to champion their local communities.

    We’ve shredded Labour red tape.

    And I’m tackling the gold-plating of equality rules.

    Did you know… if you want to take out a copy of Mills and Boon from your local library…….In some places you’re asked to fill out a sex survey on your private life.

    No more. Councils won’t need to undertake these expensive and intrusive questionnaires.

    Use some common sense and respect people’s privacy.

    But in the game of Town Hall Top Trumps, there’s a non-job which beats even the Civic Sex Snooper.

    Taxpayer-funded full-time trade union officials.

    They cost the public sector – that’s taxpayers to you and me – a quarter of a billion pounds a year.

    That’s money taken away from frontline services.

    Guess what… You won’t find Labour criticising them.

    Silence from Ed Miliband. His Labour councillors voted to close libraries, but keep bankrolling union officials on the rates.

    And surprise, surprise.

    Not a dicky bird from Labour’s local government spokesperson, Jack Dromey.

    No wonder.

    Because that former union baron knows Labour is in hock to the unions.

    In my book, that’s not All Right Jack.

    If unions want to raise money for Labour do it in your own time, not on the rates.

    We’re going to call time on this last closed shop.

    As night follows day, Labour waste your money and put up taxes.

    Take council tax.

    They doubled it.

    We are freezing it.

    Not just for one year, but two years – as we promised in Opposition.

    And Labour councils charge higher council tax.

    Conservative councils charge less – and deliver even better.

    Had they remained in power, Labour would have hiked council taxes even more on middle England.

    Labour were actively planning a council tax revaluation –

    – to spy on your gardens,

    – your patios,

    – counting your bedrooms,

    – your conservatories,

    – your parking spaces,

    – even a room with a view.

    We’ve cancelled Labour’s expensive council tax revaluation.

    We’ve stopped soaring council tax bills for millions of homes.

    It’s not just about protecting middle England from higher taxes.

    I want to stop clipboard-wielding inspectors peering into your children’s bedroom or nosing about your bathroom.

    We will protect families’ civil liberties and privacy.

    It wasn’t just council tax hikes that Labour threatened.

    Labour would impose new bin taxes on your home too.

    Yet another tax for the privilege of your town hall collecting your bin.

    Labour love fining for minor breaches of petty bin rules.

    Handing out bigger fines than those given to convicted shoplifters.

    State officials secretly going through and filming your bins.

    Did you put a yoghurt pot in the wrong recycling bin?

    Did you put your bin out at the wrong hour?

    Watch out!

    Because nobody expects the Town Hall Binquisition.

    Well, it’s time to place Labour’s bin taxes and bin fines in the dustbin of history.

    But there’s more to do.

    In Opposition, we also made clear promises on the frequency of rubbish collections.

    Promises first announced to you at our Party Conference.

    Well, as you know – Conservatives keep our promises.

    The public deserve proper, decent frontline services for their council tax.

    So I can announce my department will be introducing a new fund to support weekly rubbish collections.

    Reversing Labour’s Whitehall policy of bin cuts.

    This will support those who want to improve their existing weekly collections.

    And it will support switching from fortnightly to better weekly collections.

    Helping councils work with families to go green and provide a comprehensive service every week.

    Labour oppose this scheme. No wonder, in Government they were drawing up plans to impose monthly bin collections.

    The choice is clear:

    – Conservatives standing up for families and frontline services.

    – Or Labour and their rubbish policies.

    Just as we are standing up for local families, so we will support local firms.

    I grew up living above a greengrocers, helping out every week.

    I know that business rates are the third biggest outgoing for local shops after rent and staff.

    So we have doubled small business rate relief for two years. And we’re making it easier to claim.

    We have scuppered Labour’s ports tax.

    And we are giving councils new powers to cut business rates, to support community pubs, post offices and local shops.

    We understand that local high streets are the lifeblood of the local economy, and the centre of what we call home.

    So are changing Tony Blair’s reckless all-you-can-drink licensing laws.

    We are giving councils more powers to tackle the anti-social behaviour that blights so many of our town centres late at night.

    And to help those affected by the disgraceful riots get back to business, we have created a twenty million pound High Street Support Scheme.

    Over their 13 years, Labour failed business.

    Their Regional Development Agencies were too distant from local firms, and squandered their budgets.

    In their place, our new Local Enterprise Partnerships now have councils working hand in hand with local business.

    We will allow councils to keep the money from business rates, giving them a direct stake in local enterprise.

    Helping them to help business grow.

    But this is also a radical devolution of local government finance, meaning councils raise the money they spend

    rather than being so dependent on Whitehall handouts.

    And in targeted growth areas, we have over twenty new Enterprise Zones.

    They will boost regeneration through simplified planning, tax breaks and super-fast broadband.

    We can help the economy by building more homes too.

    But under Labour, house building hit the lowest rate since the 1920s.

    For those who aren’t lucky enough to have the Bank of Mum and Dad, the first time buyer is now aged 37.

    So we are selling off the Government’s disused land and empty offices, and use it to build one hundred thousand more homes.

    And we’re bringing back Margaret Thatcher’s Right to Buy,

    And we’ll use the receipts to build more affordable homes.

    The planning system also has its role to play in building more homes and boosting local growth

    But it doesn’t have to be at the expense of the countryside or local democracy.

    Last week, Labour pledged to keep regional planning and regional quangos.

    They’re still wedded to regional government and Whitehall knows best.

    Labour’s Regional Spatial Strategies planned to bulldoze the Green Belt.

    Well, we will protect it.

    In the Localism Bill, we are abolishing Labour’s top-down targets and putting local people in charge.

    We have also given councils stronger powers to tackle ‘garden grabbing’.

    And we’re creating a brand new local protection for green spaces.

    This can safeguard the likes of playing fields, bowling greens and village greens.

    Now… You won’t be surprised to learn that me and Mrs Pickles are partial to the odd scone and a warm beverage in a National Trust Tea Room.

    But, the planning system needs to be improved.

    Labour churned out over 1,000 pages of central planning guidance.

    They made the planning regime the preserve of inspectors, pressure groups and planning lawyers.

    So we’re simplifying this guidance to 52 pages.

    We need a system which is quicker, and provides greater certainty for local firms and local residents.

    But it’s not a choice between countryside or concrete.

    Our countryside is one of the best things that makes Britain great, and we will protect it

    Our planning system must also have integrity.

    It must be seen to be fair to all.

    Labour undermined this.

    They created a system where special treatment was given to travellers.

    Whatever their intentions, this fuelled resentment and undermined community cohesion.

    We should support those who play by the rules.

    So we’re providing sixty million pounds to support councils build and improve official traveller pitches.

    We have given travellers on official sites stronger tenancy rights – the same as council tenants.

    Treating law-abiding people equally and fairly.

    But it’s not right to have planning rules which gave a green light to traveller camps being dumped in the Green Belt and open countryside.

    The Green Belt should be applied evenly and fairly.

    So we’re changing planning rules to give it more protection.

    We are also giving councils stronger enforcement powers to prevent unauthorised sites like Dale Farm from ever being established in the first place.

    You hear a lot about human rights these days.

    But rights and responsibilities cut both ways.

    It’s time to respect the family life of those who have to live next door to these illegal sites.

    It’s time to respect the property rights of law-abiding homeowners.

    We should take no lectures from far-left activists

    or penpushers parachuted in from some obscure United Nations agency.

    The Dale Farm saga has now spent 10 years before the courts.

    Justice delayed is justice denied.

    It’s time that planning law was enforced.

    It’s time to uphold the British rule of law.

    Conference, after 18 months, we’ve started to put our country back on track.

    In government, we are following the example of so many good Conservative councils:

    Doing more for less and delivering frontline services at value for money prices.

    But there is still more to be do.

    Our country does best when led by Conservatives.

    We do best for our country

    when we are true to our Conservative convictions.

    Respect the law, the right to private property and personal liberty.

    Scale back the waste of the state which forces up taxes and crowds out enterprise and innovation.

    And above all, a basic trust in the people.

    My friends, you can feel that power is shifting – back to you, back to your communities, back in the right direction.

    From the forces of officialdom to families.

    From Whitehall to councils.

    From quangos to neighbourhoods.

    The opportunity is yours.

    Together, we will shake off the shackles of Labour.

    And Britain will be great again.